Oh. So if you simply think the idea that there is a Great Cosmic Voyeur who wants to control your genitals is absurd, that makes you a fanatic? I can’t be too concerned about the opinions of a deluded true believer who can’t tell a fierce bearded guy with an AK-47 from a tweedy academic with a word processor.

Source: Pharyngula

Rep. Monique Davis apologized to Rob Sherman, the atheist she told to “get out of that seat” because he “believes in destroying”, which she equates with being an atheist, who has no right to go to court in “the land of Lincoln where people believe in God”. She apologized to him, personally, for insulting him — personally. As if she had just insulted him, instead of atheists in general. As if no bigotry was involved.

Alonzo compares it with Mel Gibson’s outburst against a Jewish policeman.

Did Gibson apologize just to the cop for insulting him personally? No, nor could he have done just that. He apologized to the Jewish people in general. He wasn’t just insulting that cop, he was accusing Jews of causing wars and being responsible for a number of evils in the world. That was not just rudeness, that was bigotry.

Why should Davis’ outburst be treated differently? Why should people be satisfied with a personal apology for rudeness? She showed as much bigotry to all atheists as Mel Gibson did to all Jews. Do atheists have less rights? Have we bought into their propaganda so much that we’re willing to be reviled and demonized, and not do a damn thing about it? In which way are atheists morally inferior to Jews, or to any other group? Why should this kind of bigotry be excused, when it wouldn’t be if the target was any other?

Not to mention that Davis is not an actor, but an elected official. She has a much bigger responsibility for her actions than Gibson.

Read the comments on Alonzo’s post as well, where he gives suggestions on whom to contact in order to demand a real apology (or resignation) from Davis. As Alonzo says, and I said before, complaining to Davis is useless: the fact that the people she sees as the most obscenely evil  in the world criticize her actions only confirms their “righteousness” in her mind.

From Rep. Davis’ bigoted outburst about atheists, one part “jumped at me”, and I knew at the time (a few days ago) that I would have to dissect that point. That part is, of course, this post’s title.

If you follow, logically, from a correct premise, you will likely arrive at correct conclusions. However, if the premise itself is wrong, then the best logic in the world will still end up with a wrong conclusion… but it’s interesting to analyze those occurrences. This is one of them.

Rep. Davis, when she said that sentence, was being bigoted and ignorant, sure, not to mention hateful and full of “righteous anger”. However, there was something else there, something else you can hear in her voice. Fear.

And, from her original premise, she has every reason both to be afraid and to hate atheists. Because something very, very precious is at stake: the fate of eternal souls.

I’ve talked about this before, but most people — believers and otherwise — have never really thought about the concept of hell, or eternal torture. Or are simply unable to grasp it in its entirety, because humans have not evolved — nor have they ever needed to, for their survival, so it makes sense — to deal with concepts such as infinity. The worst part of “eternal torture” isn’t “torture”, but “eternal”. Even mere eternal boredom, without any active torture, is a fate inconceivably horrible, to an extent our minds aren’t capable of imagining. There is no crime on Earth, which is necessarily finite, that warrants such a fate — and this is why I believe the doctrine of hell makes the Christian god supremely evil, more sadistic than the world’s most sadistic sadist, and I wonder why more people don’t see it. Cultural indoctrination, I guess.

But, even without fully grasping the concept of eternal torture, Christians know very well  — even if sometimes just instinctually — that it’s something to be avoided at all costs, something worse than anything that can happen to us on Earth.

Now, think about it. You believe that the most important thing in the world — to such an overwhelming degree that, compared to it, nothing else matters — is to avoid going to hell. Both for yourself, and for those people you care about — and, if you’re a “nice”, well-meaning person, for strangers as well. Nothing you can do or achieve or feel here on Earth is worth anything if you still end up in hell. So, to save yourself (and, later, others) form hell, anything goes. No amount of earthly suffering really means anything compared to it. No amount of ignorance, of lying, of manipulating, of causing suffering to yourself and others is significant. Taken to the logical conclusion, to condemn someone to hours, days, months, even a lifetime of suffering, is a moral act… as long as it prevents that someone from going to hell! Indeed, this was the belief of the Inquisition. Better to be tortured for days or weeks and repent, thus having a chance of being saved, than to lead a pleasant life and then be damned for all time. If you really believe that God sends people to hell, then anything that prevents that is moral… no matter the suffering it causes.

