01.18.08
Posted in Atheism, Evolution, Personal, Religion/Spirituality, Science at 10:34 pm by Moody
“You can’t be a rational person six days a week … and on one day of the week, go to a building, and think you’re drinking the blood of a two thousand year old space god.”—Bill Maher
Let’s make one thing clear from the outset: Whatever I might prefer, I shall have no say in whether our boy chooses of his own free will to be an atheist, a monotheist, a polytheist, a pantheist, an animist or a panpsychist. He shall become what he will. What I care about is that he is well-educated and is able to understand the difference between a scientific theory and an unscientific or non-scientific belief. That said, it follows that I want for him, regardless of his chosen belief system or lack thereof, to understand that life evolved and continues to evolve on this little blue-green planet. I want for him to understand that the theory of evolution—as set forth by Charles Darwin and others, and thence, with the gleaning of ever more data, modified by countless scientists over the next hundred-plus years—represents the ongoing efforts of a great many scientists to explain, elucidate, explicate, clarify and interpret how evolution works, and that the theory is not “just an idea” or “belief” maintained by a few dogmatic scientists as they stew in a fancifully conjured but non-existent hotbed of righteous controversy. Put another way, I do not want our boy’s developing mind to be waylaid by the twaddle, bunkum, poppycock, bullshit and ultimate drivel espoused by some very vocal ignorant twits who believe literally, like half-witted naïfs, in what the Bible (or any other so-called sacred text) says. I want the boy to have uncommon sense, the kind that comes with much education taken to heart.
When a child, not yet 10 years old, attempts to tell an “anti-evolutionist” joke but is confused when you state that the theory of evolution does not say that we “came from monkeys”, one can be fairly positive that some irresponsible adult is behind the effort. When that same child then states that “evolution isn’t real” and claims to know this because he is “a Christian”, there can be no doubt whatsoever that some ignorant and twittish adult is behind it. In the case of our boy, it is his ham-fisted biological father who is attempting, with the guidance of a domineering white trash wife, to warp his mind. It’s the sort of thing that can make you throw up a little in your mouth. I mean, his bio-dad and step-mom are the kind who have a giant “Jesus Freak” sticker (in scratchy ‘agitpop’ lettering) on the rear window of their car.
I stand firmly with Dawkins and others who state simply that the religious indoctrination of a child is child abuse. A child, however precocious, is highly unlikely to understand that there is a significant difference between what is called a scientific theory and what is called “God’s revealed [or ‘living’] truth”. When a parent says that something is true, a child is likely to believe it, especially when the parent attributes that truth to an even greater parental figure in the sky who the parent worships. Children are naturally gullible and credulous. They must rely on the experienced comprehension, the seasoned understanding, of their parents. This is not a bad thing, because trust in what a parent tells you may save your life or will at least make your life easier. But for a parent to selfishly mislead a child in the name of a highly questionable fantasy is… wrong, abusive, sick. I expect, of course, to be told that raising a child as a de facto member of this or that religion is normal, natural and good; that it introduces morality, otherwise presumed absent or somehow immanently inferior without it; that it may very well save the child from eternal damnation at the hands of an all-merciful, all-forgiving, all-loving “God”. Personally, I call that supreme, unadulterated, 100% bullshit. I say that that’s exactly the kind of drivel that makes a person puke even through the angry laughter of disbelief.
You may call the process of brainwashing indoctrination normal, but you should remember that it was once considered quite “normal” to beat children (–which, I know, you “spare the rod and spoil the child” types still think it should be so considered), and to keep slaves, and to treat women like chattel and indigenous peoples like plague (often while violently forcing their religious conversion, no less). “Natural and good” are, taken together or apart, suspect from the get-go. When you define nature in creationist terms, positing a supernatural agent as the author of all nature’s laws (which said agent may break on a whim), then I must look askance at anything you might call “natural”. The same goes for your idea of what’s “good” when, according to your beliefs, “good” is whatever “God” says it is. When you can read about “God” ordering the slaughter of men, women, children, babies (born and unborn), and say that it’s “good”, for whatever reason, then I must hold your concept of “good” in contempt.
