Archive

Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

Teaching the Controversy

April 11th, 2011 2 comments

First, creationists wanted creationism to be taught in science classes. When that failed, they re-styled their product as “Intelligent Design.” When that didn’t work, they evolved the strategy into “academic freedom.”

Their current tactic? “Teach the Controversy.” A new Tennessee proposal (PDF) that passed the state House:

(a) The general assembly finds that:

(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and

(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

(b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

(c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

The language is actually quite clever; it goes to great lengths to emphasize “objectivity,” “critical thinking,” “explore,” “evidence,” “scientific theories”–making it sound like this is all about science and that there will be no funny business.

When you read the text carefully, however, it opens the door for creationism to be taught. Parts (b) and (c) effectively say that teachers can teach the controversies and administrators must assist them–that’s the door opening. Part (d) forbids administrators to prohibit teachers “helping” students to see the issues. This element is critical–it means that if a teacher, for example, were to introduce the subject in a way that greatly favored the creationist view, administrators would not be allowed to interfere. Note the language concerning “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered”; that’s code for allowing in creationist arguments that evolution is flawed.

Interestingly, it’s that last paragraph which is the real giveaway; while appearing, at first cursory glance, to be an assurance that this will not be used to promote religion, it is in fact the key to legitimizing religious doctrine as science. While it may be intended to smooth the law’s way when challenged in the courts, this part is really the slickest pro-creationist part of the bill. Some of it’s language is actually pretty bold; first, it classes religion right together with non-religion, placing them on an equal basis–meaning that religion gets equal play with secularism. Which, of course, is contradictory.

This comes from the view from a religious standpoint that secularism and atheism, seen from the distance of faith, are one and the same–that allowing no religion in a science class means that atheism is being favored. This is not true, of course–saying there is no god is just as non-scientific as saying there is one. But since fundamentalist religion in America today holds that what we observe and measure contradicts religious “truth,” reporting objective observations is, for them, tantamount to denying god, and so is atheist in nature.

Given the actual, true nature of secular science, placing secularism and religion on equal footing in a science class is just as bad as placing secularism and atheism on equal footing. Neither is secular; secular means that religious views, for or against, are simply not germane. This bill tears down that point, making science classes a referendum on religion versus atheism.

Note that the language also forbids promoting “discrimination for or against” either “a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs” or “religion or non-religion.” When you recall that “discrimination” against religious beliefs is equal to not teaching creationism in the classroom, you can see the true purpose is to include religious doctrine where none was allowed before. Keep in mind that these people believe it is discriminating against religion when children are taught that the universe is billion of years old without the Young Earth Creationist view being given equal or greater billing. The “for or against” is also key–it again places religion on an equal basis with “non-religion.” “Non-religion” is, remember, what we usually refer to as “science.”

In case you think this may be the wrong way of looking at the bill, remember that this state legislature is not precisely averse to trying to get religion in the public schools any way they can. Amusingly, one of those legislators said this in reflection on the recent bill:

Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains, quoted Albert Einstein as saying: “A little knowledge would turn your head to atheism, while a broader knowledge would turn your head to Christianity.”

Of course, Einstein, a non-observant Jew who said that he believed in Spinoza’s God, never said that. Nevertheless, it kind of tips this lawmaker’s hand as to his intent in passing the bill.

Anti-science rhetoric typical of creationists was also abundant from Republicans, and was just as ludicrous. Rep. Sheila Butt, R-Columbia, for example, makes this error-studded statement on why science cannot be trusted:

I remember so many of us, when we were seniors in high school, we gave up Aquanet hairspray. Do you remember why we did that? Because it was causing global warming. That that aerosol in those cans was causing global warming.
Since then scientists have said that maybe we shouldn’t have given up that aerosol can, because that aerosol was actually absorbing the earth’s rays, and was keeping us from global warming.

Umm, no. This woman appears to be going on a factoid she must have heard that aerosols help reflect solar radiation (not “the earth’s rays”). However, it was not the aerosols that were bad, it was the CFC’s in the aerosols, and they were not said to be contributing to global warming, but that they were depleting the ozone layer. Not to mention that we never gave up aerosols (you can still buy all manner of things in aerosol spray cans, as this woman seems to have overlooked), we only gave up the CFC’s in aerosols. And clearly, aerosols did not stop global warming trends. Scientists were not wrong on this; this woman, on the other hand, sounds like an idiot. And again, it reveals a clear anti-science agenda.

These are the people who wish to lecture us on and legislate “critical thinking” in science classes.

When looked at objectively, this bill is just as bad as all the other ones passed in recent years to get creationism back into the public schools. What is happening is that we’re getting the same old creationist proposals dressed up more and more deceptively, the authors hoping each time that the courts will have been sufficiently stacked with religious conservatives to allow for one of these to be approved.

Categories: Education, Religion, Science Tags:

The First Amendment: Not for You?

March 25th, 2011 3 comments

Here we go again. Bryan Fischer, writing for Renew America (you can usually tell it’s some hard-right conservative Christian Tea Party publication when the name of the site includes words like “America,” “freedom,” “liberty,” “patriot,” etc.), argues that the First Amendment does not apply to non-Christians. Especially not Muslims.

Fischer used to be a director for the “Idaho Values Alliance” (another code word there, “values,” as in “we want to impose ours on you by force of law”; whenever you see words like “values” or “family,” especially preceding the word “first,” it’s a good bet it’s conservative Christian), and now hosts a radio show called Focal Point. Fischer is vehemently anti-Muslim.

He begins:

The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary. We actually at the time were dealing with our first encounters with jihad in the form of the Barbary Pirates, which is why Jefferson bought a copy of the Koran.

That’s nice. Via his fortuitous name-dropping non-sequitur, we’re supposed the believe that the founders, especially Jefferson, were specifically excluding those barbarous Muslims. Except, not really. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, seen as a precursor to the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, set the tone when conservative Christians of the day tried to hijack that document and make it about Christianity alone. From Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

So, right there, Fischer’s whole thesis is kinda shot to hell. He continues:

Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy. While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment.

Here’s where he tries to explain why Islam and other religions have enjoyed protection up until now: we’re doing it as a courtesy. It’s not law, mind you; we have no obligation to allow Hindus or Muslims or even Jews to practice their religion. We’re just letting them because we’re polite. But we’re not crazy. We know that giving Jews and Muslims and Hindus and all those other nasty people the same religious protections that Christians enjoy would destroy the nation.