But this is not simply a matter of suffering. It’s also a matter of knowledge. Any knowledge or way of thinking that can lead one to doubt God is dangerous — indeed, more dangerous than anything in the world — and must be suppressed. Whether that knowledge is true or false is immaterial. Evolution may indeed be a fact, and it is compatible with liberal theism, but it can also lead to non-belief, and therefore its teaching must be opposed at all costs, regardless of its truth — simply because it may lead thousands, maybe millions of children to hell. And isn’t saving innocent children the most moral act one can perform?

Recall the preface in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, where he wrote (emphasis mine):

I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness – raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.

Therefore, to a believer like Davis, the mere existence of atheists — and, not only that, but happy, moral, fulfilled atheists — is a threat, one that may cause many people to question their faith, to realize that, yes, non-belief is an option, and doesn’t make you a monster. It may cause millions of innocent souls to end up in hell. Morally, shouldn’t that be fought with tooth and nail? The mere existence of atheists is already a threat that is filling hell with souls that might not have ended there otherwise. But vocal atheists? Publicly seen atheists? Atheists that don’t act like hedonists, who don’t have “horns”, or frighten people? How many are they condemning to eternal suffering?

If one believes that God sends non-believers to hell, then it only makes sense to do anything in your power — including oppressing, lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering — to stop any possible source of non-belief. Whether that source is a person or group, or a book, or an idea, or a philosophy, or a knowledge. Whether that source is itself moral, or is itself true. None of that matters. Hell is what matters.

In fact, why stop there? Yes, the Bible says “thou shalt not murder”, so one can assume that a murderer goes to hell. But what greater sacrifice is there than one’s soul? What is giving up your life for others (say, your children), compared with up giving your soul? What could be more moral, more heroic, more noble than sacrificing your afterlife for that of your children… by killing that soul-damning atheist who is making them, for the first time in their lives, doubt what you’ve taught then since birth?

Compared to that, what is disregarding the Constitution (man’s law… pfft.) and taking away the legal rights of an atheist? I’m sure Rep. Davis considers her bigoted actions to be absolutely moral, and probably won’t even understand what all the fuss is about. After all, she was doing it to save innocent souls… in her eyes, she should get a statue, or something.

Well, as this post’s title says, this is a prologue for the next one, about that particular quote from Davis. I wanted that one to focus on that quote itself, which is why I’m introducing the story here, in a separate post. The “real thing” comes later today.

Also, I’m not American, so there’s little I can do about it, but if you are, and care for that pesky thing called the Constitution (not to mention the civil rights issue of having non-believers demonized and insulted by politicians without consequence — imagine if Davis’ rant had been against a particular religion or skin color!), please follow the second link above for ways to make a difference. Even if you’re not an atheist, you should still care…

Deuteronomy orders that disobedient children be taken to the city gate and stoned to death.

Sounds pretty drastic and these days that would get you a long jail sentence.

What struck me as odd, no one has ever found piles of tiny bones at the gates of ancient Jewish cities. Nor AFAIK, has anyone ever done anything like this.

My best guess. When whoever was writing Deuteronomy was frothing at the mouth and ranting and raving, the average Israeli just shrugged their shoulders, said what a nutcase, and ignored him. Maybe he was the Fred Phelps of 1000 BC.

For some reason, I loved it.

Consider the three Abrahamic religions. What do they have in common?

First, they tell you how the universe / world began, using a story that was clearly the best thing that some primitive desert nomads or shepherds could come up with. Most “sophisticated” believers, these days, don’t take those stories literally, and accept evolution, an old earth, heliocentrism, a huge universe, a round earth, and so on. Only American fundies and Muslims seem to take those stories literally, no matter the opposing evidence; they probably believe their god put that evidence there as “a test of their faith”.

Then, the religions give believers some rules:

1- the first kind are rules that, while not terribly original, are, in general, a good idea. Don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill someone just because you feel like it, and so on.

2- then come the laws that can be annoying to follow, but it’s not the end of the world. Don’t eat that type of food, don’t wear this, wear that, do this on that day of the year, and so on. As I said, these can be annoying (for instance, what if you’re forbidden to eat your favorite food?), but most believers can live with them and obey them.

3- finally, there are the “harder” rules. Kill people who do this. Kill people who do that. Stone to death those who don’t do this. Or those who do that on a particular day of the week. Fight tooth and nail against the “enemies of God / the faith”. In fact, giving your life for that is the greatest thing you can do, and with the greatest reward.

Now, it should be obvious that a “moderate”, as usually described, is someone who follows just 1 and 2, while an “extremist” follows 3 as well.

