Monday, May 30, 2011

Evil religion / Atheist: Conclusion.


This is the very last post of anything remotely "High-intellectual." I'm tired, and I want to take a nap now. If you've been tracking the blogs of the last day, you don't need the disclaimer. If you haven't, this blog will make no sense to you.



However, if you've been paying attention, you probably already know where I've been going with all of the Evil religion and Atheist blogs.



My Conclusion: Culture makes people stupid, not religion.



Anthropology has whole bookcases dedicated to how society treats “the other.” The other can look different (xenotype), or act different (behavioral traits), but it's just plain different.



I was the worst of all possible worlds in grammar school. I was a nerd, and I was the fat kid, and I was beaten up a few times—I went from passive to aggressive, and things toned down. In high school, I was the loner, and I read, and I wrote song parodies (more on that much, much later), and I was the nerdy fat kid. I played psycho, and things toned down … up until it bit my in the ass.



In college, when I explained to one sociology professor who wanted to listen to “The stereotypes inherent in upper middle class white society,” the professor was shocked when I told her that I was a candidate to be a future serial killer. She was still in shocked after a classmate explained “Well, no offense, but he seems really smart, and he's really quiet. So....”



So, three levels of education, and I managed to be the outsider every time. Nothing to do with religion. You can beat up on three groups of people in New York: Catholics, smokers, and fat people, and I'm 2/3.



Atheists say that religion causes all of the bigotry and hatred in the world. I say that people in general suck, religion or no religion. That's called culture.



Look at the "Blood libel": it's in no one's religion. Check the Koran, Haditha, the Vatican, the Bible, it's not there. It's not anyone's doctrine. Yet it's all over the middle east, and it's out of medieval Europe, dispite Popes pulling their hair out over it for centuries (the Wikipedia article only mentions two: look up Rabbi David Dalin for a full list of Popes who have ulcers over Blood Libel morons)



Since the majority of people on the planet have not been atheists, there is no control group to prove your theory one way or another that an atheist society would be perfect, or in any way better.



Most of the professional atheists out there claim to be smarter, better, and more educated than anyone else. Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris say “We're scientists, we know what we're talking about.”



I say: You might be scientists, but you're practicing lousy science. You're making statements of fact out of theories. You can't prove it, you don't have a big enough control group for study. You're not anthropologists, and you wouldn't know a culture if you had yogurt tossed at you (microbiology joke, sorry).



Also, saying that “all atheists are smarter than you” also has issues. I mean, hell, there is a survey out there that says that most atheists have aspergers syndrome.



Should I take that study as gospel and say that Dawkins is an idiot savant? No.



Besides, Aspergers usually result in someone very intelligent, and very asocial; in the case of Matt, he's more socially well-adjusted than I am.

 

Although in the case of Dawkins, it would explain a few things as to the manner of his disputes … or he could be merely British, it's hard to tell.



In my evil religion post on Islam: the problems of the middle east turned out to be a culture that hasn't changed much since 300, and Nazis.



In my post on pederast priests, the problem also turned out to be cultural: the culture of any bureaucracy to not move its butt to adapt to a different solution to its problems....



As for the rest ... I'm not going to reiterate every argument I've made. I think I've bored you all quite enough.



Anyway .... be well, all.  I'm going to take a long, long nap.



****

Beat me up. Slander me. Whatever. However, use foul or abusive language, or anything that wouldn't get onto network tv, I will delete your comment ... after I wake up, certainly. If you dedicate one of your blogs to shredding me, feel free to post a link below, just spell my URL right.

Evil religion / Atheist: Conclusion.


This is the very last post of anything remotely "High-intellectual." I'm tired, and I want to take a nap now. If you've been tracking the blogs of the last day, you don't need the disclaimer. If you haven't, this blog will make no sense to you.

However, if you've been paying attention, you probably already know where I've been going with all of the Evil religion and Atheist blogs.

My Conclusion: Culture makes people stupid, not religion.  Assuming that people aren't stupid to start with.
[More below the break.]

Atheist complaint: Conform!

Disclaimer [ Blah Blah, Atheist problems with religion ... blah blah ... "high-intellectual" blog posts .... I'm borderline brain damaged at this point, so please check out previous blogs (literally, the one rght before this one, for the full disclaimer). Short version: this is a long-winded, overwritten blog post for theology nerds and egg heads. If you have no interest in that sort of thing, run -- Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes.]


-How religion encourages conformity and non-doubt

You mean how like every culture encourages conformity?
[More]

Atheist complaints: Random beliefs

{A while back, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.

I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....]

-The randomization of beliefs (i.e. stone gays to death, but adultery no longer means execution)

How very dogmatic. I don't know if this is an argument for one world religion (in which case, come to Rome,) or how everything is so darned regional / pastoral.
[More below the break]

Anti-theist complaints: Superiority complexes

[DISCLAIMER ...  I know, it's getting tiresome. Think about how I feel.]

When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few. I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....]


-Each Faith's intrinsic superiority complex over all others

Oh, you mean like every other -ism on the face of the planet? Communism? Socialism? Leftism? Liberalism (by Francis Fukuyama)? Capitalism? Catholicism? Evangelicalism? Fundamentalism? Racism? Imperialism? Nationalism? Imperialism? Protestantism? Fascism? Radicalism? Totalitarianism? Atheism? Anti-theism?

Seriously, which one of the above says that they are not superior to everything and everyone?

Yes, atheism claims a superiority. It claims superiority over every religion. Atheism is so superior, Dawkins insists that religion is a form of child abuse. The only religion I've ever seen exercise that kind of superiority is in the Sudan, and that's more of a civil war than anything else.

If you are an atheist that does not believe it is superior to everyone else, please send a letter to Mr. Dawkins at your earliest convenience, and tell him he's a moron. Thanks.

I'm Catholic. While there are aspects of “superiority,” I'll going to refer you to my “You're going to Hell” blog post.

As for the rest … you don't need religion to have an intrinsic superiority complex. That's what nationalism is for. Or racism. Or evolutionary racism. Or phrenology..... long story, it was part of the whole Darwin / racism / imperialism trifecta.

Everyone's going to claim being superior over everyone else at some point or another. As the French. Or the British. Or any Generalismo in Latin America. Or Michael Moore. Or Christopher Hitchens.

Anti-theist complaints: Doctrine

[Disclaimer: When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.

I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....]


Problem: The picking and choosing of doctrine from texts while ignoring others.

Without specific doctrine, that's going to be tough. Picking and choosing of doctrine …

Keep in mind that context applies a LOT. Not to mention culture plays a part....This is gonna take a while.

I think the best argument / example I can use are atheist Jews.
[More below the break]

Anti-theist complaints: Indoctrination of children


[Disclaimer: When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.



I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises



This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.



My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.



If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)



Anyway, onto the complaint ....]




Indoctrination of children



I'm half with atheists on this one. Evangelicals run Jesus camps, which are really freaking creepy. I think “Children of the Corn.”



However, I know someone who went to a Jesus camp, skipped out on all of the camp stuff, and is a believer despite those particular schmucks.



And for Catholics … oh good God. This isn't indoctrination, this is drivel … not because of the ceremonies, etc, but my friend Matt once pointed out, I haven't found any Catholic school that explains what the hell the ceremonies are for! I only know reasons for them because I have a father with a PhD in Catholic Philosophy, I've a graduate degree in history, and I had to do most of my own fricking research. Catholics don't indoctrinate their children in the faith, they educate their children … badly.



Besides, if Catholics  indoctrinated kids, we'd have a better retention rate....



What? You think I ran all of these apologetics blogs to explain stuff to non-Catholics? Please, the Catholic educational system, like all private schools, are leaps and bounds over public schools ....



Except in teaching Catholicism!!!!!



Yeah, anyway....



Anyway, at the end of the day, I would like to see children raise kids without religion. And I mean any religion, even if it's the religion of santa, or "won't get better if you pick at it", or even "kisses make it better" and "your face will freeze that way." (Idea stolen from R. Hendershot, telephone conversation)



I think I can summarize a world without religion like this. It is an exchange from Terry Prachett's novel Hogfather -- where the Hogfather is the equivalent of Santa Clause. In a world run by the materialists of the day, I'd like to see them answer it.




Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?

Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.

Susan: So we can believe the big ones?

Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.

Susan: They're not the same at all.

Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.

Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?

Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

Anti-theist complaints: Mormons, gays


When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, anti-theist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.



I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises



This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.