Fischer then gets to his point:

From a constitutional point of view, Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America. They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States.

He backs this up by going back to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who, in the early 19th century, wrote:

The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects…

Well, pretty ironclad right there, huh? Almost two centuries ago, a Supreme Court justice, in a commentary not part of any law, once opined that the First Amendment was intended for Christians only. That trumps just about everything, right? After all, there’s probably been no further commentary on the idea since then, and Story was, after all, the final arbiter on how we interpret the First Amendment. </sarcasm>

In the 1984 Supreme Court decision Wallace v. Jaffree, which ruled against prayer in public schools, Stevens wrote (directly citing Story’s statement in the footnotes) that:

At one time, it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

Not that any of this would matter to Fischer. He’s pretty far out there, holding that the Nazis were gay (ergo homosexuality leads to such things), that the genocide against native Americans was okay because the natives were not morally “qualified” to control the continent, and, convinced that Muslims are bent on overthrowing the United States, advocates the forced expulsion of all Muslims from the country.

Fischer’s writing serves as an excellent example of exactly why the First Amendment is so vital: those who are convinced that their religious views are morally superior will, inevitably, attempt to rob all others of their own freedom to think and choose as they wish. Not satisfied with simply applying their moral code to their own actions, they will feel compelled to force others into their mold or else suppress or evict them.

Fortunately, the First Amendment denies people like Fischer the ability to carry out the acts which, in their First Amendment freedoms, they so passionately advance.

Categories: Religion Tags:

Why Care If People Don’t Apply Reason?

December 11th, 2010 15 comments

Here’s a Canadian columnist’s reaction to the skeptic Centre for Inquiry’s campaign to promote reason:

A group of atheists is planning a national publicity campaign comparing belief in God to belief in Bigfoot, or fairies. … Here’s the question: Why do atheists care what other people believe? … Atheists are defined by their disbelief. i.e. the biggest thing in their life is that they don’t believe in something. But rather than just go around quietly, not believing, Trottier and his pals feel compelled to make other people not believe either. Their only faith is in the rightness of not having faith.

Isn’t that just a bit strange? I don’t happen to believe basketball is that interesting. Sorry, just don’t. I tried, but it bores me. Mainly I just keep it to myself. But if I was Justin Trottier, I’d be out there raising money to run ads in subways and streetcars, trying to convince other people that basketball is boring. The ads would say: “If you think basketball isn’t boring, you have to prove it. Just like Bigfoot.”

Wow. A lot stuff in there which seems to say a lot more about the attitudes held by people like the author than anything else.

First, the idea that for an atheist, “the biggest thing in their life is that they don’t believe in something.” I didn’t know that this had to be the biggest thing in one’s life. What if it’s not? Are you then not an atheist?

But more so, you “don’t believe in something”? Well, everybody does that. Religious people do that almost as much as atheists do–they usually disbelieve in all faiths except one, for example–but they would not characterize it that way. Neither would an atheist, who would say that they believe in reason, fact, science, humanity, etc.

But the most disturbing thing in this article is the idea that it is somehow unreasonable for atheists to spread their beliefs. Now, if this person also equally felt it was unreasonable for religions to do so also, then I could see that–but their whole point is that it is somehow nonsensical to popularize disbelief, meaning that spreading belief is OK.

Part of this stems, it seems, to the mistaken perception that atheism is a negative rather than a positive. But it also comes across as sounding like atheists don’t have the same legitimacy as other belief groups.

The answer to the writer’s question, of course, is the same reason we teach Critical Thinking in college: so people can apply reason to information that comes their way and see life more clearly.

Perhaps it is not surprising that this author sees such a thing as being a bit strange.

Categories: Religion Tags:

It’s that Time of Year

December 8th, 2010 20 comments

Yes, time for those in the vast majority, who already enjoy their beliefs having predominance in the culture, and who regularly oppress others, to make themselves feel better by acting like they’re the victim: the now-traditional right-wing celebration of the imaginary and invented War on Christmas™.

In the town of Tulsa, OK, the organizers for the annual parade, for the second year running, are calling it a “Holiday” parade instead of a “Christmas” parade. Conservatives are (still) outraged.

If only there were some term that could be used instead of “Holiday” which would include Christmas instead of excluding it!!

Seriously, the question is, why are the wingnuts offended? “Holiday” includes Christmas, so Christmas is not being snubbed. On the contrary, “Holiday” includes everyone, meaning that if you celebrate other traditions, you will now officially be included in the festivities. Using “Christmas” only, and in particular protesting the more general, inclusive term, means that you are offended when other people are included in the celebration.

Essentially, they want to celebrate their holiday alone and tell everyone of differing beliefs to go screw themselves, they’re not welcome. This is America, where only Christianity is welcome, and if you don’t like it, then shut your yap or move to China, you treasonous commie punk.

The rest of us would like a nice, enjoyable celebration for all.

Sorry if the word “bigot” offends anyone, but as they say, if the label fits.

Gods of Fear and Yesteryear

October 31st, 2010 1 comment

David Barton, an evangelical Christian minister and Republican political activist from Texas, warns the god-fearing:

For Christians, voting is not a right, it’s a duty. It’s a stewardship that we owe to God and it’s a stewardship for which we’ll answer directly to him. One day we’ll stand before him and he’ll say “what did you do with that vote I gave you?” And we’ll have to answer.

Righteousness must be the issue. It must be the measure to define what we’re for politically and what we’re against. And each of us will answer to God not only for whether we voted, but for how we voted, for what issues drove our vote.

If we stand before God and He says “why did you vote for a leader who’s attempting to redefine my institution of marriage and who wills the unborn children that I knew before they were in the womb?” If He asks us that and our answer is “Because that leader was good on jobs and the economy,” He’s not going to accept that.

One has to wonder if, a century and a half ago, a similar minister in the South preached to his listeners that when they stood before God and defended their voting record, he would ask why they voted for a leader who would redefine his institution of slavery and wills that people of one race may marry with people of another.

Remember, such were the ways of the time; just as he claims that marriage as it is legally defined today is God’s “institution”–the Bible, of course, says differently, but who’s paying attention–so did many preachers in the old South proclaim that slavery was ordained by God in the Bible–something that actually could be defended a lot better.