But… how can the latter be called an “extremist”? Doesn’t the term imply that he is distorting his religion, or using it as an excuse for something unrelated, or adding something to it? To me, it does. But that’s not the case at all…

… it’s the moderates who are distorting religion, by removing things from it! Either because they don’t want to end up in prison or dead, or because their morality has evolved beyond those of the holy books’ writers, and so they recognize the immorality of those parts of their religion, but are nonetheless incapable of applying that judgment to the rest.

Are Bin Laden, or the 9/11 hijackers, or American abortion clinic bombers, “extremists”? Not at all, in my opinion — unless you call call a man who pays his taxes in full “an extremist taxpayer”. They’re simply not ignoring the unpleasant parts of their faith. They’re the only devout believers out there.

Which really paints a nice picture of their religions…

(With thanks to Non Credo Deus)

Meanwhile a group of hardline Pakistani Muslim clerics bestowed a religious title on Osama bin Laden as a tit-for-tat revenge for the slight. The Pakistan Ulema Council has given bin Laden the title “Saifullah”, or sword of Allah.

“If a blasphemer can be given the title ‘Sir’ by the West despite the fact he’s hurt the feelings of Muslims, then a mujahid who has been fighting for Islam against the Russians, Americans and British must be given the lofty title of Islam, Saifullah,” Tahir Ashrafi, the council’s chairman, was quoted by a foreign news agency, as saying.

Riiight. Comparing a writer and the “crime” of “blasphemy” (or “hurt feelings”) to a terrorist mass murderer responsible for the deaths of thousands¹. Great going, guys. Very mature of you. Wonderful sense of perspective.

1. not to mention Bush’s re-election, itself responsible for thousands more, both in Iraq and as a result of the lack of stem cell research

From the article:

‘If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet, then it is justified,’ Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq told the national assembly.

and:

‘If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?’ he said.

and, of course:

Dozens of students from hardline Islamic schools in the central Pakistani city of Multan chanted ‘Death to Rushdie, death to Britain’ and set a British flag on fire, witnesses said.

EDIT: PZ Myers comments on this as well.

Excerpt:

KH: Do you have time for a few questions, today, Lord?

GOD: Son, time has no effect on me. I created it. I am always here to help you and guide you in any area of your life. Go ahead with your questions, son.

KH: These last seven months in prison have been rather difficult for me, Lord. In fact, in the last month, I’ve been in five different facilities.

GOD: I know, son. I’ve been with you the entire time (Hebrews 13:5).

KH: Thanks, Lord. I felt your presence many times. But there were other times that I was very sad and lonely.

GOD: I know, son. I saw your tears. I was there, but you were too busy acting like Jonah. You were more concerned about your own problems than the future of those men around you. You need to work on that.

KH: I’m sorry, Lord. You are right.

GOD: I am always right. Go ahead with your questions.

KH: Well God, yesterday was especially hard. I couldn’t sleep the night before because I expected them to call me at 3:30 a.m. to pack up for the bus ride up here to South Carolina.

GOD: I know, son. I was right there with you. I heard your prayers throughout that long night. We had sweet fellowship, didn’t we? Thank you for loving me and talking with me.

KH: Thanks for being there and for listening, Lord.

GOD: I’m always there and always listening, son.

KH: Lord, I asked you to let me sleep, because I knew the next day would be hard and I would need my strength. Why didn’t you let me sleep, Lord?

GOD: I did, son. You slept great from 3:00 – 4:45 a.m. Who do you think it was that made the guard forget to call you at 3:30? Didn’t you wake up refreshed at 4:45 and even comment on how hard you slept and how good you felt?

KH: Yes, Lord, now that you remind me, I did sleep real hard and woke up feeling great.

Seen on Pharyngula.

Most atheist blogs, plus Christopher Hitchens on TV, have, naturally, denounced Falwell as the hateful bigot he was, instead of “a great man”, like most religious right conservatives keep parroting. The backlash from the latter has been seen, too: whether on TV against Hitchens (again), or in comments on atheist blogs, many people keep saying things like: “you might have disagreed with the man, but he’s just DIED, dammit. How can you be happy about it, you heartless monster? No matter what he did, his family and friends surely miss him. You atheists are really unfeeling, cruel monsters, speaking ill of a decent man, simply because you disagreed with him.”

It’s the old “dying turns people into saints” thing.

Let me see if I can make you at least begin to understand.

Now, I’m not saying Falwell was a child molester, but imagine — just pretend — that it was actually a well-known child molester¹ who’d just died.

Would you, perchance, be saying things like:

- “yes, he did some bad things, but his death is still a loss to the world.”

