Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks.

In previous articles having to do with politics, I have described myself as apathetic, or left or right depending on where the jury is from. I hate all politics, so I could be summed up as fair and mentally unbalanced.



What about religion? The same rules apply.



If anyone is familiar with the George Carlin routine [link rated R for language] about religion, it involves him talking about the Invisible Man in the Sky, and He Wants MONEY. When I first saw it, I thought it was hilarious. A nice little parody of the Catholic church when he was growing up.



Then I discovered that it's what he believed. Him, Bill Maher, and a whole bunch of other people.



Now, it could be that I'm a snob. My BA in philosophy might as well have been in Catholic philosophy. My father with the PhD in catholic Philosophy taught me more about the faith than my Catholic schools ever did. I get the impression that if my education mirrored George Carlin's, I'd turn out much like him. I would like to think that I could do my own research to learn what was going on, but who knows.



Atheists do not annoy me. Seriously. Two of my friends are atheists. One was my best friend before she went crazy with extremist politics—I was going crazy with PhD studies at the time, so that didn't help either.



My other atheist acquaintance is the primary artist for this website, Matt. He says he's a militant atheist. I disagree. If only because I've met militant atheists, and they have hated my guts for no other reason than I am religious. They couldn't do something reasonable like get to know me and my personality quirks before they hated me.



And I love those hate-filled nutjobs. Truly I do. They're amusing. If only because they spend a lot of them telling me what I think. It's sort of like my political article. I try to tell people what I believe politically, and from one sentence (usually a half sentence) they leap to amazing conclusions about what I think, what I believe, and why I believe it. They're funny as heck.



Then again, I may have a strange sense of humor.



So, what annoys me? If I blame George Carlin on bad education, and Bill Maher on being … himself, really … and I find Anti-Catholic twits a source of amusement, then what exactly would set me off in terms of religion?



1) Anti-Theists: a segment of the population that isn't talked about very often, Anti-Theists are exactly as the title says, they are against believers. My friend Matt may believe that religions are stupid, or that the bulk of religious people are stupid, but he doesn't hate my guts because of my faith. There are folks who have suggested that children should be taken away from believers just because they believe; or that Christians should be charged with child abuse because they tell their children that Jesus Loves Them. Anti-Theists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris believe that those who believe in God are dangerous, even criminal. I congratulate Dawkins, Harris and their ilk on making discrimination and bigotry acceptable.



2) The Politically Correct. The Transportation Safety Authority is on everyone's list recently, so I see no reason to leave them out of my list of irritants. Recently, a front group for the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood had trained the Transportation Security Officers of Los Angeles International Airport in how to be “sensitive” to members of Islam. I particularly enjoyed where “if a woman wears hijab and needs a secondary screening she should be screened in a private area by a female TSO officer.”

I like the headgear on the TSA offical.

However, they can give patdowns to nuns in public.



My main quibble there is that they can either accommodate all religions equally, or they can leave religion out of the equation. It strikes me as racist and bigoted: Why be sensitive to the religious of Islam and not Christians? Are Muslims somehow more sensitive than Christians or even Jews?



Again, it may just be me, but when I'm told “We have to give Muslims special treatment,” what I hear is: “We're going to patronize the poor sensitive little darlings, pat them on the head, and accommodate their ignorance so we can show how enlightened we are.”



Like I said, I find it demeaning and racist. It could just be me.



3) Anti-Christmas people. Fine, you don't like commercialism, good for you, neither do I. If you actually believe that Christmas is the season for love, peace on Earth, etc, and you dislike the crass commercialism of the season, I'm with you. Let's get together and sing Christmas carols down the street.

If you think that my wishing you “Merry Christmas” somehow means that I am demeaning you, you are an idiot. And you are probably looking to be offended. I say Happy Hannukah, and I say Merry Christmas, and I might even be persuaded to say happy Kwansa if I ever find somebody who follows that particular day. If you do not like it, feel free to complain. The complaint department in on the right



4) People who should know better, but lie. Earlier posts in this blog about the origins of the novel have mentioned how I came across people who researched on the Pius XII situation, noted the books they used, and spun a yawn that directly contradict the facts. Liars with an agenda … they tend to irritate me.