There were undoubtedly people back then who voted for slavery, being warned by people like Barton that they would go to hell if they voted against God’s will like that. Today, people like Barton would tell you (at least I hope) that trying to enslave others is wrong and that would lead you to hell.

So, what happened to the people who enslaved others a century and a half ago believing it was God’s will? Did God reward them for doing rightly, or did he punish them, sending them to the fires of hell? Or did God change his mind and judges people differently now?

As a result, one has to question the whole idea of whether we should listen to preachers who arrogantly claim to know what God will or will not send us to hell for. Try instead to phrase the question from different perspectives and see how it comes out:

If we stand before God and He says, “why did you vote for a leader who would deny to all the institution of love and remove my mandate of free will, allowing all to choose the righteous path for themselves?” If He asks us that and our answer is, “Because some preacher told me so and he scared me,” He’s not going to accept that.

Amen.

Categories: GOP & The Election, Religion Tags:

Beliefs Are So Much More Comforting Than Facts

October 24th, 2010 2 comments

The past week has provided classic instances of ignorance in the conservative mindset, resonating on familiar themes. It has to do with believing what one wants and simply remaining ignorant of the facts, while maintaining a sense of confidence that one has the facts straight and those who have actually studied and live up to certain standards are just plain wrong–a classic “faith vs. facts” scenario. Glenn Beck steps up to the plate:

How many people believe in evolution in this country? I’d like to see. I mean, I don’t know why it’s unreasonable to say this. I’m not God so I don’t know how God creates. I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop? Did we all of sudden — there’s no other species that’s developing into half-human? It’s like global warming.

What he does here is what most creationists and global climate change deniers do: bases his views on faith, without even caring what the facts may say. It’s not that he’s looked at evolution, understands what’s involved, and rejects the idea–his statement shows that he doesn’t even understand what evolution is. He’s not interested. He believes what’s comfortable for him, not what any rational analysis says. And as a result, crap like this issues forth when he speaks. Really–take a look as his questions. “Did evolution just stop?” “There’s no other species that’s developing into half-human?” These questions don’t even make sense.

A recent survey found that atheists are among the most educated when it comes to religion, and answered more questions about religion correctly than most of those who believe. The reason was precisely the opposite of what we see in Beck: these people do not reject religion because it does not fit with their pre-existing worldview–for many atheists, religion was their pre-existing worldview. Many atheists became so not because they were raised that way, but because they were raised to be religious, but started questioning, which led to studying, which led to their conversion. Whether it’s what one agrees with or not, one can respect denial when it is studied and honest–but not when it is ignorant and disinterested in fact.

Beck helpfully brings up climate change and places it within the same context. Deniers typically do not rail against it because they’ve studied it or even know what it is–it’s just something they don’t like. So you get people who are essentially, as Colbert so artfully put it, “Peekaboo-ologists,” who think that global climate trends can be judged by looking out their window. As Colbert also put it, trusting their guts instead of the facts, the essence of truthiness.

In both cases–evolution and climate change–“evidence” of disproof of the theories are blindly accepted by deniers, even after the “evidence” is inevitably disproved. That’s why the hacked email ‘scandal’ concerning climate change was like candy to these people, as if a few scattered references by a few scientists over the span of a decade taken out of context somehow demonstrated that an entire field of science was based on deception, or that heavy snowfall one year was obviously proof that global warming is not taking place, despite the fact that a warming trend actually predicts exactly such an outcome.

With evolution, this is all old hat. Creationists generally don’t bother to educate themselves about the nature of evolutionary theory; they simply believe in the Bible and don’t care what else there might be. I have mentioned the daughter of a fundamentalist preacher I once worked with who believed that she had disproven evolution personally as a high school student. She heard a single lecture in her science class about radioactive dating, and noted that scientists estimated the age of an object before carrying out the tests. She then assumed that the purpose of the estimate was to use it in the final calculation of the object’s age (the actual purpose is to determine which test should be applied), thus coloring the results and making them invalid. As is the pattern with such people, she did not then try to verify her conclusion, she simply accepted it as verification of her beliefs and used it to convince others that science was wrong.

I did not try to correct her, as it was clear that it would not have made any difference. To these people, this is not really a matter of debate or discussion; they simply believe what they believe, and facts and evidence are these insubstantial things fluttering about which others seem to use to communicate. They don’t study them, they don’t even try to understand them, they just grasp whatever bits sounds right to them and proffer them forth because they know that they can’t just say to outsiders, “I know the truth and the facts don’t matter.” So as a result, they come off sounding like fools to those who look at things from a more fact-based perspective.

Which brings us to Christine O’Donnell, who made a gaffe this week during a debate. When her opponent said that creationism should not be taught in schools, O’Donnell faced him and asked, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” The audience–they were debating at a law school–loudly gasped and laughed at the question, as it was so clearly ridiculous. When Coons later explained the First Amendment’s establishment clause, O’Donnell asked, “The First Amendment does?” Again later, O’Donnell pressed the point:

“So let me just clarify. You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

Coons replied, “The government shall make no establishment of religion.”

O’Donnell: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

Wow. That’s pretty stunning. She doesn’t even know the text of the First Amendment. Now, her people point to something she said while attempting to overtalk Coons, and you have to listen carefully to the exchange to hear that she asks if the phrase “separation of church and state” is in the First Amendment. They claim that this is what she was referring to the whole time. The thing is, she did not repeat it, had to know that Coons didn’t hear it, and in not one but two different exchanges in the debate, it was crystal clear that the subject was the establishment clause, and not the specific phrase “separation of church and state” when O’Donnell asked incredulously if Coons actually believed the First Amendment said such a thing.

But to many people like O’Donnell, it really doesn’t matter if you’re talking about “establishment” or “separation of church and state”; they simply know that the First Amendment doesn’t say anything that prevents us from teaching creationism and having Christian prayer in public schools. The standard argument is either that the First Amendment only prohibits the government from creating some new religion, or that it says that the government cannot interfere with religion. They strictly deny that the establishment clause mandates that the affairs of church and state must remains separate–despite the fact that the two founding fathers most identified with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Jefferson and Madison, both made it clear that the First Amendment establishment clause was indeed intended to separate matters of church and state.