- “you’ve got to consider the feelings of his family and friends first.”

- “he might have been wrong about a couple of things, but the main thing is that he was always true to his convictions, to the end.”

- “if you speak ill of him — even if you were one of his victims — you are still a heartless, hateful monster. The man’s died, dammit!”

Now… would you say such a thing about a child molester? Just because he died? Would he turn into a good, decent man, just because he is no more, he’s ceased to be, he’s expired and gone to meet his maker, he is a late child molester², and all that?

The answer is probably no.

Now, what if, in addition to being a child molester, he had also been a reverend? Would you think differently of him?

If so, sorry to say, you’re both naïve, and a hypocrite, because you let anyone fool you, no matter his actions, just because he says “God” and “Jesus” often. Which, actually, is what many Americans do, sadly.

Now, as I said, Falwell wasn’t a child molester. But he did what he could, he did everything in his power — and succeeded, in many ways — to make life a living hell for many, many more innocent people than any child molester could ever victimize in his entire natural life. Falwell was a bigot. An agent of hate, of intolerance, of sexism, racism³, homophobia and fundamentalism. He spent his more than 70 years trying to make the world a worse place, trying to make life worse for a great number of people. It was not enough for him to hate them because of his bigotry; no, he had to convince half of America that the imaginary God they believe in also hated those people.

Is that forgivable? Or forgettable? Just because he died? Does death really turn a hateful monster into a saint, or at least a “harmless”, “worthy of respect” human being?

I don’t think so. People shouldn’t forget or forgive what this disgusting little man did, because there are others waiting in line to take his place this very moment. The battle against fundamentalism and intolerance is far from over… and far from won.

1. avoided Godwin’s Law! Yes!
2. couldn’t resist a Monty Python reference here. Sorry.
3. yes, that too. He opposed the civil rights movement at the time, though he tried to hide that fact much later.

You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

– Anne Lamott

On the other hand, the fact that it’s on a quasi-official blog for a presidential candidate makes it appear serious. Frighteningly so.

If you think about it, however, then you’ll realize one thing: if that is for real, then the author is not doing anything other than being coherent with his own beliefs… because, according to the Bible, the earth really does not move. Why accept biblical infallibility for some things and nor for others? Why use the Bible as an argument against evolution (because many people don’t understand how it works, and don’t know that “theory”, in scientific terms, means something quite different than some wild fancy), but not heliocentrism or a round earth, which are accepted by virtually everyone these days? Where do you draw the line? And why draw one at all?

Either the Bible can be trusted, or not. I obviously think it can’t, but, to most Christians — especially fundamentalist ones –, it can. So why be selective? Would God ever lie? If it says that the earth is flat, then it must be… and, taken to the extreme, if a Christian was taken on a rocket ship and made to look at the earth from space, he’d deny the truth of what he was seeing as “an illusion from Satan”. Or “an illusion from God, to test our faith” (they actually say this one about fossils). Because, to quote Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Fundies. Who else can make us laugh and frighten us at the same time?

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”

about 9/11, and:

AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.

is dead.

My feelings about this? The world is better off without him. I’m sorry if this offends anyone; apparently, someone recently dead is always to be “revered”. But I’ll save my compassion for those who deserve it, for those who actually try to make the world a better place, instead of a worse one.

Still, while I believe that Falwell was (much like Robertson, Dobson, Jack Thompson, and others) a disgusting human being, and a source of fundamentalism, intolerance and bigotry, I won’t actually cheer his death. Unlike what his followers believe, I’m convinced that this life is “it”, and, far from making our lives pointless, it makes them precious.

Besides, there are surely many waiting to take his place, and they will always have power, as long as there are people who want to be free from the responsability of thinking and deciding for themselves, who can’t deal with their lives and so need to believe that “hey, this is not the real thing, this is just a test,” and who want to be told that their own prejudices and bigotry are actually “moral” and “holy”, because, hey, the big guy in the sky hates all of ‘em too.

What will make the world a better place is not the death of the Jerry Falwells of the world, but, instead, the loss of their power and influence, because people begin to actually think for themselves. People shouldn’t be “good” simply because there is no charismatic bigot currently inciting them, but because they see those bigots for what they really are, and want nothing to do with them.

While way too many people were too self-centered (“this doesn’t concern me, so I won’t move my ass”) to do anything at all (only about 40% of the population actually voted), still, the results were positive: the “don’t send women to prison anymore” side won. It shows that the Portuguese people are slowly, but surely, leaving the Middle Ages.