5) Jesus Freaks. You know who I mean. The people I mentioned in a previous post, where they're not interested in what you believe in, or what you have to say, they just wish to talk you to death with whatever rote lines of dialogue they have. They start with “Have you accepted Jay-sus Christ your own personal savior?” And, regardless of what you answer, they will push on as though you haven't spoken. Then we whip out the tazer and make them slightly crispy. I prefer atheists like Daniel Dennett. He's at least reasonable. I prefer atheists like Matt, or like my former friend Colleen; they may not like religion, but they usually point at reasonable problems.



In short, I dislike the willfully-ignorant and the mean-spirited. 



But, I suppose it comes down to "Who doesnt?"

Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks.

In previous articles having to do with politics, I have described myself as apathetic, or left or right depending on where the jury is from. I hate all politics, so I could be summed up as fair and mentally unbalanced.

What about religion? The same rules apply.

If anyone is familiar with the George Carlin routine [link rated R for language] about religion, it involves him talking about the Invisible Man in the Sky, and He Wants MONEY. When I first saw it, I thought it was hilarious. A nice little parody of the Catholic church when he was growing up.

Then I discovered that it's what he believed. Him, Bill Maher, and a whole bunch of other people.

Now, it could be that I'm a snob. My BA in philosophy might as well have been in Catholic philosophy. My father with the PhD in catholic Philosophy taught me more about the faith than my Catholic schools ever did. I get the impression that if my education mirrored George Carlin's, I'd turn out much like him. I would like to think that I could do my own research to learn what was going on, but who knows.

Atheists do not annoy me. Seriously. Two of my friends are atheists. One was my best friend before she went crazy with extremist politics—I was going crazy with PhD studies at the time, so that didn't help either.

My other atheist acquaintance is the primary artist for this website, Matt. He says he's a militant atheist. I disagree. If only because I've met militant atheists, and they have hated my guts for no other reason than I am religious. They couldn't do something reasonable like get to know me and my personality quirks before they hated me.

And I love those hate-filled nutjobs. Truly I do. They're amusing. If only because they spend a lot of them telling me what I think. It's sort of like my political article. I try to tell people what I believe politically, and from one sentence (usually a half sentence) they leap to amazing conclusions about what I think, what I believe, and why I believe it. They're funny as heck.



Then again, I may have a strange sense of humor.



So, what annoys me? If I blame George Carlin on bad education, and Bill Maher on being … himself, really … and I find Anti-Catholic twits a source of amusement, then what exactly would set me off in terms of religion?

1) Anti-Theists: a segment of the population that isn't talked about very often, Anti-Theists are exactly as the title says, they are against believers. My friend Matt may believe that religions are stupid, or that the bulk of religious people are stupid, but he doesn't hate my guts because of my faith. There are folks who have suggested that children should be taken away from believers just because they believe; or that Christians should be charged with child abuse because they tell their children that Jesus Loves Them. Anti-Theists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris believe that those who believe in God are dangerous, even criminal. I congratulate Dawkins, Harris and their ilk on making discrimination and bigotry acceptable.

2) The Politically Correct. The Transportation Safety Authority is on everyone's list recently, so I see no reason to leave them out of my list of irritants. Recently, a front group for the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood had trained the Transportation Security Officers of Los Angeles International Airport in how to be “sensitive” to members of Islam. I particularly enjoyed where “if a woman wears hijab and needs a secondary screening she should be screened in a private area by a female TSO officer.”

I like the headgear on the TSA offical.

However, they can give patdowns to nuns in public.

My main quibble there is that they can either accommodate all religions equally, or they can leave religion out of the equation. It strikes me as racist and bigoted: Why be sensitive to the religious of Islam and not Christians? Are Muslims somehow more sensitive than Christians or even Jews?

Again, it may just be me, but when I'm told “We have to give Muslims special treatment,” what I hear is: “We're going to patronize the poor sensitive little darlings, pat them on the head, and accommodate their ignorance so we can show how enlightened we are.”

Like I said, I find it demeaning and racist. It could just be me.

3) Anti-Christmas people. Fine, you don't like commercialism, good for you, neither do I. If you actually believe that Christmas is the season for love, peace on Earth, etc, and you dislike the crass commercialism of the season, I'm with you. Let's get together and sing Christmas carols down the street.