But like I mentioned above, this doesn’t matter. O’Donnell and others like her know what they know, and they don’t need to be bothered with facts. Even when they profess to be all about facts–O’Donnell represents herself as schooled in this, having a “graduate fellowship from the Claremont Institute in constitutional government” (turns out it was an eight-day course). However, in the debate, O’Donnell could not recall what the 14th or the 16th Amendments were (“fortunately Senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution”). Now, the 16th, maybe not, but the 14th? Really?

Like I said, the facts don’t matter. Just truthiness. It’s maddening, but at least it provides comic relief every once in a while.

Basing One’s Morals Upon the Worst of Others’

September 12th, 2010 Comments off

Despite the Florida group’s decision to cancel their Koran-burning event, one protester near the NYC Islamic center site did burn some pages from the holy book. Now, had he said, “if they can build a mosque near Ground Zero, I can burn the Koran,” both would have been true in terms of what rights each group has, but the statement would have been a false equivalency; building a house of worship and interfaith community center is not comparable to defiling a book of scripture.

But that’s not what the guy said; he said something that sounded much more reasonable. He said, “If they can burn American flags, I can burn the Koran.” Now, that’s easier to identify with. The double standard does get pretty galling sometimes; angry groups in the Middle East do seem to regularly get out and burn our sacred symbols a lot, as well as our leaders in effigy–but if we do something like a Koran burning (or even a Mohammed cartoon) back, they get furious. One could, I suppose, draw differences between national flags and holy books (maybe they would not mind it so much if we burned their flags), but with the “you can’t draw Mohammed” issue, the standard does not seem to be a tit-for-tat but rather a requirement to observe what is most sacred to each group. And the American flag is pretty damn sacred to a lot of Americans. The people who burn them don’t seem to care, or perhaps that’s why they burn them.

First, there is the point of who is being hurt. Lots of people in the Middle East have burned American flags. But hardly all of them, not even a large percent. Burning pages of a Koran, however, hurts millions of people worldwide who did nothing to offend, who were probably even in opposition to that offense. Many have wondered recently how all of America could be held responsible for the acts of a tiny church in Florida with only a few dozen members. Well, that’s how–we tend to do the exact same thing.

It is easy to forget, however, that the real issue here is one level higher: doing the right thing. Being a good person. One of our biggest flaws as human beings is our ability to rationalize an immoral act based on someone else doing something we don’t like. Punching someone in the face is wrong; but if another person says enough provocative things, we feel justified, as if that person’s wrong actions somehow justifies our own. The guy who burned the Koran in New York may have felt justified, but what he did was still wrong. In one sense, he just burned paper like it’s burned all the time. But that’s not the real meaning of what he did, which was instead to carry out an act he knew would cause disrespect and anguish to others. And while that’s legal, and while he has that right, it doesn’t mean it is a moral or correct action to take.

In recent weeks, the example has been, “if we can’t build a church in Mecca, they shouldn’t be allowed to build a mosque near Ground Zero.” This, however, is based upon the same fallacy. Yes, they are wrong to deny people religious freedoms. But no, that does not mean we should follow their example. It’s the same with what many feel justifies the death penalty–why should the murderer get “life” when the victim got death–but my own primary objection is that whatever the criminals did, we should not feel justified in doing the same wrong action. Most would see this the same way in light of the analogy that we do not rape rapists–although far too many people would at the very least be satisfied with such a thing happening, and at the most would go so far as to promote it.

This follows a scriptural moral code that many embrace: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Tit for tat. However, this was superseded by the New Testament morality of “turn the other cheek,” something that every mother echoes with the age-old clichéd lesson, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” We all know this. And yet we seem ready to abandon this simple, common wisdom at the burning of a flag.

Categories: Religion, Social Issues Tags:

Heartsong: Here’s How to Commemorate 9/11

September 11th, 2010 5 comments

For all of our talk about and taking pride in our tolerance, diversity, and freedom, we are quite often intolerant, not welcoming of those different from us, and less enthusiastic about freedom when we don’t like those whose freedom is being exercised.

Islam has never been especially welcome in the United States. After 9/11, many got the message and, at least publicly, made gestures of acceptance toward American Muslims. Most recently, however, the climate against Islam in America has reached a level of hatred and fear as can only be generated by politicians trying to win a political campaign.

In the Bible Belt state of Tennessee, we see several examples of this. In Murfreesboro, about 40 miles southeast of Nashville, an Islamic Center under construction has been the site of unusually strong opposition by its community. The site was set afire and vandalized amid sounds of gunshots in the vicinity. A sign announcing the center was defaced while a large billboard not far away advocated stopping the mosque from being built. Pat Robertson made things worse by insinuating that money from Saudi Arabia would be used to essentially take over the city.

Closer to Nashville, a proposal to build a mosque in Brentwood was shut down after a campaign by locals to smear the builders as having terrorist ties, fueling a letter-writing campaign that ultimately derailed the project.

However, among all of the lies, distortions, defiling, protests, and even violent attacks, there is at least one example of what people of faith should be acting like. A few hundred miles to the west, in Cordova, on the outskirts of Memphis, a Muslim group bought 31 acres of land to build the Memphis Islamic Center, a sprawling center built around a mosque. What’s more, it was right across the street from the Heartsong Church.

When the church’s pastor, Steve Stone, first heard of this, he was nervous, admitting to a “tightness in my stomach” at the news. “But then,” he said, “I realized that was fear and I realized that was ignorance.” He and his congregation decided to do something all too uncommon among American Christians: they heeded the words of Jesus. “They’re our neighbors across the street and we follow Jesus, who teaches us to love our neighbors,” Stone explained.

HeartsongsignSo the small congregation laid out the welcome mat, in more than one way. They erected a large sign in front of their church, reading “Heartsong Church welcomes Memphis Islamic Center to the neighborhood.”

The Muslims planning the center were “overwhelmed with emotion” when they saw the sign, and thus began a warm and close relationship between the two religious groups.

When Ramadan came and the Islamic center was not yet finished, its leaders asked the Heartsong church if they could hold their Ramadan prayers at the church. Instead of being offended, Pastor Stone accepted the proposal as “a high compliment,” and welcomed the Muslims in. People in both congregations may have been a bit nervous that something might go wrong, but nothing did–and the groups moved that much closer.

This is the America we claim exists. This is the tolerance, acceptance, and diversity we celebrate. This is, furthermore, what Christianity is supposed to be all about. So the question becomes, why can’t more American Christians act like these people? We’d all be better for it.