Today’s referendum, no matter what the fundies said, wasn’t about “saving lives” (anyone who really needs to have an abortion, will almost surely get one — even if it involves falling down a flight of stairs –, and who is concerned about their lives?). It was, instead, a choice between those who believe people should be free to decide things for themselves, and those who feel they have the “right” to control other people’s lives, to impose their own morality upon the rest.

Fortunately, and while the result isn’t “binding” (the turnout was too low), the former group won, and the prime minister has promised to use their parliament majority to change the law. It’s great to feel proud of my country, for a change.

Yesterday, I did what any blogger or webmaster shouldn’t ever do: I clicked on an ad on my own site. Well, doing it once shouldn’t make a difference… and I had to click on it. I don’t remember the exact text of the ad (refreshing the page isn’t showing it anymore), but the destination page is this: The Bible reveals next and last Pope will be a devil impersonating John Paul II.

How could anyone resist that?

That page, which is actually very well written, shows how Revelation 17 “tells” us some curious facts. It starts with an historically interesting part, about how the Papacy lost temporal power in 1798, and several Popes were “prisoners in the Vatican” for several decades, until the Vatican City was given to the Papacy, to be a sovereign country. This has prompted me to read more about it in Wikipedia (start here if you’re curious) about it. I found it quite interesting… and just because I’m an atheist, it doesn’t mean that I don’t like to learn about religion and its history.

The authors go further, though, and “show” how Revelation (a book that shows every sign of having been written under the influence of some bad mushrooms) tells us that the current Pope is the 7th of a list, will reign only for a short while, and the next one will be… a devil impersonating John Paul II. They also say that the Church will regain temporal power, then, with the Pope being above presidents and kings.

Now, I can perfectly accept that Benedict XVI will be there only for a short time: he’s been elected Pope while already quite old. But the John Paul II doppleganger… somehow, I have a problem believing that.

I could write much more about how absurd all of this is, but I don’t think it deserves that much. I’ll say this, though: unlike many other “prophecies”, this one is actually testable, and has a limited date: indeed, the current Pope will almost surely die in less than 15 years. Most of us will still be here, then. When the next one doesn’t look, act and talk exactly like John Paul II, including saying he’s actually John Paul coming back from the dead (I’d be amazed to see such a character be elected Pope, anyway…), what will the authors of that page do?

Admit they were wrong about that, and that they are, quite likely, wrong about other things as well? Admit that the Bible can’t be taken literally, if it can be “taken” at all?

I doubt it. They’ll do what theists always do in these cases: say they were “misunderstood” and meant something completely different, or pretend that they never said anything like that at all. Remove all traces of that page from the web, and, if confronted, deny everything.

Oh well. It was an excuse for learning a little bit of history…

Even though I’m not American, I remember feeling shocked and horrified that day. Things like that simply didn’t happen in a civilized world… or did they? And all those deaths. It was something dreadful, and anyone who says that America “deserved it” – whether it’s other terrorists, fundamentalist Muslim leaders, or Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson – is a moronic, disgusting human being.

Yet, to a group of people, it was the best thing that could have happened.

What’s changed since 2001?

People remain paranoid about terrorist attacks. People believe that terrorists may strike at any moment – much like the climate of nuclear fear in the 1950s.

America is more nationalist than ever, up to a “my country, right or wrong” point; anyone who says the United States may have acted wrongly is a “pinko commie liberal traitor”, or something like that.

The world economy is worse than it was in many decades. In the 90s everything grew, in the 2000s everything shrank. Things are still so bad that many people believe that employers do employees a favor by employing them, instead of it being a fair trade which benefits both sides, as any employment should be.

America is more religious and fundamentalist than ever. Many attempts against science have been made by religious groups, for religious purposes. Stem cell research and abortions are fundamentally “evil”, but a brain dead woman must be kept alive at all costs. Separation between church and state is increasingly becoming a myth, and the Constitution is constantly spat on by lying politicians who insist that “America was founded on Christian principles”. And no, it wasn’t.

By assuming a state of “perpetual war” against a concept such as “terror”, instead of a tangible enemy, a war which has already lasted longer than the US’s involvement in WWII, the government has successfully obtained “carte blanche” to do just about anything it wants. After all, in times of war, it’s “traitorous” and “unpatriotic” to criticize the government or the president. They say so, and people believe it. The president actually becomes above the law. Gee, why not be at war at all times, then? Which, of course, is exactly the case today.