My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.



If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)



Anyway, onto the complaint ....




-Mormon (and other sects) mistreatment of homosexuals





Mormons, I hate these guys … I've been to Utah, and the Stepford Wives effect is creey as all hell.

However, I think that religion has nothing to do with the overall question...



Bear with me.



I'm going to define "mistreatment" rather loosely. I've heard mistreatment as being everything from stoning to simply not being married in a Catholic church. I'm going to go with the lightest definition of mistreatment, where you can define it as simply being considered "other."



Let's start by removing religion from the equation, shall we?







According to Dr. Konrad Tuchserer of St. John's University, African tribesman think that homosexuality is a creation of Western Culture; they think it's unnatural, and they seem to be more interested in tribalism over religion.



In China, gays “do not exist.” No one has said that, but there is no active gay subculture that will pop its head out into the light. Why? Because it's China. Atheist, pseudo-fascist, China.... so, blaming religion doesn't work well there.



And "mistreatment" … you mean like how psychology, the most atheist profession on record, had homosexuality down as a disease until they voted out of the DSM in the 1970s? Is that how you want to talk about mistreatment?



Aside from Greece, which had pederasty, I don't know of any culture that ever encouraged homosexuality.



Take out religion, it just becomes a matter of the local community forming a lynch mob against “the deviant,” something they've done since, oh, Socrates? His crime was more a matter of showing people how stupid they were, so let's have him swing from the nearest yardarm .... okay, hemlock. Be picky....



Modern mistreatment of gays is usually in backwaters, fueled by cultural stupidity .... and substance abuse. Please note that the most publicized incident of a "hate crime" against homosexuals in the last few years was an incident in Texas in the late 1990s.  It was not religious-based, but the result of two meth-heads on a week-long rampage.



I'd love for someone to point out a point in time (any point, any time, before the rise of Greenwich Village) where homosexuality was generally accepted as a non-deviant subculture. I've already pointed out Greece. The Atheist governments of China and the Soviet Union weren't fans of anything non-standard, and the Atheist government of the 1792 French republic didn't seem to like anyone, really .... I would like to say that the British have been accepting of homosexuality, but then there was Oscar Wilde. Their attitude on the subject confuses me.



The short version: Anthropologists have pointed out that "the other" is traditionally defined by their appearance, or by their behavior. 

Anti-theist complaints: Literal Interpretations

When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.

I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....


-The fostering of extremism through literal interpretations of religious texts

To start with, I have a problem with this argument. Consider for a moment that a small minority of any religion has extremists in it. However, in Islam, when 10% of the population isn't that large … there are about a billion Muslims on the planet, so that gets blown out of proportion. Also, see the article.

I can't paint everyone with this brush. In the Catholic church, literalism was a heresy that was stamped out within a few hundred years. By the time St. Augustine, one of the earliest Church Fathers, came on the scene, it was already dead. It got resurrected later on.

So, I should probably jettison it now and move on. The Vatican already did. But I never knew when to leave well enough alone.



I addressed radical Islam with this earlier in the series, and the Fundamentalist Christians – I'm happy to throw them under the bus. Though I find them more amusing than anything else. I especially want to ask them “So, if every last word is literal, what were Jesus' last words?”

However, if I'm going to be honest, I'm going to go back to the opening point. There are small numbers of people who use the texts for there own purposes.

And most of the people who call themselves fundamentalists, or literalists, are neither.

Why? Because if they were truly literal about how they interpret religious texts, there are a whole bunch of inconvenient phrases scattered all over the place.

“Love God with all your heart, with all your mind, and all your soul,” and “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” are easily looked at literally.

Yet they're usually skipped over by people who claim to have a “literal interpretation of religious texts.”

And in Islam, that's even more fun. Sura 81, “When the girl, buried alive, is asked what what crime she is slain … ” and it goes on for a very long while. Sura 81 is “the Cessations,” and deals with the punishment of the wicked on Judgment day … and it has nothing to do with Skynet.

I've read that particular verse (Sura 81: 8-9) interpreted by a mullah as being a matter of God will punish the murderer of children, for children have committed no crime. In Sura 5, “the Table”, that those who fight against God or his Apostle, thereby bringing disorder to the world should be exiled, or be crucified. Considering how many Islamofacist terrorists have butchered plenty of children, and their fellow coreligionists, if they were to be looking at the whole thing literally, Osama would have been nailed to a set of 2x4s by his own people.

There are some people who want to claim that the Phelps family are "True Christians" because they're following everything in the Bible, even the stuff that was plastered over later on, things that are cultural in nature, not religious -- and I mean Pre-Roman Empire Cultural.

However, if the Phelps family followed everything, and were really literal, there are two statments they should reread.

One starts "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

The second one starts "Remove the log from your own eye before you point out the speck in someone elses."

But, gee, the Phelps people don't follow those parts, do they?

So, if they're not literalists, or fundamentalists, what are they?

Well, I'm willing to grant that 10% of the world's population are morons and psychopaths who would latch on to anything in order to justify their world view, their cults, their government, their backwards culture ....

How about you?

Unfortunately, with six billion people on the planet, that's over half a billion people. So, there are a lot of morons out there. Unfortunately, they get a lot of the press...

And, don't worry, get rid of religion, people will just latch on to new and inventive ways of being stupid and psychotic. I hear Darwin used to be popular for that....

Science and Religion … Stupid Catholics.

Every time I hear that all of religion is against science, I just sigh.

They want to cite Galileo. You can read about him in my evolution article. Short version: Considering that he found himself on trial by insulting the Pope, he was lucky, and merely put under house arrest. The charges basically amounted to being a jerk without a license … I should note that Richard Dawkins has such a license. He's British.

Well, I'm Catholic. I think I'm part of the only religion that has it's own observatory. Two of them. One of them is parked outside the Pope's summer home of Castel Gandalfo. We also have a very odd blessing … in 1924, the Church has a blessing for a seismograph.

My church is weird.

The major cry about religion being against science amounts to a cry of “Oh, what about embryonic stem cells. Waaaahhhh!!!!!” The short version on embryonic stem cells is that they have been portrayed as a potential miracle cure for practically everything from cancer to paraplegia, and the evil religious people are against it, because all religious people are against science, and progress, etc.

The stated position of most religions I've kept up on has been “Can we have a scientific advancement that doesn't involve kidding infants in utero? Thanks.”

However.... Considering that, in 2007, Kyoto University researcher Shinya Yamanaka has already been able to transform skin cells into any other type of cell, I don't think stems cells are really relevant, do you? (Nature, June 6, 2007).

But, what do I know? I'm only the stupid Catholic. Richard Dawkins says that all religious people are stupid, and Dawkins is an educated man.

Let's go through a brief history of scientific research. However, I have a little list … actually, it's a long, long list, and a good chunk of them are here.


I think I'll cover the big names to start with.
[Below the break]

Evil Religions: Atheism


[As I said in the preface, not everything here is as is appears to be. Read the damn blog first, thanks.]



Let's talk about atheists for a moment.



Some really militant atheists like to talk about how evil religion is.... They are generally referred to as anti-theists: not only is there a God, but anyone who believes in God is someone to be wary of / someone who is a danger to the human race. Religion for them is the source of all evil, makes people believe in fairy tales, goes after homosexuals, etc. We've covered a lot of these in prior articles.



How would things look in an atheist society? Better? Worse?



Let me start by being totally, utterly, and completely unfair. Let's look at how large bodies of atheists treat some of the same topics. We have four, count 'em, four large nations that have completely and totally eschewed religion.



France, 1792: Bloodbath. Guillotine. Target: a lot of people killed happened to be the priests who sided with "the People" ... the people who used bread to soak up the blood of those people beheaded. Not that that's a demonic perversion of the eucharist or anything



The Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China: according to the French work The Black Book of Communism, these two, with some help from the other, minor communist governments, killed about a hundred million people in the 20th century.



Nazi Germany -- Some people like to slander Christianity with Nazism's formation. Looking at private statements from Mussolini, Goebbels, Himmler, the general concensus seems to be that it was a secular movement with a lot of religious rhetoric .... well, there was also the entire part where Hitler tried to reinstate Thor and Odin as deities, and I don't mean the Marvel movie version.



Oh, look at how well ¾ of those people treated gays. The Nazis gassed them, the Chinese make certain they don't exist, and the nuclear family was mandated by the Soviet Union, after a very brief experiment with free love. The French were too busy declaring war on everybody, and killing priests. That covered a nice chunk of time (about a century or more), and over 1.5 billion people on the planet.