And after all, what better way to commemorate 9/11 than to show what is best about America?

Categories: 9/11 News, Religion Tags:

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

September 10th, 2010 2 comments

Terry Jones, the guy in Florida who plans to burn Korans, said that he’s calling off the burning event because he has been assured by a Florida Imam, Muhammad Musri, that in exchange for the Koran burning being called off, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will move the planned Community Center near Ground Zero to a different location, something which Jones called “a sign from God.”

When I read this, I thought, “that sounds crazy, maybe even stupid.” I mean, really–if Rauf were to agree to move because some nutjob in Florida announces he’s burning Korans, that’s kind of like giving in to terrorist demands–you give him a cookie, he’s gonna want a glass of milk. before you know it, fundie pastors from across the nation will hold Koran burnings unless Muslims do this or that. I thought, maybe Rauf is taking one for the team–but it still sounded wrong.

And indeed it was: Musri stated that there was no deal in place, but instead that the deal was to have a three-way meeting between Rauf, Musri, and Jones in New York to discuss the issue.

Okay, so maybe Jones was just playing things up, and got ahead of himself, or else was desperately looking for a face-saving way out and exaggerated a bit.

Rauf, however, claims that he wasn’t contacted by either Jones or Musri, and has no plans to move the planned project, and would not barter over the site.

Looking back, Musri had not said he talked to Rauf, but to Rauf’s “office.” That makes some sense–it could have been a miscommunication or something. Musri calls Rauf’s office to set up a deal; maybe Rauf’s people say the Imam is willing to talk to anyone as a statement of general policy. Musri perhaps tells Jones they can have talks, and maybe in that discussion tries to beef up the possibility of a deal to sway Jones, and Jones takes that as an assurance there will be a deal, and so announces he’s the NYC Mosque hero. Something along those lines. Then Rauf comes back to his office, and asks, “so what happened while I was away?” And then has to deny everything.

It wasn’t hard to predict how Jones would react to that. Claiming that Musri had “clearly” lied to him, Jones said that the Koran burning was not being canceled. However, some reports have him going forward with the burning, while others say that Jones has cryptically characterized the burning as being “suspended,” whatever that means.

All this happened, as far as I can tell, within the span of a few hours.

So, what’s next?

Categories: 9/11 News, Religion Tags:

Support the Troops and Honor the Victims? Not Really. But It Sounds Good.

September 8th, 2010 17 comments

In Gainesville, Florida, there is a group called the “Dove World Outreach Center.” From the name of it, you would think that it is an organization seeking peace by reaching out to the world.

So naturally, they want to hold a high-publicized event where they burn copies of the Koran.

Actually, the “Dove” part of the title is probably more a reference to the Holy Spirit rather than to peace in general, and the “World Outreach” part is more about proselytization, about domination Dominion theology, not reaching out in respect and tolerance. They’re really a fundamentalist group with strong anti-Islamic tendencies who apparently think that burning the Koran is a peachy idea to show their dedication to “love, healing and prosperity” by going “outside the walls” of their church and “marching for righteousness.” Among their reasons for burning the Koran: Muslims don’t believe Christ is the Son of God, the Koran is of human origin (unlike the Bible), it includes Arabian idolatry, paganism, rites and rituals, it was written after Mohammad’s death and is confused, contradictory and inconsistent, it’s totalitarian, etc. etc. (Funny, I have heard most of these used by atheists to criticize Christianity….)

Anyway, these peace-loving righteous folk have now been officially warned by our military leaders in the Middle East: what you’re doing could get our troops killed and can endanger our whole mission. Burning the Koran “could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort,” said General Petraeus; “It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world, we are engaged with the Islamic community.” His deputy added that “their very actions will in fact jeopardize the safety of the young men and women who are serving in uniform over here and also undermine the very mission that we’re trying to accomplish.”

So, will the Dove World Outreach Center reconsider its plans? They say “no,” although they’re “praying” about it real hard. But their plans remain in place.

Now, they certainly have the right to burn the Koran, no question there. But these people are just the kind of folk who often claim to honor the troops and drape themselves in patriotism, and yet they knowingly, even brashly put the soldiers in danger. For what reason?

He says the goal of burning Korans is to send a message to al-Qaida, the violent Islamic group that carried out the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington nine years ago.

“That led us to International Burn a Koran Day, to honor those who were murdered at that time [September 11th]. And to put a real clear message out to Islam that we will not tolerate, we do not want them trying to push their agenda on us, in other words Sharia law,” he said.

Shows what a fool this guy is–al Qaeda, while probably not enjoying the Koran being defiled in any way, is almost certainly gleeful that this is happening; this is exactly the kind of animosity they have been trying to build, exactly the image of the West they hope to propagate amongst Muslims. As for “honoring” those murdered on 9/11,“ I will wager good money that this guy has not spoken to a single family member who lost someone on that day, and probably has no actual clue how most of them would in fact feel about something like this.

In New York, Pamela Geller, the woman who has been leading the wingnut charge to demonize Islam and take down the Park51 project, plans a protest rally in front of the proposed site on September 11. However, a coalition of 9/11 families’ groups as well as many of the family members individually have respectfully asked they hold the rally on a different day:

The proposed mosque has caused tremendous pain and great concern to many within the 9/11 community. Our desire, which we hope you share, is simply to preserve 9/11 for appropriate remembrance and reflection – we do not believe that protest rallies of this nature should take place on such a sacred day and in such close proximity to Ground Zero.

Geller claims that because there are some families who support her, and because she has not received a direct request (registered mail required, I’m guessing) from a majority of the families of the victims, she feels fully justified and will ignore those she is offending.

Which goes to show that she doesn’t give a shit about the families of the victims. After all, the mosque doesn’t offend all the families of the victims, and yet Geller feels passionate supposedly about the possibility of offending even some of the families. However, she could care less about doing the exact same thing herself.

In both cases, we have people whose actions betray their claims: they are not doing this for the victims of 9/11, or for peace, or for battered women, or for America, or for whatever excuse sounds best–but the fact is, they are doing it for themselves, for their own base and selfish reasons. Fact is, they don’t like the victims’ families (right wingers like Geller, for example, hated them when they protested Bush), they just like the victims’ families who will stand behind them and give credence to their twisted little campaigns. What they do and especially the manner in which they do it, in the face of potentially hurting many of those they would claim to support, exemplifies that they don’t give a rat’s ass about them, but use them as a convenient excuse to pretty up their motives.