If you think that my wishing you “Merry Christmas” somehow means that I am demeaning you, you are an idiot. And you are probably looking to be offended. I say Happy Hannukah, and I say Merry Christmas, and I might even be persuaded to say happy Kwansa if I ever find somebody who follows that particular day. If you do not like it, feel free to complain. The complaint department in on the right

4) People who should know better, but lie. Earlier posts in this blog about the origins of the novel have mentioned how I came across people who researched on the Pius XII situation, noted the books they used, and spun a yawn that directly contradict the facts. Liars with an agenda … they tend to irritate me.

5) Jesus Freaks. You know who I mean. The people I mentioned in a previous post, where they're not interested in what you believe in, or what you have to say, they just wish to talk you to death with whatever rote lines of dialogue they have. They start with “Have you accepted Jay-sus Christ your own personal savior?” And, regardless of what you answer, they will push on as though you haven't spoken. Then we whip out the tazer and make them slightly crispy. I prefer atheists like Daniel Dennett. He's at least reasonable. I prefer atheists like Matt, or like my former friend Colleen; they may not like religion, but they usually point at reasonable problems.

In short, I dislike the willfully-ignorant and the mean-spirited.

But, I suppose it comes down to "Who doesnt?"

Looking back on 9/11, ten years later.

[A more clinical and objective view can be found here.]



When I first walked into English class at St. John's University, it was a little before 9am. The professor was one Dr. Robert Forman.  He was always entertaining, and there's something about him that tells you he cares that you learn something in his class.



The first person I saw was my classmate Tony.  I said hello, and he asked, "Did you hear something about a plane running into the World Trade Center?"



And I laughed.  All I could think is what idiot could have missed noticing that there were two rather large buttersticks in the sky right in front of him?



I explained that to Tony.  He agreed, and I gave it no thought at all for the rest of the 90-minute class.



I went from one class to another -- Christian Spirituality and Mysticism, 10:40am, taught by a priest whose name I can't recall right this moment.  He was not only pleasant, but happy.  He was also very Italian, and joked about it often.



When I arrived, the professor wasn't there, and someone came into class saying that classes were canceled.



Huh.  That's odd.



I went to the nearest inter-university phone and called my father -- who was an Assistant Dean at SJU.  I called, told him my class was cancelled, and how are you doing?



"Come to the office."



Ok .... click.



Walking from one building to the other required that I cross from Marillac Hall, past Council and Newman Halls -- a narrow corridor outside that was as well directed as any sidewalk intersection without a traffic stop.



Ironically, it was afforded the best view of the Manhattan skyline that the University had to offer, without going into the university library --- SJU is, for the record, the highest point in Queens.



But, I didn't stop for a second. My pace was quick and even, mainly because there were so few people in my way -- for once.



Though there was one odd bit of business going on at the time, something I found odd even before I made it to my father's office: there were clusters of people with their cell phones out.  After the third such group, I felt like I was in a scene from Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds.



I walked into my father's office at the other side of the library, and before I could even open my mouth, my father said, "Planes have crashed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.  The twin towers are gone, and the Pentagon is burning."



And I remember this quite clearly, because I had a little red notebook with me at the time ... my first thought was "Didn't Tom Clancy already write this novel?"



My father suggested I go to the library, and observe the skyline.  by the time I got there, the library was locked.  So I walked back to the terrace I had just gone over.



Instead of a skyline, there were ground based storm clouds running from south to north.  I stood there for an unknown length of time, completely focused on it.  I didn't even notice my acquaintance Andy walk up next to me.



"I can't wrap my mind around it," he said.  "I can't believe they're gone."



 If I replied to him, I don't remember.









Much of what I had from that day I have preserved in my little red notebook -- a habitual writer's thing, a notebook.



I thought that Fr. Andrew Greeley was writing a column right that moment ... and he was, one that focused on the calmness of New Yorkers evacuating into New Jersey.



I thought that I had to rewrite my thriller novels, because one of them was a CIA assassin, and at that moment, I knew what she was doing at that exact moment in history.