Now, I have been hit with an argument stolen from Sam Harris, who is essentially a stone cold moron.


Harris: Atheists don't kill people because they have no good reason to do so.

Reply:Stalin and Mao were atheists and they killed millions of people

Harris: Then Stalin and Mao were No True Atheists.

Uh huh .... If I make an assertion that No True Christians hurts anyone, ever (Since violence is not something proposed by Christ), then I can disprove every dumbass statement ever made about Christianity and get on with my life.....



I don't think so.



And, hey, I'm surprised Sam Harris wants to disavow Stalin and Mao so quickly. Even he out and out states his desire for a world government. "The diversity of our religious beliefs constitutes a primary obstacle here" (End of Faith, 151).  Funny, Kim Jong-il used similar words justifying North Korean concentration camps, which have -- surprise surprise -- mostly Christians.



Now, let's drop the cheap shots, shall we?



The atheists I know aren't Nazis, nor are they Left wing sociopaths with delusions of genocide. You have the militant atheists like Dawkins who think my parents should be thrown in jail for teaching me Catholicism -- that's child abuse, don't you know?



It's little things like that which make me half-expect some half-crazed Oxford Don, wearing tweeds, to leap from a bookcase with a sword, shouting Dawkins-hu Akbar!!!!!



The atheists I know are guys like Matt, who I have trouble believing are true Dawkins believers, since, well, he's still talking to me ... though that may change by the time I'm done with this :). And on the other hand, I have acquaintances like former best friend Colleen Eren. She's an atheist, but she's more like a glorified agnostic. She can't prove God exists, neither can you, can't we all get along.



So, there are anti-theist atheists, and there are agnostics who lean atheist, who are generally Libertarian.



I'm good with that. I have my beliefs, you have yours, and if I'm not working on the downfall of civilization, or killing people, leave me the hell alone. As for you, throw wild orgies if I care. Bye.



I have two thoughts on the matter.



1. R. Hendershot, of Masks, is a far better person than I am. She's a protestant, though she has yet to find a church in California that allows thought. Being a New Yorker, I am obligated to suggest that she leave California. She's also far more fair than I am. Why? Because she insisted I point out the following:



Recorded history is about 3-5000 years, depending on who you talk to. A hundred years is an eyeblink. At best, it's maybe 3% of time. As with global warming, it's not a big enough control group, over too small a period of time. No one can prove things will be better without religion. Not unless some governments stay 100% unchanged for the next thousand years. We'll see.



2. Atheists say that Religion makes people believe in fairy tales, fables, etc.



Imagine you are an atheist. Imagine you have your perfect, pure, religion-free world. Imagine you can now walk into the American organization of the Baker Street Irregulars, and then imagine shouting “Sherlock Holmes is a work of fiction, you ignorant dolts!”



Imagine running for your life from a large body of enraged Sherlock Holmes nerds.



As Chesterton said, just because you stop believing in God doesn't mean you stop believing. It just means you'll believe in anything.

Ten Commandments of Atheism

If you look at the group of professional atheists, who I will generally refer to as the Dawkins-Hitchens crowd, they like to say that they're better than everyone else, because they're moral for no good reason, other than the fact that “it's what's right.” They aren't beholden to any sky daddy, they don't need no stinking afterlife, they're just plain good.

At the other extreme, atheists have been called ethical parasites. They can't come up with their own ethical code, so they leach off of the customs established by religious codification of morality and ethics. They can't come up with a standard of right and wrong, so, therefore, they mindlessly ape those around them and call themselves perfect.

… I'm not with either of them.


On the one hand, I have noticed that the most horrific things of the 20th century happened at the behest of atheist thought. No matter what he said in public, according to his nearest and dearest, Hitler worshiped nothing, and Stalin may have merely worshiped himself … at the end of the day, Communism killed a hundred million people. Some atheists, like Sam Harris, have tried to ignore communism, saying that it's really just another religion. Um, sure Sam, whatever you say...

Mr. Harris also says that he's a Bhuddist, which isn't a religion, but “a philosophy” … Dear sir, I would like to introduce you to a few million people in India who would like to disagree with you on that.

You have Richard Dawkins, the Joseph Goebbels of atheism … which isn't derogatory. His position at Oxford was the “Professor for Public Understanding of Science.” Maybe you prefer Minister of the Propagation of the Faith (The name for what Catholics used to call the Inquisition)? He thinks that you can have morality based off of scientific principles. He also thinks that you can use science to replace all of the poetry, art, music, and everything else religion has inspired.

While Fractals versus the Pieta doesn't seem like a fair fight, let's stick with morality for a moment.

I'm going to look at England for a moment. Not because Hitchens and Dawkins hail from there, but because they have a really fricking thorough census process. When they put down "religion," they have options from Catholic to Jedi Knight.

When you look at their prison statistics, 31.6% of the inmates have "no religion." 15.1% of Britons checked  none, Jedi Knight, agnostic, atheist, or heathen in the 2001 nation survey. However, Christians make up 71.8% of the total population, yet are only 39.1% of the prison population....

Hmm.... I'm a historian, not a math major. So someone else can do that math....

However, does this mean that atheists can't be good? Please, give me a break. I think that atheists can generate their own ethics the same way Aristotle did. And, preferably, they would come up with it in a better fashion, since his science sucked. Well, his physics sucked, his observations on people work fairly well.

The term atheists want is “natural law.” The Catholic Church also has this law in effect, uses it all the time. You can also use natural law to generate about half of the ten commandments … I wouldn't say they boil down to George Carlin's two commandments, but reasonably close. The important part is that, if you want to jettison faith, there's Aristotle, go adopt him. You have a nice, solid philosophy already there. Someone, pick it up!

But, no, they don't. Instead of saying “Let's stick modern science into Aristotle,” the Dawkins-Harris crowd says “Let's chuck out the last few thousand years and start all over.”

Right, because science totally works that way.

Some may notice that I don't count prominent Atheists like Daniel Dennett or Christopher Hitchens. Dennett is Christian-friendly, and comes with none of the arrogance of Harris or Dawkins.

Hitchens … I like Hitchens. He's the kind of snotty British character that is eternal. From what I can tell, he doesn't like anybody. Not even Mother Theresa … when the Church considered putting her on the road to being a Saint, the Devil's Advocate flew Hitchens in are one of the witnesses for the prosecution (long story; he had reasons. I don't agree with them, but I understood them). Hitchens' idea of an atheist morality is that he would like to screw everything that moved, without STDs … I can't fault a man that honest.

I would like someone like my friend Matt to try updating Aristotle, without Christianity. My old friend Colleen would be nice too. It's not hard, nor is it rocket science.

“We observe that in nature that those who screw around a lot tend to become infected with all manner of nasty viruses. This may be nature's way of telling us that it is a good idea to keep it zipped. Or, otherwise, to stay with one person for extended periods of time.” (This is a personal belief. I've met enough people that became intolerably neurotic after they became sexually active, I would abstain from sex until marriage, even if I were an atheist. So would Matt. Committed relationships, for the win).

But, I don't think anyone is going to try adopting natural law anytime soon. Under that rubric, what is “natural” is pretty much anything that sustains or supports life. A plastic heart valve to replace an artery is “natural,” in that it supports a natural function; the heart pumping blood.

If life is considered natural, death is unnatural, including everything that stops life from happening. If something stops a natural function, it is unnatural … This should be where the pro-abortion lobby comes gunning for me. But I've covered that already in my politics blog, so leave me alone.

A modern, atheist natural law would have to address the whole “when does life start” question. I could mention that some studies link abortion to an increase in depression and cancer rates, and say that it implies that abortion is a bad idea, given that the human body doesn't seem to appreciate it. But what do I know? (And, because I even considered mentioning abortion, I expect most people to ignore everything else I say and latch into this one small section with a death grip. Just watch.)

To any atheist who starts a discussion on where life begins, just be careful. Peter Singer and James D. Watson (of Watson and DNA) have both discussed holding off on giving birth certificates to newborns. One wants to wait ten days to run tests for genetic defects, and the other wants to wait a few days, if the parents want to have a retroactive abortion; both for eugenics reasons. Eugenics make me nervous.

If I were an Atheist, how would I run the universe?

While George Carlin's routine is funny, I think I wouldn't keep it as “the two commandments.”
[Read below the break.]