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. Illegal wiretapping. Arrests and imprisonment without trial. Secret prisons. Torture. Need I go on about the huge loss of freedom? And yet they say they’re fighting for it…

A couple of wars have been started, and at least one of them was based on lies, greed for oil, and the “be in a permanent state of war” absolute power that I mentioned above. A lot of people were fooled by those lies, and whoever wasn’t was, again, branded “a traitor” and “unpatriotic”. Or “a liberal”, or “an appeaser”, or…

Before, he was an unpopular president who had “won” an election in uncertain terms, and had his “victory” handed out to him by a court. But George W. Bush, in a couple of hours, became a “hero” and a “savior”, the “defender of the land of the free”. And won the next election, which would never have happened if Americans were judging him for the state of the economy, the conditions of living, and so on. Hmm, I bet he was really sad when 9/11 happened…

The rest of the world isn’t much better. By not standing up to the United States’ policies, both the EU and the UN lost most of their credibility. Almost everyone outside the US knew that the stated reasons for the Iraq war were obvious lies, and yet nobody had the courage to do a thing about it.

In short, the world is now much worse than it was.

Blame the terrorists first? Sure. Note that I haven’t mentioned any of the theories that say that the Bush administration knew about 9/11 and let it happen, or actually did it. It’s certainly possible – they’re the ones who benefitted by it the most – but I don’t know enough to make any accusations about it. So I won’t.

What I know is that they’re responsible for what happened afterwards. The climate of terror, the loss of civil liberties, the wars, the religious fundamentalism, the international bullying, the “either you’re with us or against us – and therefore a traitor” attitude… I blame Bush and everyone around him for that.

I don’t know about you, but if I had lost someone in 9/11, I’d despise anyone who used my pain for his own gains. Even if he was the president.

However, another comment caught my attention as well. It’s the 2nd one, by Lynda:

And if she does fail she blames herself for not having enough faith in gawd or Jeebus. She will set unrealistic goals based on fairy tale expectations because some book promised that she would succeed if she just has enough belief in the “all powerful”. The end result is self-loathing and mistrust of her own abilities. She won’t be able to rejoice and take pride in any real accomplishments because they won’t measure up to the “all things are possible” standard.

See the problem? God is supposed perfectly good and all powerful, and the Bible says that “faith can move mountains”, that “with enough faith, all things are possible”.

So what if you pray for success in something… and fail?

Christian fundies will never doubt the existence of God. Nor his omnipotence, or his goodness. What remains, then? Lack of faith. With all the guilt it implies.

Say you have a sick son and pray for his recovery. He dies. But… how could that happen, since the Bible states that “God notices even the fall of a sparrow”? What about the promises of our prayers being heard? And aren’t all things supposed to be possible to God, and therefore to anyone with God on his/her side?

If you don’t doubt God, then only two explanations remain. One, “it was God’s plan” – which would make God an evil sadist, worthy of contempt, lower than most human beings, if he existed. The second explanation is “your faith wasn’t enough”. Or, in other words, “you deserved it”.

A lot of Christians say that they don’t think they could go on through life without their faith in God. Yet they’re the unhappy ones, always feeling guilty, because if something bad happens to them, their lack of faith – their “wickedness” – is to blame. After all, God is perfect, and he promised… if only you had enough faith…

(Now, some people will say that “God helps those who help themselves.” It’s an improvement… but it’s a modern interpretation, absolutely contrary to what it says in the Bible. I thought it was supposed to be the word of God?)

The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.

“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.

As usually, any bothersome fact that contradicts their narrow view of the world is ignored. “La la la, I can’t hear you, you evil secularist enemy of religion…”

I guess that idiotic woman believes the moon is actually a source of light?!

Really, how can people be so stupid?

I may like people who are workaholics, but it will be despite that, not because of that. It will always be a part of their personality that bothers me.

On top of that, I have had the misfortune of knowing a lot of them!

Many people (even non-workaholics) don’t really understand the concept, and they confuse “workaholic” with “responsible, hard-working person” – which are positive qualities. But they’re wrong. Being a workaholic is something irrational, unhealthy.

Some people also think that it’s just a case of someone loving what he does. But it’s not that – many workaholics spend most of they time depressed, stressed, and with health problems (both physical and mental). It’s a compulsion, an obsession.

What does being a workaholic tell about a person? In my opinion, one or more of the following:

• Their priorities are all wrong. Everything is ignored, including family, spouse, etc..
• They’re addicted to work. And I really mean addicted, like one can be to alcohol or hard drugs.
• Uses work to escape from something in their lives that they want to forget, or not think about.
• Allowed themselves to be manipulated by the employer (which shows naiveté and/or weakness of character); they convinced them that it is, effectively, their responsibility to do the work of 2 or 3 employees, which means nights at work, weekends at work, and so on.
• No “life” of their own; at some time, they decided that it was easier, more comfortable and “safer” to hide in work and more work, than to have friends, relationships, hobbies, etc..
• Inability to delegate work or to trust in co-workers: go on vacation?!? and who would do all of this, then??
• Use of work to justify their lives, their existence. Which is foolish and abominable: nothing worthwhile needs to be justified.