As for morality, “God” is neither required nor suggested; the word’s Latin root, mor-, simply means ‘custom’. The morality of the Bible is preserved as an historic religious record of a relatively small number of people who lived over 2000 years ago. As a book it is biased toward promoting the view of certain sects of the time while denigrating others, and has a subtle pro-Roman stance. The historicity of many of its books is dubious (where the book in question is not already utterly beyond such consideration; e.g. Genesis), and the preposterous claims liberally sprinkled throughout the pages of the books it comprises are completely undermining of any respectable assertion of Biblical authority a reasonable person might make. I would dare go so far as to say that this is true of most so-called “Holy Books” the world over.
It is, frankly, horrifically despicable to inflict upon a child the notion of damnation, to fill his or her head with images of an all-powerful “God” condemning unbelievers and failed persons to eternal torment. When you consider that one of the people threatened with this endless wailing and gnashing of teeth is one of the child’s parents…. Well, it’s sickening. How could that not be damaging to a child’s developing mind? What a din of cognitive dissonance! How could that not create an unbearable helplessness and thus necessitate a split from the parent ostracized by “God”? How could that not succeed at being isolating in terms of the child’s sense of place in the greater world? A scarring shame should be visited upon any adult so selfishly motivated (by delusion or stratagem) as to poison the healthy development of a mind. And yet it is that a great many people around this country would consider me to be in the wrong.
Some would suggest that they would only teach “God’s love”, charity and kindness, honesty and good will. They would say that those other people are simply misled. But I say bollocks to that! It’s a cop out. Unless you’ve revised your own Bible (or Koran or whatever) or otherwise bowdlerized it–which, so far as I am aware, would make you a heretic or blasphemer–then you are copping out when it comes to a) the truth of what’s in your so-called “Holy Book” and b) dealing with what it is your fellow adherents believe that book to mean. If those other people are wrong, then isn’t it up to you to prove it to them, to enlighten them, to shun them if they will not see reason? If you allow fanatics to scream their misunderstanding as if it represented your religion, as if it were the “gospel truth”, then are you not tacitly allowing that they are merely more vociferous members of your congregation who say what you will not? Are you afraid of schism? Are you afraid of drawing attention? Are you afraid… or just indolent or cowardly? If your “Holy Book” says some rotten things, shouldn’t you deal with that? If the banner of your religion stretches over twisted trolls whose sickness you deplore, shouldn’t you expel them rather than accept the degradation of your fine beliefs? Shouldn’t you be most vocal about it?
As for me, I see no saving grace in religion. I don’t care what goodness it supposedly inspires, because goodness does not come from it; from what I’ve seen, real goodness comes despite it. Real goodness may sometimes ride on the back of religion, as one might ride a mule, but it is more honorable when it walks on its own two feet, under its own power. In the case of our boy’s bio-dad and step-mom, they’d let the mule of religion trample him while they waved to “God” and whispered surreptitiously to each other about how pleasing it would be to watch their enemies burn forever. Sick delusions often have real consequences.
In the boy’s name I will fight their influence, and I will do so with my love for him.
Listening to: Leonard Bernstein & London Symphony Orchestra - The Rite of Spring: V. Games of the Rival Tribes
via FoxyTunes
Permalink
04.08.07
Posted in Atheism, Politics, Society and Culture at 3:28 pm by Moody
They talk without being criticized nearly enough:
“When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil.” — Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action)
They get free time on the airwaves and are paid by flocks of the faithful to guide them:
“I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.” — Pat Robertson (Christian Coalition)
They hold positions of governmental authority and have great influence on public policy:
“The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” — William Rehnquist (Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court)
They would teach our children:
“The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ.” — James Kennedy (Center for Reclaiming America)
– They are the American Taliban.
Like it or not, we, as Americans, are involved in a culture war as surely as Middle-Eastern nations are involved in one. It is a war of ideas — ideas that make policies — the outcome of which will determine who controls America. Lately the focus has shifted to an especially anti-science tack, but it is still a part of an overall strategy by a vicious core of Dominionists whose goal is nothing less than the theocratic take-over of America.