Evil Religions 2: Baby-raping Catholic Priests.

Konecsni's Law: Never Attribute to Malice What Can be Equally Attributed to Stupidity.
[Preface to the evil religion blog posts is here.]

I mentioned a while ago that some moron threatened me because I even implied that someone out in the universe could be more corrupt than the Catholic Church. I didn't defend anyone, didn't consider defending anyone. I merely posted some statistics from John Jay University and the Department of Education.

You know how the media loves to throw around the phrase Pedophilia … this just proves that the media doesn't know language .... The term they want is pederasty – pedophilia means simply “Lover of Children.”

One of the complaints about beatifying Pope John Paul II was the child abuse scandal that came in near the end of his reign... you know, when he was dying. The chant I hear is usually, “Priests are child molesters, the Church protects them all.” Um, aside from the ones that the Church have handed over to the authorities?

The most recent storm was triggered by Mr. John Geoghan, a former priest convicted of indecent assault and accused of molesting more than 130 children. However, while the charges were brought only in 2002, the priesthood kicked him out in 1998 and it took secular authorities years to catch up to him. Geoghan has been seen as representing a larger trend.

Now, I suppose someone could dismiss this entire ordeal. “Priests protect their own despite how vile their actions are” ... but so do lawyers, doctors, policemen, politicians, and most groups of human beings on this planet. I could say that doctors are a leading cause of death in the United States, yet that does not invalidate their existence. However, that would be ignorant.

Whenever I talk with a militant atheist who is not my friend Matt, I have people throw "baby-raping priests" in my face, as though that invalidates any argument I may have. Then again, there are some atheists who believe that, "Well, religion isn't reasonable, so all we should do is belittle them." To which I answer "And the horse you came in on."

And, hey, as I said, I should leave well enough alone....

I was never very good at that sort of thing.
Let's start at the beginning.

Objection: “The Catholic Church was abusing children in the 1950s” …

Answer: Were there priests abusing children in the 1950s? Yes. Was it the entire church? No. The church figured it could always be handled “in house.” Let's ship them away, let's put them away from any temptation, let's put them in the drunk tank to “dry out” for a few months. Then they'll be better. They'll be fixed.
Why would they do this? Why would anyone believe something that stupid? Aside from the fact that it was the 1950s?

Oh, BECAUSE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TOLD THEM THAT PEDERASTS COULD BE FIXED.

I'm serious. The Church relied on medical professionals, on "science," instead of listening to one of their own priests, who told them to boot their asses to the curb.

Father Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of a group known as “AA for priests” (link above), noticed in 1952 that abusive priests were not being “cured,” and suggested firing them. The Church overruled him, and relied instead on psychologists. Even Boston Cardinal Bernard Law sent pederasts to psychologists for screening and treatment, and got clinical approval to put them back on the pulpit.

He got approval! By psychologists!

You see, a perfectly medieval church would have settled this the easy way. A whole bunch of villagers could have taken out the local pederast and thrown him in the river after a whole bunch of Unpleasant Things had been done to his body. But nooooo, Rome had to rely on "science" (psychology is a Bachelors of Arts degree, not of science). The Church was perfectly modern about it. Perfectly understanding about it …

And if anyone had just asked my opinion, someone would have been served an enema of hydrofluoric acid…

Actually, Ireland had the best response. One professor of mine, back at St. John's University, complained about a pederast who had been shipped “out of the way” from the Republic of Ireland. He shook his head and muttered repeatedly about how shameful it was. The pederast in question had been shipped to Belfast … the highly-violent, gun-toting, Catholic-killing slums of Belfast.

When I asked if anyone had heard from the priest ever again, the professor said, "Not that I know of, why?"

I didn't have the heart to explain to this fellow that they weren't “hiding” him; it's as close as they could get to an execution.

Anyway …

To get back to the conversation in general, I'm not sure how many people understood the concept of 100% recidivism in the 1950s. And I'm not sure how many do today. For example, I have a friend. He had been abused in grammar school, by a father-son pederasty team. My friend lives in Great Neck, New York, and ever since the bastards were put away, he and his fellow victims have been ridiculed, lambasted, accused of lying, of being bribed, of everything under the sun short of being serial killers. He still lives with this, today ... in secular Great Neck ... and all of this was over two public school teachers. Now, tell me, what would someone like him have gone through in 1950s America if the abusers were priests? Tell me the traumas wouldn't have been compounded with public attention …?

And if someone asked my opinion…

Moving on.

Objection: “Yes, but priests are still being moved around!”

Answer: Again, you mean the ones that aren't thrown in jail because the Catholic church threw them there? We can go for two possible answers. As I said above, priests within a closed system are protecting their own bad apples ... like Doctors and Policemen have been known to do ... and politicians, and lawyers, and most other human organizations on the planet ....

However, my thought? I suspect the answer is bureaucratic inertia.

Nope, I'm dead serious.

Consider: most priests now being hauled away in handcuffs entered the priesthood before psychological screenings were in place. All of their bosses entered when the accepted method of dealing with abusers was to send them to therapy. The whole upper administration is populated by people who were taught that psychology could fix these offenders.

Cardinal Law, mentioned above, is a prime example …

And, I want to ask this one more time: If these people were sent to shrinks, what freaking moron declared them fit for duty?
Konecsni's Law: Never Attribute to Malice What Can be Equally Attributed to Stupidity.


Objection: “Yes, but priests are all baby-rapers!”

I love this argument too. Why?

The biggest number I've ever seen on pederasty in the church is a possible 8% of priests of OF THE LAST FIFTY YEARS. It's probably 4% or less, according to John Jay University, who did a study on this... click on this link to find it.

Let's look a little closer.
About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue.

The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984. [Author's note: before psychological screening was in place]

During the same time frame there were 109,694 priests, it said.....

The study, released in Washington Feb. 27, [2003] was commissioned by the U.S. bishops' National Review Board ....

The study said the sharp decline in abuse incidents since 1984 coupled with the declining percentage of accusations against priests ordained in recent years "presents a more positive picture" than the overall statistics.

It said that 68 percent of the allegations were made against priests ordained between 1950 and 1979, while priests ordained after 1979 accounted for 10.7 percent of the allegations......
Regarding substantiated allegations against priests in ministry at the time, the most common action by church authorities was to send the priest for medical evaluation or treatment, said the study.

Although most of the incidents occurred before 1985, two-thirds of the allegations have been reported since 1993 [All Italics added].....

Hmm, so as time goes on, there seem to be fewer and fewer of these bastards. Funny that.

So, the US Bishops go to a secular authority in criminal justice, and make them look through all of their records. It's sort of hard to pull the wool over the eyes of people who work at John Jay University. And I suspect most Bishops get up around noon.

Trying to make a claim that there are sooo many hidden -- keep in mind, would you, that the 10,667 number is the number of victims that they are accused of abusing. Not convicted. Not investigated and cleared. Simply the accusations. Who keeps paperwork like that?

Welcome to the Catholic Church, we keep records on everything. Even accusations.

Objection: So what, why are so many pederasts priests?

Let me think, why would child molesters try to get into the priesthood … for the same reason they would be camp counselors and teachers, easy access. Protestants have a worse rate of pederasts, and the teachers…

Ah, teachers...

Statistics professor Charol Shakeshaft, of the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, estimates the between 1991 and 2000, 290,000 students were sexually abused by public school teachers and personnel. One in every ten American children has been sexually abused at school. And only 1% of allegations were investigated by the school board.

Catholic priests have had 10,667 allegations (not convictions, allegations) between 1950 and 2002. Of those allegations, 3% ended in a guilty verdict. 3%. So, hmm, at the end of the day, out of 4,392 accused priests, only about 131 were convicted over anything...

About 131 schmucks have been used to be a stigma on an entire religion. Hmmm....

Now, obviously, some turned out to be false, and some turned out to be not proven .... and let's assume that some were never reported, because some aren't. So, let's assume these numbers cancel each other out, and stick with 10,667 victims.

So, wait, in nine years, public school teachers have abused twenty-nine times the number of children than an entire profession of priests over the course of sixty years?

On average, abusive priests have been accused of going after 810 kids per year, but the public schools have assaulted 32,000 per annum …

Wow, Catholic Conspiracies? Really? Rome has nothing on the teachers union....

Oh, and you will notice that it is unfair, and psychotic to make these arguments. Last week, we had a teacher note that by merely looking at the statistics is unfair and misleading, and worthy of someone in North Korea.