I also knew that Osama bin Laden was a dead man walking. One way or another, someone was going to hunt him down, and shoot him.  Probably after he was hurt ... a lot.



On the way home, we had to drive around Union Turnpike, since the local park was a great site for emergency vehicles to assemble.



My family could only watch television that day because we had cable.  We must have watched the towers fall a dozen times by the end of the day.  There were theories that Camp David might be a target, because the Camp David accords had an anniversary that day, or soon.  And there was supposedly a car bomb outside of the state department.



The initial estimated dead: 55,000.  By 1pm, it had become 10,000.



At 6pm that evening, I was amused by a report.... four hours after the attacks in New York, parts of Kabul were burning. The Taliban were under attack. I wondered if (1) Mossad moved really fast, or (2), the dissidents wanted to get on our good side.  I would later learn that a leader of the Northern Alliance had been assassinated by the Taliban several days before, and that was their reprisal.

By that evening, there were 200 firemen missing, and 70 cops also MIA.



We had learned that there were people who jumped out of the towers rather than burn.



The next day, there was a pledge of support from Vladimir Putin.  Thousands of pints of blood were on the way from Israel....



And at 7:36 am on the morning of September 12th, the news had a good image of the Empire State building, with smoke in the background...



There was also no looting ... because this is not Los Angeles.  This is New York, where even the criminals were nice enough (or smart enough) to stay home.  There was a seven hour wait to give blood, until they were only those who were turned away.

We had shocking news: The NY Times said something nice about "the nazi," Mayor Rudy Guiliani, calling him Churchill in a baseball cap.



NY Governor Pataki had come down.  He thanked a fireman in critical condition for  his service, and the fireman said, "Well, what to you expect?"



And by night, there were so many who showed up with lit candles, the city looked like it was on fire.



By January 20, 2002, we had a count around 2,900 dead.



Ann Coulter made a statement that many were pissed off about: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

A quote which could be offensive if not for two things .... one: if you ever get a chance to read that article, you will notice that it was about mostly about a friend of hers, Barbara Olsen .... she was on a plane that flew into the Pentagon. So, she was annoyed.

When asked about it later, she told Fox news democrat Alan Colmes "We better convert them to something, even if it's what you call 'real Islam.' "

Which, frankly, converting the 10% of the muslim world that hate us (about 120 million, give or take) to something other than a sharia-variant would be a good idea.



My feelings about it were simple, and summed up by a quote from the tv show West Wing:

“We need to kill them, we need to find them and to kill them. We kill them. Then we find out who sent them and we kill them too. You kill the people who did it. You kill the people who planned it. Then you kill everyone who is happy about it….

I think at the end of the day, more people would rather have Ann Coulter's solution of converting people who want to kill us, even if it's to generic, Atlantic-avenue Islam, would be a better idea than my general feelings on the matter.

But, frankly, I don't think it's a matter of religion. Americans have protests and near riots over any civilian caught in a war zone. Instead, there were people who were having parties over 9-11; if someone feels happy about killing civilians, there is something wrong with that person as a human being. That person is about the same level as the average serial killer.

But, that was ten years ago .....

****

It's ten years later.

The cops and firemen who were there are being locked out of any 9/11 memorial.



They've locked out any and all priests from even showing up.



The cross forged from I-beams of the tower are being threatened by atheists with nothing better to do.



The unions who showed up in force to clear the rubble of the towers have started to turn it into a political freakshow.



Rye play land in New York has a "Muslim Day," and it turns into a riot because they banned all headgear from roller coasters.  This includes a a hijab -- something about not wanting the woman strangled or decapitated.



There are no replacement buildings yet.



And, damnit, I want a WTC with a missile battery.



Everyone likes to say never forget.



I hope this has made some people remember.

Week in Review: 8-4-2011: Oslo, Abdo, Ringo. Can I buy a different vowel?

This week was just strange.

Over at Examiner.com, I have three articles that apparently went over very well with the editors. One is on DSK and Rape, another on an upsurge of "stranger danger"  and finally, Oslo, Abdo, a tale of two terrorists, and why looks can be deceiving. 

In yet another moment of being pissed off, I discussed how the Oslo bomber has more in common with Richard Dawkins than Pat Robertson .... this will be the only time I may make a complimentary statement about Pat Robertson.