It’s OK to Publish Ads Attacking Religion After All, Apparently

August 27th, 2010 4 comments

In the past, when atheist organizations put up ads, even ones which are positive in nature and do nothing to put down religion, the ads are seen as threatening, hostile, and unacceptable; numerous Christians pressure the organization hosting the ads, usually successfully, to take down the ads. Usually that is done under the pretense of open proselytization–although many of the ads don’t actually proselytize, and Christian groups often openly proselytize on billboards themselves.

Dontbelievead

One ad was so subtle that it required a bit of thought to see the message, and made a statement that was at the same time patriotic and nothing more than plainly secular–quoting the original text of the pledge of allegiance. Not to mention text that is more inclusive, not less. And yet this rather unserstated, simple display was considered so radical as to merit national attention.

These ads usually are relatively tame; for example, a common one asks, “Don’t Believe in God? You’re Not Alone,” and prompts people to visit the “Coalition of Reason” web site. They usually do not urge people to leave the church, but instead try to attract atheists who do not know of others who feel the same way they do. And yet, such messages often prompt Christians to angrily protest, demanding the ads be removed–this one was taken down after the billboard owner got death threats. (Islamic extremists do not, it seems, have a monopoly on that particular tactic.)

One can safely assume that these are often the same people who are offended by liberals who ask people to be sensitive about what names they call other people, attacking such “PC” sensibilities as “censorship” and “violating First Amendment rights.”

The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) is somewhat more aggressive, posting billboards and bus ads which directly criticize religion. Quotes from famous figures like Mark Twain, Butterfly McQueen, Clarence Darrow, Emily Dickinson, and Katherine Hepburn involve messages that are clearly critical: from Twain’s snarky “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so” to McQueen’s more pointed “As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion.” These ads, although done tastefully, do push the boundaries somewhat; and churches hit right back, with ads quoting, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

However, imagine if the atheists put up signs going much further–say, an ad atop taxi cabs which screamed, “CHILD ABUSE VICTIMS,” and asked, “Is your church a threat to your children?” followed by the URL, “www.LeaveChristianityNow.org”. Not just commentary, but a smear–taking a restricted, unrepresentative scandal and using it as a front to break people from their faiths.

How do you think Christians would feel about that ad?

Actually, the question is academic: I fully doubt that any business or ad agency would allow such an ad to get past the preliminary stages. And rightly so; support ads and even proselytization are one thing; ads quietly critical of religion would be considered less kosher but within limits. But ads actively, underhandedly smearing a religion so stridently are another thing entirely. Even liberals would balk at that, and one might assume that conservatives would be livid at even the idea.

Unless, of course, it’s an anti-Muslim ad.

A few days ago people started hearing about ads placed atop taxicabs in Chicago which read, “HONOR KILLING VICTIMS: Is your family threatening you?” and displays the URL “LeaveIslamSafely.com”. Were this a women’s advocacy group trying to protect people, that would be different–but the URL makes it clear that the intent is to drive people completely from their faith.

The thing is–and I may be wrong on this as I am hardly an expert on the subject–I don’t even think this is related to Islam except indirectly. My understanding is that honor killings are a cultural, not a religious practice.

The ads are cleverly cloaked in an anti-violence support guise, but the real intent behind them is made clear when you understand that the ads were placed by one Pamela Geller, a strident, extremist anti-Islam whack job who revels in seeing lurid conspiracies of anti-American jihad under every prayer mat. Honor killings are not what she’s about, she’s completely anti-Islam. This suggests that the ads are less about saving lives and are more about demonizing Islam. Not that honor killings are not a problem, but they are hardly synonymous with Islam, just as child molestation is not synonymous with Christianity.

For better or worse, the ads are being taken down. One point, however, is that had they been equivalent ads targeting Christianity, they would never have gone up in the first place.

Antiislamad

An Appeal to Bigotry

August 16th, 2010 35 comments

Well, it’s official: now that Obama has spoken out in approval of the Cordoba House project [Clarification: he did not “approve it” or even “approve of it” per se; he only supported their right do so], Republicans are grabbing the issue as an election-year theme. Never mind that this should be an issue of religious liberty. Never mind that this is a clear appeal to lump together all Muslims under the terrorist label and use them as a political scapegoat.

Who cares about any of that when you can get people to vote for you?

Count me as disgusted. Not surprised, just sickened.

More of the Meme

August 13th, 2010 7 comments

Rand Paul on the “You Have to Be a Christian to Be Good” bandwagon:

I’m a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife’s a Deacon there and we’ve gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society. . . . 98% of us won’t murder people, won’t steal, won’t break the law and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day to day life.

The clear implication is that if you’re not a Christian, then you don’t believe in law and order and you don’t have a moral compass or a moral basis for your day-to-day life.

How charming.

Categories: Religion Tags:

Adam and Eve Had No DNA

August 2nd, 2010 1 comment

In Australia, primary school students apparently have “Religious Instruction” classes in public schools, and while one gets the feeling that they are usually taught by professionals, it would seem that the churches who send the teachers are giving in to Creationist pressures and are now teaching stuff like about how Noah collected Dinosaur eggs for the ark, and other fun Fundie factoids.

Here’s the end of the article:

A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.

“The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve,” he said.

“My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that ‘wouldn’t they all be inbred’?

”But the teacher replied that DNA wasn’t invented then.“

In the above exchange, a few things are significant. Firstly, the primary school student seemed better educated than her teacher. And second, the less funny part, is that this young girl became ostracized because she was intelligent and asked sensible questions, and now likely stands out as some kind of pariah in her school.

This is a very real problem in schools where a solid majority is religious: children raised to be freethinking often find themselves outcast, bullied and rejected, because the school itself allows religion in the door and these students don’t subscribe. Without religious instruction, they would blend in and be treated fairly; allow religion to enter, and the students become targets. In Delaware, when religion was allowed to deeply permeate school curriculum and social life, two Jewish students, a brother and sister, were first ostracized and then their whole family literally run out of town because they weren’t Christian. Or this story told by a teen atheist from a religious family in Oklahoma who was harassed and outcast at his high school for his beliefs, to the point where he was labeled psychologically unstable and was forced to drop out of school. Again, something that would not have happened had the school been secular. Especially where religion is strong, this kind of singling out and discrimination is more likely to happen.