And he's right.

And blaming any group for what less than 1% of it's members have done over the course of five decades is just as unfair, and just as misleading.

Objection: “Yes, but priests abuse so many … ”

At the end of the day, do you know how much Catholic priest pederasty count for the worldwide crimes of pederasty? 1%. The priesthood, the Church, everyone, is raked over the coals because a minority of their priests are scumbags who should be set on fire, all of whom came in before psychology was able to screen for them in the priesthood.

Proper psychological the screenings were in place by the early 1990s, and we haven't had many, if any, problems with anyone who had been ordained after that. A proper system for reporting and investigating this crime was only recently established around the late 1990s, by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who now goes under another name. The Pope. And he's been rather pissed about the whole thing. John Paul II was also annoyed, but his indignation was limited since he was busy dying.

The only reason anyone knows about the Catholic priesthood and their scumbags is because the Catholic Church keeps record of everything, so these bastards can be hunted down.

Hmm ... Before psychological screenings, and there were only 131 psychopaths let through. That's not bad.

Granted, thanks to "medical advice," some thought they could be "cured."

Never Attribute to Malice What Can be Equally Attributed to Stupidity.

Objection: “Yes, but they should all be taken out and dealt with harshly.”

Oh, I'm an even bigger proponent of harsh treatment than anybody. See above for hydrofluoric acid. In fact, I would say “let's out and hunt down and murder every last one of the bastards, without trial.” My way would be to introduce painful methods of harm that would be recorded, and later shown to terrorists and Guantanamo Bay, and the terrorists would be given an option: this, or waterboarding.

But that's me. And I am a moderately deranged writer, who channels homicidal tendencies into novels, and I'm also the proud owner of a “Waterboarding Instructor” t-shirt.

But, courts and laws should be fair. We can agree to that, right? I mean, hell, if we wanted to, we could sign a law, and rid all statutes of limitations on all pederasts, forever. Period. I'm for that, how about you? Are you for that? Why not? Well, it doesn't matter, because no one listens to us …

Here's my problem. You have folks in the ACLU who cry out against pederast priests, and “lets go after them at every conceivable opportunity, no matter how old they are, or how old their crimes are”….

And they represent the North American Man-Boy Love Association at the same time. The motto of NAMBLA: Eight is too Late.

Conclusion.

You know what? Let's say the atheists are right. Let's say we get rid of all the churches on the entire planet. Let's get rid of the Catholic church.
Let all of the pederasts go into public school teaching, that way, they'll never get caught. Now, if I were some people, I could take a look at the 32,000 abused children a year, and I could twist it, and I would say “Let's burn down the public schools, and shoot all the teachers.” This is more or less the logic I have seen applied to the Catholic Church in this regard..... but that logic is stupid, misleading, and psychotic. More than I am, anyway.

But, since I am a far more reasonable person than those nut cases, can I suggest that professions where children are easily accessible will always have problems, because pederasts will always try to get into those institutions, and it's hard to screen everybody?

But, for the record, I'm sending my kid to Catholic school. Or home schooling. Because my children have a better shot of being struck by lightning than being abused by a Catholic priest. And, in the occasion of a priest or Catholic school teacher abusing my kid, I know that the New York Times will come to my defense should he be doused in gasoline and set on fire.


At the end of the day, I think I can summarize my argument as follows: Doctors kill more people per year than car crashes, yet we still go to them. Some psychos gamed a bureaucracy that's slow to adapt, only the bureaucracy is made up of priests. It is an invalid argument to say that just because a small percentage were corrupt, and some were too stupid to know how to deal with them, every one of them is just as corrupt. Like every bureaucracy, it's slow and it's stupid. And .... everyone with me now .... Never Attribute to Malice What Can be Equally Attributed to Stupidity.

The entire scandal is a fabrication – not that children were abused, but that the Church “did nothing.” When problems first appeared in the 1950s, Church officials consulted psychologists, who “treated” the accused and declared them cured. The priests who grew up with this method of dealing with pederasts were officials when the later scandals broke. Even Cardinal Law of Boston sent abusers to psychological therapy.

The true scandal is that the therapists were not sued, then hung, drawn and quartered for recommending that these priests be allowed back out among the general public.

Pope John Paul II did not let abusive priests go free under his watch. After the 1980s scandal, new screenings were put in place to keep new abusers from entering. When the second scandal broke at the start of the century, he had Cardinal Ratzinger establish a system for investigating these crimes. The problems of the scandals started when the Church broke from tradition – tradition would have had these priests immediately thrown out. Medieval tradition would have defrocked them, assuming the church could get to these priests before the local townspeople. When the Church tried a “modern” cure, that is when things started to go awry. Ironically, John Paul II was also criticized during his life for being too traditional in his thinking. We should be grateful that he was.


*****

I will request that any and all comments posted below are kept PG-rated. If you decide to post abusive language in my comments, I will delete you. I don't like to have to say this, but I can't assume civility anymore.

Oh, and this is the full text of fully revised and updated guidelines. I feel like I need an appendix.

The Tablet Speeches
Rome's updated child protection guidelines


Posted by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 16 May 2011, 9:00


Circular letter to assist Episcopal Conferences in developing Guidelines for dealing with cases of sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by clerics


Among the important responsibilities of the Diocesan Bishop in his task of assuring the common good of the faithful and, especially, the protection of children and of the young, is the duty he has to give an appropriate response to the cases of sexual abuse of minors by clerics in his diocese. Such a response entails the development of procedures suitable for assisting the victims of such abuse, and also for educating the ecclesial community concerning the protection of minors. A response will also make provision for the implementation of the appropriate canon law, and, at the same time, allow for the requirements of civil law.



I. General considerations:

a) The victims of sexual abuse:


The Church, in the person of the Bishop or his delegate, should be prepared to listen to the victims and their families, and to be committed to their spiritual and psychological assistance. In the course of his Apostolic trips our Holy Father, Benedict XVI, has given an eminent model of this with his availability to meet with and listen to the victims of sexual abuse. In these encounters the Holy Father has focused his attention on the victims with words of compassion and support, as we read in his Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland (n.6): "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated."



b) The protection of minors:


In some countries programs of education and prevention have been begun within the Church in order to ensure "safe environments" for minors. Such programs seek to help parents as well as those engaged in pastoral work and schools to recognize the signs of abuse and to take appropriate measures. These programs have often been seen as models in the commitment to eliminate cases of sexual abuse of minors in society today.


c) The formation of future priests and religious:


In 2002, Pope John Paul II stated, "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young" (n. 3, Address to the American Cardinals, 23 April 2002). These words call to mind the specific responsibility of Bishops and Major Superiors and all those responsible for the formation of future priests and religious. The directions given in the Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis as well as the instructions of the competent Dicasteries of the Holy See take on an even greater importance in assuring a proper discernment of vocations as well as a healthy human and spiritual formation of candidates. In particular, candidates should be formed in an appreciation of chastity and celibacy, and the responsibility of the cleric for spiritual fatherhood. Formation should also assure that the candidates have an appreciation of the Church�s discipline in these matters. More specific directions can be integrated into the formation programs of seminaries and houses of formation through the respective Ratio institutionis sacerdotalis of each nation, Institute of Consecrated Life and Society of Apostolic Life.


Particular attention, moreover, is to be given to the necessary exchange of information in regard to those candidates to priesthood or religious life who transfer from one seminary to another, between different dioceses, or between religious Institutes and dioceses.


d) Support of Priests


1. The bishop has the duty to treat all his priests as father and brother. With special attention, moreover, the bishop should care for the continuing formation of the clergy, especially in the first years after Ordination, promoting the importance of prayer and the mutual support of priestly fraternity. Priests are to be well informed of the damage done to victims of clerical sexual abuse. They should also be aware of their own responsibilities in this regard in both canon and civil law. They should as well be helped to recognize the potential signs of abuse perpetrated by anyone in relation to minors;

2. In dealing with cases of abuse which have been denounced to them the bishops are to follow as thoroughly as possible the discipline of canon and civil law, with respect for the rights of all parties;


3. The accused cleric is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. Nonetheless the bishop is always able to limit the exercise of the cleric�s ministry until the accusations are clarified. If the case so warrants, whatever measures can be taken to rehabilitate the good name of a cleric wrongly accused should be done.

e) Cooperation with Civil Authority

Sexual abuse of minors is not just a canonical delict but also a crime prosecuted by civil law. Although relations with civil authority will differ in various countries, nevertheless it is important to cooperate with such authority within their responsibilities. Specifically, without prejudice to the sacramental internal forum, the prescriptions of civil law regarding the reporting of such crimes to the designated authority should always be followed. This collaboration, moreover, not only concerns cases of abuse committed by clerics, but also those cases which involve religious or lay persons who function in ecclesiastical structures.