It’s a long way from my childhood. Sitting here writing this on Easter — a holiday that means nothing to me now — I can’t but be drawn back to my childhood. I was raised as a Catholic during the liberal ’70s. The church that my parents, and therefore I, attended had long-haired twenty-somethings in front of the congregation, sitting there in blouses and flowery skirts, corduroy pants and peasant shirts, playing acoustic guitar and bongos, and singing about the “Unity of All Humankind”, and the most often repeated message was that love, acceptance and compassion were the truest and best characteristics of a great human being. It was as progressive a church as you were likely to find, really. Which is not to say I understood or even knew then about the Roman Catholic message or the history of the Church.
And that’s sort of the point. Had I been a faithful member and grown up believing, never seeking to plumb the depths of its secretive mind, it is not at all unlikely that I’d have accepted whatever moral and political positions the Pope dictated. I would have done what my parents did, or at least done as they ordered. I would have taken for granted the righteousness of my faith and turned scorn on anyone who called it into question. I do in fact gratefully credit my basically liberal education and temperament for brining me to my senses.
America is, to its fortune, filled with a plethora of cultures, ethnicities, faiths and philosophies. Many of the faiths found in America are ostensibly Christian. And quite a few of these Christian faiths are evangelical or fundamentalist. The numbers of adherents they possess gives them a sense of security in their beliefs; the larger the flock, the greater the courage of ease. I think it is fair to say that the average worshiper is not concerned so much with how his or her personal faith interfaces with the political realm; she or he will vote for the person or party that attracts the majority of the flock or the one the shepherd touts as best. This is certainly understandable. But it also sets up a situation where the average worshiper may wind up as a tool used by those whose agenda is essentially at odds with the supposed core tenets of the faith, and given enough time such leaders with ulterior motives can sway entirely the faith of the congregation, perverting or repurposing it to satisfy their own ends while maintaining the illusion that they are serving the community of believers.
The culture war in America is centered around the conflict between the Dominionists’ and (at the risk of sounding glib) non-Dominionists’ opposing Weltanschauungen. Specifically, in America the enemies of the Dominionists are most often pluralists, socialists/Marxists, and secular humanists, but it would be remiss to fail mentioning that Dominionism is also completely opposed to womanism/feminisim, anarchism, and, ultimately, democracy itself. In fact, if there is anything akin to Dominionism, in theory and initiating praxis, it is straightforward fascism (a point that David Neiwert of Orcinus has eloquently driven home a number of times). To that end the Dominionists have campaigned surreptitiously to recast “Jesus” as something of a Billy O’Reilly-Graham hybrid. The “meek and mild” shepherd model is out, the sword-bearing Savior is in. This image better sustains the political fire fueling the Dominionist machine for several reasons, but the most important reason it is useful is that it mobilizes otherwise pacific Christians in a military way. Naturally, the “War on Terror” has helped the cause. Coupled with the particularly bellicose and morbid fantasies of the very popular Left Behind series, the “War on Terror” is a banner to fly over the “Army of Christ” as it marches to apocalyptic war against its adversaries, personified and demonized as “Satan” and “the Anti-Christ”. What is immediately apparent, too, is that the idea of who a ‘terrorist’ is or can be comprises any and all who oppose Dominionism and its politically charged evangelical ideals. A war on terrorists would to some degree require specific geo-locations to serve as “battle fronts”, and this was almost the case early on when the “Axis of Evil” propaganda was in vogue. But a war on terror itself needs no place, no specific location in the world, because terror is a ubiquitous, polymorphic force with a surprisingly plastic definition that can just as easily turn up in the shape of your neighbor as in a plane crashing into a building.
The theocracy envisioned by the Dominionists (and their allies) is deadly to the democracy painstakingly brought into being by our flawed but far-seeing signers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Theocracy is anathema to anyone who supports the idea that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (The Declaration of Independence) — a concept that has in fact been attacked by a large number of people both in and outside of governmental offices. In our government’s offices the expected belief in [the Christian] “God” has made the job of the Dominionists easier. Certainly such an expectation of belief has been bolstered by the ridiculous institutionalized act of swearing on the Bible, an act which, like any professed belief itself, has failed to ensure anything in court or in any other circumstances; liars lie regardless of oaths. It might be wryly observed, based on recent history, that those most likely to swear on a Bible are exactly the ones most likely to lie.