This is not just a matter of being offended, this is a serious breach of personal rights and liberties for the sake of forced indoctrination–which is what this is really about. Prayer does not belong in the classroom, as it can be performed countless times during the day otherwise. A child can pray when he wakes up, as he gets dressed, before and after eating breakfast, and any time at home before leaving. He can pray at the bus stop, on the bus, and when he arrives at school. He can pray by himself or with other Christians either out in the yard or in the hallways or in an empty classroom. He can pray during breaks, between classes, during lunch, or other free times. He can pray after school ends, on the way home, with his family, before and after study, before and after watching TV… well, I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea. Not to mention that he can pray silently at any time.

So why does prayer need to be directed by teachers? Simple: because that makes it official. That lends governmental and educational authority to religion. That’s really the major reason for this. To proselytize, to get new people in the church and keep kids in the religion. That’s why it’s so often pushed at schools more than most other places.

The real test is to turn it around and ask if you’d be OK still. If you are a Christian, and you want your kids to be raised Christian, what would you think if the school in your neighborhood pushed Islam and your kids were bullied and outcast for being Christian? Or how about atheism? Not science and scientific findings, which are not atheism, but actual atheism–what would a Christian think if the schools had teachers saying outright that God does not exist, that religion is a sham for the weak-minded? What if they taught the history of religion as war, and that one must discard God to be a good and moral person? I seriously doubt that would not be problem for Christian families; on the contrary, it would be a huge issue. They raise holy hell over a lot less right now. So how come their brand of proselytization is A-OK?

Sorry, I know that I repeat myself a lot on this issue. But every time I see a story like the one above–admittedly on the extreme side, but more ”tame“ stories are nonetheless just as objectionable–I can’t resist getting the soapbox out.

Categories: Religion Tags:

It’s Not About Religion, It’s Not About 9/11; It’s About Politics

August 1st, 2010 4 comments

A few days ago, I posted about the “mosque” being built “at” Ground Zero–actually, it’s a community center, and there’s a multi-faith chapel and prayer area, not a mosque, and it’s not on the WTC site, but rather two or three blocks away… but hey, when it’s an election year and you’re trying to make people mad, these things don’t matter. What’s more, as came out in the discussion, the group that wants to put up the center is one that has condemned the 9/11 attack and terrorism in general “in the most unequivocal terms,” and plans a memorial for the 9/11 victims in the center. The Imam heading the initiative, a Sufi Muslim, has worked together with Israelis to promote peace between the nations, and has jointly proclaimed with them for both Palestinians and Jews “to live with freedom, security, dignity, respect, and self-determination.” So this is no radical organization, not a group raising funds for terrorists or smearing Jews, but a progressive, peaceful organization trying to mend relations, build awareness, and bring Muslims and others to a reasonable, respectful, and peaceful place.

And yet, look at what controversy has been brought. Now, this probably would not have been such a big deal were it not for people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich seeing a fantastic red-herring issue intended not to legitimately address grievances or to right wrongs, but instead to inflame (and defame) so as to rally political strength to their campaigns. Without the politicians using this as a prop to get media attention, there would have been a few protests from the families of the 9/11 victims, a few people from the community raising a fuss, but it would have stopped there, the protests drowned out by others pointing out that the group is far from objectionable, the project is positive and constructive by nature, and religious freedoms should be observed and no one group be unfairly maligned or hindered.

But this is a critical election year, and the temptation of making hay by distorting the facts and playing on people’s fears and indignation is just too great.

One interesting perspective is to imagine it having happened a different way: what if Obama himself had announced support for this project? As far as I can tell, he’s stayed a mile away from the issue, and for good reason: the right-wing has made the “Obama is a Muslim who wants to attack Christianity and destroy America” one of its prominent memes; Obama announcing public support for the center near Ground Zero would be like Christmas and Easter wrapped up in an orgasm for these people.

Imagine what the reaction would be if, now that Obama is president, the Pentagon started building Islamic prayer centers just like the one that they’re proposing near Ground Zero? The Pentagon, itself a victim of 9/11! Forced to build mosques!! Whoo boy! That would set off a firestorm of protest! There would be no end to the indignation, the claims that Obama is anti-Christian, the calls for impeachment, cries that anyone who would be insensitive and anti-American enough to build mosques at U.S. military installations must be a traitor of the worst stripe!!! The media would jump right on the bandwagon, “reasonably” asking questions like, “Is it really appropriate for the president to do something like this? Is he not sensitive to the feelings of the families of the victims as well as Americans everywhere? Should we be spreading Islamic fervor within the ranks of our own military?”

What if, on top of that, President Barack Hussein Obama hosted an Iftar, and Muslim celebration of Ramadan, within the White House itself? Everyone would go insane!!!

Well, if you know me, then you can probably see where I’m going with this. In 2006, five years after 9/11, The Pentagon started building Islamic prayer rooms. A few right-wing bloggers got their panties in a bunch, but no one else much minded or even noticed. And Bush hosted Iftars more than once. Bush was not branded a traitor, no brouhaha, the world didn’t end.

What this shows is that this is mostly about politics, mostly about smears and attacks and defamation and using our emotions, our fears and sensitivities against what is reasonable and for what is wrong with politics today.

One last thought: Jonathan Chait at The New Republic makes an interesting point: did you feel that it was proper to allow Salman Rushdie to publish The Satanic Verses, or for a Danish newspaper to publish a cartoon of Muhammad? You see the relation to this–freedoms of religion, action, and speech versus the sensitivities of those who may be offended.

Categories: Political Game-Playing, Religion Tags:

Guilt by Association

July 29th, 2010 12 comments

Newt Gingrich:

You know, there are over a hundred mosques in New York City. I favor religious freedom. I’m quite happy if they’d come in and said, ‘We want to build a community center near Central Park, we’d like to build a community center near Columbia University.’ But they didn’t. They said right at the edge of a place where, let’s be clear, thousands of Americans were killed in an attack by radical Islamists.

By that logic, since the 9/11 terrorist were Middle Eastern, we should be blocking anyone of Middle East descent from (a) purchasing property, (b) running a business, or (c) taking up residence anywhere near Ground Zero. For example, any Saudi business that wants to rent offices within, say, ten city blocks should be denied permission.