II. A brief summary of the applicable canonical legislation concerning the delict of sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by a cleric:


On 30 April 2001, Pope John Paul II promulgated the motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela [SST], by which sexual abuse of a minor under 18 years of age committed by a cleric was included in the list of more grave crimes (delicta graviora) reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Prescription for this delict was fixed at 10 years beginning at the completion of the 18th year of the victim. The norm of the motu proprio applied both to Latin and Eastern clerics, as well as for diocesan and religious clergy.


In 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the CDF, obtained from Pope John Paul II the concession of some special faculties in order to provide greater flexibility in conducting penal processes for these more grave delicts. These measures included the use of the administrative penal process, and, in more serious cases, a request for dismissal from the clerical state ex officio. These faculties have now been incorporated in the revision of the motu proprio approved by the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, on 21 May 2010. In the new norms prescription, in the case of abuse of minors, is set for 20 years calculated from the completion of the 18th year of age of the victim. In individual cases, the CDF is able to derogate from prescription when indicated. The canonical delict of acquisition, possession or distribution of pedopornography is also specified in this revised motu proprio.

The responsibility for dealing with cases of sexual abuse of minors belongs, in the first place, to Bishops or Major Superiors. If an accusation seems true the Bishop or Major Superior, or a delegate, ought to carry out the preliminary investigation in accord with CIC can. 1717, CCEO can. 1468, and SST art. 16.

If the accusation is considered credible, it is required that the case be referred to the CDF. Once the case is studied the CDF will indicate the further steps to be taken. At the same time, the CDF will offer direction to assure that appropriate measures are taken which both guarantee a just process for the accused priest, respecting his fundamental right of defense, and care for the good of the Church, including the good of victims. In this regard, it should be noted that normally the imposition of a permanent penalty, such as dismissal from the clerical state, requires a penal judicial process. In accord with canon law (cf. CIC can. 1342) the Ordinary is not able to decree permanent penalties by extrajudicial decree. The matter must be referred to the CDF which will make the definitive judgement on the guilt of the cleric and his unsuitability for ministry, as well as the consequent imposition of a perpetual penalty (SST art. 21, �2).


The canonical measures applied in dealing with a cleric found guilty of sexual abuse of a minor are generally of two kinds: 1) measures which completely restrict public ministry or at least exclude the cleric from any contact with minors. These measures can be reinforced with a penal precept; 2) ecclesiastical penalties, among which the most grave is the dismissal from the clerical state.


In some cases, at the request of the cleric himself, a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state, including celibacy, can be given pro bono Ecclesiae.



The preliminary investigation, as well as the entire process, ought to be carried out with due respect for the privacy of the persons involved and due attention to their reputations.



Unless there are serious contrary indications, before a case is referred to the CDF, the accused cleric should be informed of the accusation which has been made, and given the opportunity to respond to it. The prudence of the bishop will determine what information will be communicated to the accused in the course of the preliminary investigation.


It remains the duty of the Bishop or the Major Superior to provide for the common good by determining what precautionary measures of CIC can. 1722 and CCEO can. 1473 should be imposed. In accord with SST art. 19, this can be done once the preliminary investigation has been initiated.


Finally, it should be noted that, saving the approval of the Holy See, when a Conference of Bishops intends to give specific norms, such provisions must be understood as a complement to universal law and not replacing it. The particular provisions must therefore be in harmony with the CIC / CCEO as well as with the motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (30 April 2001) as updated on 21 May 2010. In the event that a Conference would decide to establish binding norms it will be necessary to request the recognitio from the competent Dicasteries of the Roman Curia.



III. Suggestions for Ordinaries on Procedures:

The Guidelines prepared by the Episcopal Conference ought to provide guidance to Diocesan Bishops and Major Superiors in case they are informed of allegations of sexual abuse of minors by clerics present in the territory of their jurisdiction. Such Guidelines, moreover, should take account of the following observations:


a.) the notion of "sexual abuse of minors" should concur with the definition of article 6 of the motu proprio SST ("the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years"), as well as with the interpretation and jurisprudence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while taking into account the civil law of the respective country;


b.) the person who reports the delict ought to be treated with respect. In the cases where sexual abuse is connected with another delict against the dignity of the sacrament of Penance (SST art. 4), the one reporting has the right to request that his or her name not be made known to the priest denounced (SST art. 24).;

c.) ecclesiastical authority should commit itself to offering spiritual and psychological assistance to the victims;



d.) investigation of accusations is to be done with due respect for the principle of privacy and the good name of the persons involved;


e.) unless there are serious contrary indications, even in the course of the preliminary investigation, the accused cleric should be informed of the accusation, and given the opportunity to respond to it.

f.) consultative bodies of review and discernment concerning individual cases, foreseen in some places, cannot substitute for the discernment and potestas regiminis of individual bishops;
g.) the Guidelines are to make allowance for the legislation of the country where the Conference is located, in particular regarding what pertains to the obligation of notifying civil authorities;
h.) during the course of the disciplinary or penal process the accused cleric should always be afforded a just and fit sustenance;
i.) the return of a cleric to public ministry is excluded if such ministry is a danger for minors or a cause of scandal for the community.
Conclusion:
The Guidelines developed by Episcopal Conferences seek to protect minors and to help victims in finding assistance and reconciliation. They will also indicate that the responsibility for dealing with the delicts of sexual abuse of minors by clerics belongs in the first place to the Diocesan Bishop. Finally, the Guidelines will lead to a common orientation within each Episcopal Conference helping to better harmonize the resources of single Bishops in safeguarding minors.
Rome, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 3 May 2011
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
+ Luis F. Ladaria, S.J.
Tit. Archbishop of Thibica
Secretary
[00714-02.01] [Original text: Italian]

Friday, May 27, 2011

"Atheists are Right." or: Jesus Freaks Scare Me.


Atheists have a point … or some of them do, anyway.



When originally looking at Marx, or Nietzsche, I figured that they had no idea what they were talking about. I do not use my Deity as a drug. I don't hold onto an image of someone being tortured to death on a set of 2x4s because I'm afraid of the dark. I don't use my faith as an excuse to not think, in fact, just the opposite.



I can give you reasons for my beliefs. I could tell you I think there's a God because of this thing called causality (IE: cause and effect … what's the cause of the Big Bang?). I can tell you I believe in an historical figure called Jesus, because there are records from that time period. There is more evidence for a carpenter named Jesus from Nazareth than there is for Hannibal of Carthage waging war against the Roman Empire (Hannibal was only written about a hundred years later, Jesus from the same generation, and was noted by Roman authorities).



I can give a bunch of reasons why I believe different elements of my faith, but as I've said before, I'm not here to convert one single person. Educate, sure, convert, no.



I'm relatively certain that I would not change one element of my life if I were an atheist. So, Marx, Nietzsche, sorry if I've disabused you 19th century pinheads of any fantasies you have.



Unfortunately, as I'm exposed to more of the world, I have to admit that atheists have a few points.



Yes, you read the title of the blog correctly. I'm Catholic, and Jesus freaks worry me. Seriously, how many people have had religious folks force their faith on you? There is a difference between someone having a civil conversation with you, and someone abusing you with a bible.



Let me be clear. If someone asks, “Is Jesus your personal savior?” and you say yes, and they leave you alone, that's one thing. I find it strange when anyone actually asks me that sort of thing at all, but if they ask, accept my answer, and leave, great.



If you're an atheist or a non-Christian, you say no, and they start a civil discussion with you, that's also great. Talking and reasoning are good things.



However, if they continue to talk at you as if you hadn't spoken, or they start by narrowing down what church you go to, on which street corner, then, Houston, we have a problem.



When it is no longer a conversation, but someone trying to shove a bible down your throat, it's time to break out the taser.



As I've said before, I'm a little strange. So, I'm going to provide some context.



Growing up, I learned more about religion from the novels of Fr. Andrew Greeley, and from my father the philosophy professor, than I ever did from any Catholic school instructor. In fact, a lot of what they had taught me was either inaccurate, or outright fraudulent. I had always thought it was my school, nothing personal, just a bunch of morons. I could go on, move on, have a nice life.