How many people do you know like this? Sometimes it feels like I’m surrounded by them.

By the way: how to tell if you’re a workaholic.

Muslim clerics are demanding an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed

and:

Clerics have warned that if the Afghan Government caves into Western pressure and frees him, they will urge people to “pull him into pieces”.

and, of course:

“Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die.”

Apparently, George W. Bush is “angered”. It is a start… but would he be angered if the man, instead of moving from one superstition to another (which happens to be the same as his), had become an atheist? I doubt it. I bet he’d believe, instead, that “the godless heathen had it coming for insulting religion”.

Islam’s apologists say that it’s “a religion of peace”. The Martian has a great post refuting that, so I won’t repeat those arguments here – just read his post.

What I want to add is this: some people say it’s just the “extremists” that commit acts of fanatical violence and terrorism, and that “true” Islam isn’t like that. But… what’s true Islam? It should be what’s in the Koran, right?

If so, here’s what the Koran has to say about violence. And here’s what the Koran says about (in)tolerance.

“Religion of peace”? Maybe in the sense of “we’ll kill anyone who disagrees with us, then we’ll have peace”.

Not exactly. You’d be slightly more correct if you said I was anti-religion, but that’s still not the entire truth.

What I really am against is irracionality. Religion is just one particular case of that.

Religion, and mysticism (here I use this word in the sense of “any belief in the supernatural” – I am aware that some people use the word for a specific type of beliefs), are irrational – they’re wishful thinking, they’re the (comforting) belief that reality isn’t real, but is changed on a whim. As Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no religion has any evidence supporting, it, other than “it’s written so in some old books” and “a lot of people believe it”. Therefore, to believe in something so extraordinary (it’s no more believable than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny) without evidence is absolutely irrational.

I also say that while a few religious people may have done some good, as a whole, religion has only harmed the world, has only held back the advancement of humanity, and is guilty of more death and suffering than anything else in the world.

Why my focus on Christianity, and not, say, Islam? Personal experience, I guess. Islam is just as bad as Christianity, if not worse (more about that in a future post); it’s just that, living in Western Europe, it’s Christianity that I see around me. And when I study history, again, it’s Christian atrocities that come up. The United States (I don’t live there, but I read a lot of American blogs and news sites) are becoming more and more fundamentalist and irrational (just look at the choice of president) because of Christianity. I was raised a Christian. Is it any wonder that I speak more against Christianity than against other religions?

A current controversy in the U.S. seems to be the so-called “War on Christmas”. In short, it’s like this: Americans tend to be quite fanatical about everything related to religion – including the lack of it -, and are also easily offended. (No, I’m not saying all are like this, but these are certainly the ones who make the most noise.)

So, some time ago, it was “decided” that saying “merry Christmas” is endorsing Christianity – which, of course, means insulting all other religions. After complaints, and since store chains are paranoid about offending anyone, many chains made it a nation-wide policy not to say “merry Christmas”, but something like “happy holidays”, or “season’s greetings”.

Naturally, the other side didn’t like it, and speak of a “War on Christmas” by “ultra-liberal organizations” (what does that mean, anyway?). And polemic ensues – it’s “us against them”, it’s a battle between the “forces of secularism” trying to “destroy Christmas” (and Christianity, in general), and those who “stalwartly defend” it.

Now, thinking rationally for a while… don’t you think that all of that is a bit ridiculous?

In Europe, we don’t tend to be so fanatical. Neither our Christians, nor our atheists, nor those of other religions. “Merry Christmas”, to most people, doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with religion – Christians may celebrate the birth of Jesus, while everyone else has a holiday where the family eats codfish (in Portugal) or turkey or something else, together, then give gifts to each other. Simple as that.

“Merry Christmas” doesn’t offend anyone. Why should it? It’s a holiday, except to Christians.

Or am I oversimplifying things?

I have. Several times, by different people. They could never justify their affirmation: they just “felt” that I was one, because of some ideal I had (and possibly have), or because I cared a bit about something that nobody cared about.