In any case, I don’t think that the majority of self-proclaimed Christians in this country want to live under theocratic rule, and I am willing to bet that a great many of them would be more than a little uncomfortable with the goals and methods of the Dominionists. And it should go without saying that thinking Americans will always be, by default, against any form of theocracy, however apparently benevolent in intent, but especially one that is so steeped in arrogant nationalism, misogyny, homophobia, racism and xenophobia. Though faulted a country it was and remains, it was not the American way during this country’s formative years to accept the rule of tyrants, dictators, or kings. I don’t think that that has changed, really. But there is always the danger that — failing the eternal vigilance of those who know better, those educated people who have learned from history — the liberties we as a nation have cherished and striven for will be taken from us by people who in their ignorance, pride, and thirst for power, who in their desire for security and an absolute authority to follow unquestioningly, who in their bitterly rueful naïeveté and all-too-knowing selfishness will sincerely believe they are doing the right thing (if only for themselves and their kin). We have seen it before, and we ourselves have all but done in whole peoples following such desires. Must we do it to ourselves at long last? Are we doing it even now?
We must each remember the parting shot of Patrick Henry — “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” — and we must set them to a purpose better suited to the global village we inhabit but a corner of; we must make it our hue and cry in the name of all people, of any faith or none, regardless of race, creed, color, ethnicity, and irrespective of gender and sexual orientation. We must bring down the Dominionists and their schemes for an American theocracy. It is long past time for leaving behind our childish things, our black-and-white thinking, our selfish sense of superiority and righteousness. There is too much at stake, and there is so much to learn from the world.
. . . . . .
For more information regarding this topic, please see First Freedom First. Please also check out the Blog Against Theocracy.
Permalink
03.25.07
Posted in Atheism, Out in the World, Personal, Religion/Spirituality at 12:00 pm by Moody
The weekend comes, the weekend goes; the work week looms on the horizon. I think a lot about my work week for a number of reasons. I recall the lines from the World of Skin song, “24 Hours”: “24 hours split three ways. Because you bought one third, you own everything.” My days at work are not so bad, really. My days at work are dealt with. I go, I make the effort, I do my best, and in the end they tell me that they appreciate me. And then there’s the fact that they pay me. There’s just enough money in my bank account — never mind the overdraft charges — to keep the world from rending my flesh, to keep the world from snapping and splintering my bones. I need my job, and I am grateful that they appreciate me. I am five nines certain (haha) my job is safe and secure… and that I am, by extension, safe and secure.
Still, I know that I’ll be the only one showing up in a shirt with the likeness of Hunter S. Thompson on it. Trust me on that; not a single person at my job even knew who H.S.T. was. So it should not be surprising that I am quite sure I’ll likely be the only one ever to talk about anything outside the — to my eyes oddly coffin-shaped — box of broad social mores, American culture (defined by the vox populi) and whatever pop music/TV/literature permeates the air where I work. I know that this is in part because they know, as well as I do, that work is “not the place” for philosophy, art, politics, religion, sexuality, or other discussions of intimately personal import. Risking a test comment in those areas now and again has only ever led to glazed-over eyes and the apprehension of an imbalanced discomfort that quickly corrected itself with an uncomfortable silence. Sadly, safer topics like, say, space exploration and the sciences have proven themselves to be of no interest to my coworkers. They are, for me, a front row ticket to the theater of wistfulness. So in the end it is simply my misfortune that those are just the things that make me feel alive in the world.