I figured that my upbringing in Catholic school was an anomaly, and that more people were like me.



Recently, I've gotten the impression that it's not going as well as I would like.



One friend told me about how she was Protestant at a (very) small Catholic college in California, and they considered burning her at the stake as a heretic. Fail.



They also didn't believe in reading the bible, “That's the priest's job.” That wasn't even a position held five hundred years ago.  On the one hand, vernacular translations SUCKED in the middle ages, and on the other-- do you know how expensive it is to write a bible, by hand, on lambskin (vellum)?  The Bible was chained down in church, but if you could read it, knock yourself out.  Here's a hint to these modern fellas, the bible has been revised and translated, if you can read, you're allowed to read an authorized and footnoted copy. You're a few centuries late. Serious fail.



Recently, Matt was told on his Facebook page “My God is better than no God.” Epic fail. (Two words for you, buddy: Allahu Akbar.)



Now, I may be an anomaly. Most of my friends are Jewish. My first ex is a Wiccan who had not yet come out of the broom closet. My best friend for nearly a decade was an atheist. Matt, who has created all of the good artwork around A Pius Man, another atheist. Frankly, I think some of these people are better Catholics than I am, from an ethical viewpoint. As I have explained before, I don't think being an atheist is grounds for you to be in any serious danger of having a crappy afterlife.



Also, religiously, I'm a bit of a libertarian. I don't care if you go to Hell. If you are in serious danger of going to hell, then you're probably not someone I want to be within a ten foot radius of. Being a complete jerk who commits felonies for fun … yeah, I most likely don't want to talk to you.



If you are a different sort of believer, and actually would like to convert people, let's have a conversation, shall we?



Step one: realize that atheists have valid points. For example, Marx made the infamous comment that religion is the opiate of the masses. It's not particularly true for me. I've been to enough masses where I've wanted to throw the books at the priest because his sermon was more about him than about what was in the Gospel.



However, there are people who can read a Bible, and the words go through their eyes and out their mouths without it ever going through their brains. The words become rote, mantras without understanding.



Marx is right, some people use the bible as a drug, to avoid the pressures of THOUGHT. How many? I have no idea. Though they seem to get a lot of the press. (Paging Mr. Phelps.)



And more of us than we would like can see where Nietzsche had a point. His entire “God is dead, you killed him, and you haven't even noticed” riff … I would like a show of hands. How many people have gone to services, listened to a sermon about peace and love, and “everyone get along with each other,” only to go out into the parking lot and see all of the people you attended services with try to commit vehicular manslaughter?  God is dead, they "killed" Him, and no one noticed ... call it a metaphor for our behavior.



Step two: Rodney Stark, who has done a sociology of early Christianity, has come up with various reasons why the faith was such a success even before Constantine made it an official state religion. The number one reason is simple: people saw how Christians treated one another, and they wanted to be a part of that. One big example is that there had been an outbreak of plague during the first few hundred years of Christianity. The major caregivers were Christians. They didn't run, they didn't evacuate the area and save their own behind from the plague. They stayed, and they took care of the sick and the dying, even when doctors had fled. I believe the biblical passages you want involve bushel baskets.



If you are a great big believer in (pick your faith here), live out the principles to the best of your abilities. Set yourself up as an example, and not on a pedestal. If you seriously think that atheists are in danger of going directly to hell, and need to be targeted, can I suggest something?



Be passionate without being insane.



Be reasoned, and educated, and know what the hell you're talking about. Know what the latest counter-arguments are so you're not just yelling at them.



Otherwise, you're just a freak, and not one of the good kind....



And, if they're yelling at you for being reasoned and rational, just run. It'll be easier on everybody.



Anyway, eventually, I will discuss atheists a bit.  Just so I can be fair and mentally unbalanced.  As usual. :)

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Evil Religions 1: Allahu Akbar.


An evil religion blog post.



When I first proposed the "Evil Religions" series of blogs, I figured I would make it ironic. You may all remember the "first" Evil Religion post back on April 1st. This is the real one.



Before you get your panties in a twist, I warned readers of this blog quite some time ago that there would be a series of “Evil Religion” blog posts, and that it wouldn't be what you think it is. Guess what, it's still not going to be what you think it is. Read the rest of this preface here.



Now, let's start with our first “Evil Religion.”  The following can be footnoted in the works of Bernard Lewis, David Dalin, Ralph McInerny, or Roy Schoeman’s “Salvation is from the Jews



The Middle East has a problem, and it's not Islam. It's their culture... which is also not Islam.



Yes, sorry, hate to break it to all of you, the culture of the Middle East was not substantially altered by The Prophet. Mainly because there were no real fundamental building blocks for the culture to be altered …



The trouble with the Middle East, in part, can be traced to the Nazis.



No, I am not being allegorical, but literal.



If you're a newcomer to this blog, you may not have heard of the term “Hitler’s Pope”: that Eugenio Pacelli, aka Pope Pius XII, worked with, for, or around Hitler in support of the final solution of the Holocaust.



What I'm almost certain you never hear about is what has been labeled Hitler’s Mufti.



To be more precise, he is properly called the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Now, a bit of background: in the 1920s, as a prize of World War I, Palestine was a mandate of Britain—they ran it and everything in it. Al-Husseini was installed by the English; he had, in fact, been put into power by a Jewish Minister of the Palestinian Mandate, Robert Samuel. Samuel even rigged the votes a little, in part on behalf of an anti-Semitic “advisor” Ernest Richmond (who may or may not have been al-Husseini's boyfriend; there were rumors, and Richmond was British, after all....).



Through the 1920s, al-Husseini incited two “intifadas” that killed mostly Jews (which I can only assume means that intifada now translates as “pogrom”), and Robert Samuel caved in each time, eventually cutting off any and all Jewish immigration into Palestine.



And you thought British appeasement started with Neville Chamberlain, didn't you?



Hajj al-Husseini was, in essence, local aristocracy. His brother had been the previous Grand Mufti, and his family had been in government positions for the previous seventy years. Unfortunately, his mind had been a little warped by a propaganda piece out of Tsarist Russia called the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”



For those of you who don't know about the Protocols, it is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that makes anything Dan Brown has written look like a well-researched historical treatise. According to the Protocols, the entire world is run by three hundred Jews out of Europe. Al-Husseini got it into his head that the British forces in Palestine were, in fact, there on the behest of their Jewish overlords, therefore, the British were mere puppets of the vast Zionist conspiracy ...



At this point, it feels like the moment I should grab the Thorazine and cue The Illuminati Polka.



Even after al-Husseini became grand Mufti, he called for an anti-Jewish jihad in Palestine during the 1930s, saying “Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”  This was how he started riots in 1929 and 1936-1939. He would later move his rhetorical style to Berlin radio, stating in one “Kill the Jews—Kill them with your hands, kill them with your teeth! This is well pleasing to Allah!” Al-Husseini’s connection with Hitler begins in 1933, when he sent emissaries to Berlin, first lending support, then suggesting collaboration. When the German anti-Jewish laws went into effect in 1934, the Islamic world sent them congratulations. Husseini would become friends with Adolf Eichmann (the banal evil that logistically engineered the Holocaust), and pushed for the extermination of Jews as soon as possible.



In 1937, al-Husseini met with Hitler, and they apparently got along quite well. Afterwards, Al-Husseini tried for a Nazi tour of the middle east; he briefly led an overthrow of the government in Iraq, only to be run out by the British. He hid in the Japanese embassy in Iran for a little bit, until the British and the Soviets invaded. He ran through Turkey and made it to Mussolini's Italy. He finally ended up in Germany.



SS chief Heinrich Himmler took Husseini on tours of the death camps, and the mufti pushed for greater diligence in running the gas chambers. Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny mentioned that the mufti “played a role in the decision to exterminate the European Jews.” At the Nuremburg trials, he stated that “the mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler… one of Eichmann’s best friends” And don't think Dieter got anything out of saying all of this—he was executed after the trial.



Al-Husseini also had a Muslim clerical school in Dresden, where Muslims could be trained in Nazism, and introduce it to the Middle East. In exchange for this service, Husseini went into Bosnia to recruit Muslims for the SS, Hanjar (or Handschar) units, who wore specially marked fezzes with the swastika on them. You can also see photos of Husseini in Bosnia inspecting the SS troops (see: Shoeman, 258. If you want to see more research on Muslim/Arab Nazis, hit the Yad vashem archives , or the Simon Wiesenthal Center). The Muslim SS Hanjar (“sword”) unit massacred about 90% of Bosnia’s Jews.