It wasn’t something I annoyed people with. I’ve never been a “preacher” of any kind. I believe in complete honesty, yet I never went around preaching honesty or attacking people for not being 100% honest 100% of the time. I don’t pirate music, software or movies, yet most people I know do so, and I’ve never bothered them about it. If they ask my opinion, I give it, but no more.

I’ve never attacked, or told people to attack, someone for disagreeing with me. I certainly don’t intend to become a martyr and kill myself in a blaze of glory to prove some point.

But I still am labeled a “fanatic” from time to time. Why?

My guess is that we live in a time where it’s so common, so fashionable to be apathetic and indifferent to everything, to not give a damn, that someone who actually has the smallest ideal, who says, even softly, “this is right”, or “that is wrong”, or who loves or dislikes something and is capable of explaining why, instead of “oh, I just do!”… someone who cares about some subject or question… well, that someone stands out a bit.

It’s uncommon, rare. And, to most people, what are the standards, if not the majority? The average – not in terms of “reasonable” or “healthy”, but in terms of “the way most people are/act”. If everyone is apathetic, then apathy is the standard, it’s normal – and if caring a bit about something stands out, then that’s abnormal. If apathy is normal, then caring about anything makes someone a… what do we call someone who cares too much, who is obsessed about something in an unhealthy way?

Ah, I remember. A “fanatic”.

Fanaticism, or being a fanatic, can be described as being so sure about something that you refuse to ever think about it again for even a millisecond. That thing is, or becomes, the most important thing in your life, its “driving force”.

Some people confuse fanaticism with merely an intense love or belief. I believe the difference is mostly the above: a fanatic never thinks about it again, his “certainty” encompasses everything. If you love something or someone, or intensely believe in something, but can still think rationally about it, see its faults, its “chips in the armor”, then you are not a fanatic.

A fanatic is not only incapable of admitting he is wrong about something, but also incapable of admitting it is possible for him to be wrong about it.

Not all fanaticism is about religion or beliefs: it doesn’t really depend on the importance of the subject. You can be an absolute fanatic about something unimportant (like a sports club), and you can have a true belief in some philosophy, religion or creed, or intensely love something or someone, without being a fanatic about it.

Being ready to die for a belief doesn’t necessarily make you a fanatic (I believe some things are worth fighting for and even dying for), but if you’re ready to kill for it, then you certainly are one.

It’s absolutely impossible to argue with a fanatic, as he’s incapable of rational thought about it. No matter how many contradictions you reveal in his belief, no matter what proof you show him that he is wrong. If you ever get any near to provoking the slightest doubt, he will violently defend his belief, sometimes becoming murderously violent. His belief is his life; without it it wouldn’t make sense to go on.

Riiiight…

Pat Robertson a couple of days ago: “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

Tough luck, Pat. Video recording is a wonderful thing.

Religious violence, even in this “enlightened” age, is still very much around. You’ve probably heard about attacks on abortion clinics. But religions also fight among themselves – sometimes even among sub-sets (or sub-sects?) of the same religion. Lynchings, bombings and so on are common, and not only in Arab countries or in Ireland.

But… have you ever heard about religion-related violence by non-religious people? (note the “religion-related”). Have you ever heard of a “fanatical atheistic” group bombing churches or kidnapping / killing priests? Or, to put it in another way: it’s common to be a target of violence for having the “wrong” religion at a particular time and place, but it’s not common to be attacked for having a religion, by non-religious people.

Why? Because these same non-religious people tend not to be fanatics. They tend to think that one’s beliefs are his own choice, and not a reason to hurt anyone.

That’s why there probably won’t be any violence against a guy who wants to kill a democratically elected president for religious (and political, of course) reasons. He’s probably safe… because his opponents are a lot better than he is.

Technorati tags: Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson, an American ultra-conservative “Christian” televangelist, has just said, in a broadcast, that the U.S. should assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.”, the idiot said. Why? Well, according to him, Chávez is “going to make (Venezuela) a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.”.

Now, I’m not a Christian, but what confuses me is how anyone can believe that such a monster is one. I mean, this is not the age of the Inquisition, Crusades and so on, right? Christians today are supposed to have remembered the Thou shalt not kill Commandment, apparently forgotten in the Middle Ages. How can any Christian not instantly condemn that imbecile when he says “oh, let’s go kill that guy – he annoys us, and it’s cheaper than going to war again”? How can he still have listeners?

Remember that he’s the same guy who said feminism is a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

He’s also the same guy who agreed with another nutcase televangelist that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of “pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and the People for the American Way.”

And yet I’m sure that little, if anything, will happen to him, or to his very successful (!) TV program.

Technorati tags: Pat Robertson