And then I turned around and decided to beat Pfc Nasser Abdo soundly around the head and shoulders.  If you don't know him, he tried to blow up Ft. Hood .... again.

And, due to all of the political crap going on this week, I posted a blog I wrote in January, but never got around to publishing, mainly because I wanted to avoid the garbage at the time.  But I held onto it, because I don't throw anything out.  The Topic?  The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, and "political civility."  How's that working out for everyone?

My music blog on Tuesday was the return of Tom Smith, with a smidgen of Tom Lehrer. If you don't know who Lehrer is, you should.

I had an entire post dedicated to the books of John Ringo .... untrue, actually. I have a review of one of his novels.  However, that post does have a link to a whole bunch of free e-books, so knock yourself out.

Also, keep in mind, Masks, chapter three, is posted online.  If you haven't read the fun little novel by Rebekah Hendershot, do so.  Now.  You can find the first three chapters here

Index: Atheists, Lent, and Evil Religions

Throughout Easter and a Lent, I did a lot of what my friend Jason called "High Intellectual" articles.


I'm never making that mistake ever again.

However, since it did have some interesting fan support.... if "fans" could be people screaming for your blood ... I figured I'd put it into a nice, compact little section on the blog. Think of it as a season in review that, with luck, I'll never inflict on anyone ever again.

The Snarky Theology series. My way of translating dogmatic theology into something that human beings can understand.

Snarky Theology 1: Catholic Cannibals. Looking at the theology of Swallow the leader. Eating your deity.
Snarky Theology 2: FAQs about Lent. Some fun facts about Lent that turned into a minor war.

The Flame war is postponed:While I was busy having a flame war with an idiot on the blog, someone did something stupid online. I fought back in the name of all sane people everywhere.

Snarky theology 3: Evolution, Creationists, and other Irritants. Evolution, what is it good for? My answer: who cares?

Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays Pretty much what it says.

GOD H8TS JAPAN; Twitting with Phelps & Co.  Hint, it was published on 4-1-11

Snarky Theology 5: The Passion, Jews, and Good Friday. 

Snarky Theolgy 6: Easter: HE IS RISEN





The Guest Blog Index -- "Catholic fiction"-- I had two weeks off from Snarky theology for two virtual book tours. One was a bit of Sherlock Holmes with Murder in the Vatican, and some Catholic science fiction from Karina Fabian's Infinite Space, Infinite God II

Murder in the Vatican Author Margaret Ann Lewis.

Guest blog (on writing historical figures in fiction) and Interview (on writing a book on Sherlock Holmes and Pope Leo XIII), and a Review of Murder in the Vatican, which can be found at Amazon.com

I did the same for Karina Fabian.

The Guest blog: where she talks about writing religion and science fiction

The interview, where I unleash my inner nerdom ...

And a review.

I think that was the most fun I had had that Lent. They were both a joy and a pleasure to have.

Evil Religions

And, at the end of may, when the Easter season was almost over, I did a series I call, simply "Evil Religion." The title, for the record, was Ironic. It wound up covering a lot of atheist theology. Not sure why. Maybe because the Dawkins-Hitchens crowd tend to whine alot.

I had a Preface to explain the premise.

One called simply "Allahu Akbar" Guess what that's about.

Jesus Freaks scare me

Baby-raping Catholic priests

The Ten commandments of Atheism, if I wrote them

Evil Religion: Atheism

Science and Religion: Stupid Catholics.

Anti-theist complaints: Literal interpretations. I asked my friend Matt what he thought was wrong with religion. I answered him.  This was pretty much a series all it's own from here on in.

Mormons and Gays.

Indoctrination of Children. Because religious education is brain washing, don't you know?

Doctrine Crapshoot. Because everything is just pick and choose, right?

Religious Superiority complexes: Because religion is the source of egomania, after all.

Random Beliefs. Because it's all so random, you know?

Conform, or else.... because no one ever goes against a secular norm.

Evil Atheist / Religion, Conclusion.  This is where I tie it all together.

Can you understand why this blog is now all nerd-dom all the time?  This was a draining, wrenching experience. One that I never want to relive. 

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....

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.]