I don’t know what there is to do about it, but I think I ought to, for my own sake, do something. Kisha has suggested to me a few times now that I need to make friends outside of work (other than her, my best friend and true love, of course). I’ve not got the foggiest idea how to actually go about doing that, but…
Life seldom seems to give without a bit of taking, to build without a little destruction, to improve without some fraction of degradation. Life is an ongoing practice in sacrifice… of the bridge, baseball, chess or insane variety, I know not from day to day. What I do know is that one can sacrifice everything — and remember that ‘to sacrifice’ means ‘to make sacred’ — and wind up with nothing, which on some days truly makes me wonder if indeed nothing is sacred. Of course, if you have nothing to begin with then perhaps the sacrifice is worthwhile. And maybe it is that I am deluded in my thought, in my feeling, in my belief, that I once had something. Something, that is, that I wouldn’t ever sacrifice willingly, because it was truly sacred already anyway. I really don’t know. And, you know, the truth is that I don’t think there is a metaphysical holiness to life; life is not inherently “sacred” — it’s just life, and I have to be the one who decides for me what that does or doesn’t mean. That is, I don’t think there is some sort of Platonic argument to be made for an essential, archetypal, transcendent, universal form of “holiness” or “sacredness”. I find the belief in such to be, for far too many people, the first step to boorish codswallop and aggravating woo-woo, which all too often rush on to churlish zealotry and belligerent ideology if left unchecked.
Semantics and whatnot aside, it pisses me off to no end when certain people in the world imply that an atheist can’t understand what’s sacred, what’s holy, what’s worth or due great admiration, reverence or veneration. That’s just the ill-informed nonsense of people who can’t think outside the box, or who don’t properly know what’s actually in the box. At its root, sacred, related to consecration, basically means “dedicated as holy”, and at its root holy is related to the concept of wholeness. So these ideas lead most people back to “God”, because “God” is seen as the force/being that/who makes everything whole. Put another way, they see “God” as the “universal form” or quintessence of holiness, not to mention its conscious arbiter. It is easily argued — and I dare say rightly — that this is not at all necessarily so, and that there are plenty of reasons not to assume so. For an atheist, for me, the goal of apprehending the wholeness (or holiness) of life is an ongoing quest of comprehension (or consecration).
I want very much to bring that goal with me wherever I go. I don’t ever want to forget that that is the process I am dedicated to. Call it my religion, if you want.
In its etymology the word religion means (or so it is generally agreed upon) “to bind together”, so it would not be too gauche for an atheist to say that the apprehension of (i.e., the grasping and laying hold of) the wholeness of life is for her or him a religious process, in other words it is a process of taking that which has been laid hold of and binding it together so that it may be comprehended in the light of the whole. Such a religion shall ever be, I’m sure, very personal and particular to any given individual, but there will also be a great deal of universal material provided by the arts and sciences and by the fact that we are, as humans, as mammals, as animals, as living beings, greatly alike one another in myriad ways. This is already necessarily true, after a fashion, of religions with a “God” or “gods”, but the abrahamic religions that most of the world’s people follow — and that the rulers of the currently most powerful countries in the world believe in — are built on faulty premises, overrun with contradictory ideas, bogged down by questionable interpolations and doubtful interpretations, tangled in misinformation and ignorance, and are, as “timeless truths” go, sorely outdated.
Any human endeavor that might be called religious in the sense I’ve outlined above will be prone to error at some point. That is because it is a human endeavor. It seems to me that the safest way to navigate betwixt the Scylla of fanaticism and the Charybdis of nihilism is to never forget that what one believes must forever be in review, it must be falsifiable, and one must remain open to changing one’s mind in light of new data that calls for such change. We must deal scientifically with our personal religion.
If I am ever to make friends then I will have to find people with an understanding at least similar to mine. I see them often enough on the Web, but with only a couple notable exceptions such friendships have never lasted long or come to fruition. After all, I live in the United States during, as Eric Frank Russell or Terry Pratchett might call it, interesting times. My country is steeped in all manner of foolishness, and though there are many good people attempting to flush out the nonsense there is yet a great deal of happy, affirmative consensus, even among those “on my side”, on matters I find contrary to me and painfully stupid. Al Gore is a great man, for example, and I’d be happy to be his friend, but that doesn’t make his “God” real, and I cringe whenever he starts in with his beliefs. Still, I have broad hopes among my peers. It is possible that some day, some stranger will appear in my life with an extended hand and a knowing smile. It has happened before. And, really, I have to admit that I am not going to be satisfied with anyone who, when contrasted to the people I work with, is less than exceptional. But I know in my heart that it’s possible I’ll meet someone good for me. And, really, I’m willing to sacrifice something for it.
Permalink