Husseini made it to France after the war, after the Swiss kicked him out. The pro-Nazi French government (which was still in charge for a while) refused to extradite him, and by the time the Allies could lay their hands on him, it was inconvenient to prosecute him (Tito didn't want the “Handschar units” as an issue in his ethnically-divided Yugoslavia; the new English government didn't want to antagonize the Arabs in their Middle East mandates, and the Soviets had their eye on the middle east as future clients). He managed to stay free and clear until 1974, when death caught him.



So why does Mufti al-Husseini matter today? Well, let’s start with the fact that the grand mufti imported Nazi experts to train young Palestinians in guerrilla tactics—the start of a group we know as the Palestinian Liberation Organization.



During the Six Day War in 1967, Israelis found Egyptian prisoners carrying issues of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Ironically, it had been translated into Arabic by a man known as el-Hadj…aka former Nazi propagandist Lius Heiden. Mein Kampf would be republished by Yassir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority in 2001 and was an instant bestseller throughout the Middle East—in 1999, it was sixth on the bestseller list in Palestine (and this is before the reprint). By the way, did I mention that “Schindler’s List” is banned?



The legacy of al-Husseini lives on into the 21st century. To start with, it was in the form of his nephew—Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. If you blink you miss the key word—Arafat. Yes, that Arafat. Second Lieutenant Wilhelm Boerner, a guard at Mauthausen concentration camp, and Erich Altern (Gestapo, head of their “Jewish Affairs” section), trained members of the Palestine Liberation Front. Former Nazi Johann Schuller, supplied arms to Fatah. Jean Tireault, neo-Nazi, also paid by Fatah. In the 1970s, neo-Nazi Otto Albrecht was hired by the PLO to act as a middle man for weapons.



Then there’s the Grand Mufti’s grandson, Skeikh Ekrima Sabri, the current Mufti of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. He said recently “The figure of 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust is exaggerated…It was a lot less. It’s not my fault if Hitler hated the Jews. Anyway, they hate them just about everywhere.” Nice guy.



And let’s not forget that the Socialist nationalist party of Syria had a “Furher” and their banner donned the swastika as well. It's also known as the “Ba'athist party.” The one that's currently running Syria, and used to be Saddam Hussein's party.



Remember that pro-Nazi coup that got Husseini tossed out of Iraq? One rally member was a man named Khayrallah Tulfah. After the war, he lived with his nephew, and in the main room of his house he had an idolized portrait of Hitler on the wall. He raised the nephew personally, and had al-Husseini over to his home repeatedly until Husseini died. This nephew would grow up to be one mean fellow—one of his mistresses noted that he would look himself in the mirror and state “I am Saddam Hussein. Heil Hilter!”



The Grand Mufti, this (literal) Islamofascist, helped form the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And let us not forget Egyptian leader Gamal Nasser, who helped the Nazis in Egypt during the war, and who later led the Six Day War against Israel. He even adopted the slogan “One folk, One party, One leader.” His successor, Anwar Sadat, also had ties to the Reich—he spied for Germany during the war. Johannes von Leers, Goebbel’s executive officer, was put in charge of Egypt’s Ministry of Information in 1955. Gestapo man Hans Becher went on to become a police instructor in Egypt.



Let's look at the bad stuff that have come out of the middle east in the last hundred years, shall we? The psycho dictators have decided to enforce laws written down when Islam was still an emerging power, using the literal xenophobic rules of the day to enforce their own will. In fact, most of the stuff they're using isn't really the Koran, but bastardized versions of it, at best. They tend to work with scholars who have very.....old views about how Islam works, or should work.



Many of these were laws that were not in place during the Ottoman empire. It falls, and within a few decades, tada, archaic rules that no one noticed suddenly become applicable, and some which were completely made up two hundred years ago, or two decades ago – basically, whatever they “found” that could be useful. There is no Islamic Vatican. They devolved into a bunch of different opposing viewpoints that tended to disassociate Islam from itself more than anything.



Such transparent bull …



And let's target Israel, because, yes, a nation the size of Vermont is a threat to an Islamic geographical area equal to or greater than the entire United States of America … Israel just reminds Arabs that they're no longer on top of the world, and that there's no changing it.



One of the problems these psychos have taken advantage of is : you can't translate the Koran in the Middle East. Seriously, it's illegal. Which becomes a problem because most people can't read the Koran. I'm serious. Imagine how hard it is to read Shakespeare. It takes entire college courses, because it's poetry, and requires historical context. Now take the Bible, which also requires whole college classes (my bible course took a whole semester, and we only got through the Old Testament), because it's partly written in poetry, and also requires historical context. You get the worst of both possible worlds in the King James Bible.



Now, imagine that the King James Bible was written in Olde English—and I mean Beowulf English, not Chaucer.



And now you have the Koran, a document that's heavy on poetry, that is illegal to translate, study, dissect, or give any historical context to, written in a language no one has used in fifteen centuries.



And it has been translated. I've read it … it's still bloody unreadable.



Congratulations, your local leaders can now make it say whatever they like. Say what you like about the Bible, but it has been poked, prodded, dissected, vivisected, and footnoted to within an inch of its life, and it gets a new translation every few years.



And in Europe, you have a whole bunch of immigrant youth, being brought up in Mosques so insane that they're run by rejects from the Middle East, because they were so nuts even the Wahhabi's wouldn't take them. They're all in an environment that is either so antithetical that they're hostile (Chirac's France) or so accommodating that they're letting the nutjobs take over (Holland).



Oh, and you didn't have suicide bombers in the 1920s. Or the 1940s—and the technology was there, the Japanese Imperial Army had suicide bombers near the end of the war in the pacific. Suicide bombers were not invented in the Middle East ... they were invented by the Ayatollah Khomeini, in the 1980s, when he was fighting a war against Iraq, and losing, badly. Suicide bombers were his way of balancing the scales. And as one book notes, Khomeini was inspired by … post-modern, French deconstructionists.



At the end of the day, does being Muslim make you evil? Hell no. Otherwise we would already have the Caliphates of Dearborn Michigan, Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, and possibly Detroit. The problem with the modern Middle East actually start in the “Post-Christian” Europe, with Fascism, and Tsarist Russia creating the Protocols … if you never thought anything good ever came out of Tsarist Russia, well, you were right.  However, all of this grew up in a soil rich for planting – the middle east has a culture that hasn't changed in over two thousand years.



And it has nothing to do with the religion. It has everything to do with a warped cultural and political sense that occasionally intersects with bad religion and bad people. And the culture that is so very very static …



Still don't believe me?



There is An example that recently came to my attention: an old text that discusses the locals making their women cover their faces.



Was this written in the Wahabist 19th century? No.



In the High Imperial, Ottoman time period, in, say, the 1500s? No.



Was it even back in Mohammed’s time? No.



It was the Bible.



One of Joseph's brothers sleeps with a “Canaanite woman” who had her face covered, in the custom of “her people.” It was a scam, but it made me think. Canaan was a long, long time ago… does anything ever change there?



Because in the beginning, there was the Persian Empire. You know them, you saw 300—and the Persian Empire was actually worse than the film portrayed. No, they weren't Lord of the Ring-like mutant orcs, that was dramatic license when the story is told in bardic format. But the Persian Empire had no concept of freedom or liberty. No concept. No frame of reference. Not even the basic idea. How do I know? Simple.



There was no word for “freedom.”



Eight hundred years later, after Darius III, Alexander the Great, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Byzantines … all of whom weren't big on freedom, unless you were a citizen of said empire (and that only came in with the Romans). And up comes the rise of Islam, The Prophet, blah blah blah … When exactly was the word “freedom” supposed to come into play?



Add Western fascist ideology. Stir well.



I believe I will leave the last word to my friend, Jason Bieber (this is paraphrased, so bear with me).  "Islam changed the culture at the top. It didn't change the culture at the bottom."



And, when you consider that large parts of the culture hasn't changed much since Xerxes, that says something.




********************



Comments are welcome.  Disagreements are encouraged, but only if you are coherant, and can at least offer evidence for your arguments (references wouldn't hurt).  Also, this is a PG blog.  Any R-rated language will result in your comments being deleted, no matter how good your points are.  I dislike pointing that out, but prior events have made it a necessity.