Unless I misunderstand Newt–we’re talking about guilt by association, right? We’re essentially saying that since radical Islamists were responsible for 9/11, that means all Muslims are to be banned from setting up shop near Ground Zero. Since it’s not about religion, we must also take into account whatever attributes were involved–and national origin is certainly involved, at least as much as religion.

And hey, the terrorists were all men!

Or how about Timothy McVeigh being a registered Republican; should we have banned the GOP from setting up any party offices within a mile of the Oklahoma City National Memorial? You paint with a broad brush, you cover a lot of territory.

This whole thing is idiotic and bigoted, an appeal to the lowest common denominator for the most base and shameful of reasons. Now, if radical Islamists, maybe some Shariah Law school run by people of the exact same stripe of the terrorists, or a mosque dedicated to the terrorists–you know, someone actually in any way associated or identifying with the terrorists–if they wanted to set up business nearby, then maybe Newt’s got a point.

Now, if someone wanted to take the community center to task on specific grounds, such as objections to the Imam responsible for the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, that’s different; you can cite specific reasons and call specific sensitivities into question. For example, Rauf said things after 9/11 such as, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” Or, “… we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” Now, he also said other things like “Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam,” and “I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.” These are items we could debate on their merits. We could have a conversation about whether it is agreeable to allow or not allow an organization run by a person like this to set up shop near Ground Zero–either in terms of sensitivity or whether it is even legal to stop it. We could discuss the ins and outs, the conflicts and the perceptions, and so forth.

But to say, “Hey, these guys are Muslims, the terrorists were Muslims, all Muslims banned from the area” is pretty much the definitive example of sweeping religious stereotyping and discrimination.

But then again, this is an election year.

Stay classy, Newt.

Categories: Political Game-Playing, Religion Tags:

Science!

July 7th, 2010 6 comments

Imagine one of your children brings home their 4th grade science textbook. You decide to have a look at it, and on page 40, you read this:

Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see and feel and hear only what electricity does. We know that it makes light bulbs shine and irons heat up and telephones ring. But we cannot say what electricity itself is like.

We cannot even say where electricity comes from. Some scientists say that the sun may be the source of most electricity. Other think that the movement of the Earth produces some of it. All anyone knows is that electricity seems to be everywhere and that there are many ways to bring it forth.

Now, what exactly would you think of that text? Me, I’d immediately contact the school and ask what the hell they’re teaching my kids. Of course, if that were the text that was used, it would mean that the religious fundamentalists had gotten control over the school system and were using textbooks published by Bob Jones University. The textbook in question–“Science 4: Students Text”–is home-schooling fare, or, in other words, texts for parents so extremist that they go to radical lengths to prevent their kids from getting exposed to the secular wickedness served up at public schools, and there are no private religious schools nearby with a fanatical-enough curriculum to satisfy them.

The passage above (seen scanned here) has been raising a lot of attention since PZ Myers featured it a few days ago on Pharyngula. You gotta know that it has led to a lot of attention because BJU Press has yanked the “Look Inside” feature for that one book’s class set off their web site, one would assume to avoid more embarrassment.

However, it doesn’t take much searching of their site and leafing through sample chapters of other texts to find stuff that’s interesting, though nothing quite as spectacularly buffoonish as that 4th-grade passage on electricity. Certainly the text is, to say the least, suspect as “Science.” Take this page from a 6th-grade text on goelogy:

Places where the plates meet are called plate boundaries. Scientists think that currents in the molten rock of the earth’s mantle may move the plates a few centimeters each year. This movement may cause the plates to separate, to collide, or to slide along their plate boundaries.

Some scientists believe that at one time the earth could have been a single large landmass that they call Pangaea (pan JEE uh). Because there was no recorded observation, we cannot be sure that such a landmass existed. We also cannot know how the landmass may have broken into pieces. However, the Bible tells us in the book of Genesis that God sent at great flood to destroy the wickedness on the earth. Genesis 7:11 states that “the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

Many Creation scientists think that the earth’s surface went through catastrophic changes during the Noahic Flood. These deluges could have caused the great landmass to break and separate. The plates may have moved with such tremendous force that landforms such as mountains could have been formed as plates collided.

Some scientists claim that landforms took millions of years to form, but it is likely that they formed in a much shorter period of time.

Note the determined dissembling and introduction of doubt when it comes to facts not embraced by the church. “Because there was no recorded observation,” and “we cannot know,” in addition to the insertion of biblical events to explain the form of the Earth. Not to mention the cute capper at the end, “it is likely that they formed in a much shorter period of time.” Yeeess, that is “likely.” Not that we’re making any claims here! We report, and you, the student, decide!

If nothing else, it is an interesting look at how the fundie crowd teaches “science” to their kids–with enough of the subject matter intact to make them aware of all the basics other kids know, but with just the right amount of fundie flavor to keep them out of hellfire.

Also note the repeated use of “some scientists think,” “some scientists believe,” and “some scientists claim” liberally applied to almost every statement of scientific fact, no matter how established or non-controversial. (Note, however, that when creation scientists are mentioned, it’s “many,” not “some.”) The intent is, naturally, to create a sense of doubt concerning anything that mainstream scientists say, as if everything is the field of science is just speculation, nothing more than theories and opinions, and therefore one can take creation science or other fundamentalist biblical interpretations just as, if not more seriously.

Or, I should say, some bloggers think that it is likely that these texts are full of it.

Of course, I am sure that these home-schooled kids will be set straight when they eventually attend Glenn Beck University (accreditation pending).

Categories: Religion, Science Tags:

Our Lawyers Tell Us Our Bigotry Won’t Stand Up in Court, So…

June 10th, 2010 Comments off

A man in Fargo, North Dakota, applied for a vanity plate which reads “ISNOGOD.” The NDDOT (North Dakota Department of Transportation) rejected his application. Not because it was taken, but because they didn’t like the message–it “might offend people,” they said. They had already approved religious plates, such as “ILOVGOD,” and so apparently they only care about offending religious people, not non-religious people. This was the first vanity plate turned down in the state in three years.

Now the NDDOT has reversed its decision, but does not seem to be doing so willingly. Instead of apologizing for what amounts to blatant discrimination, they simply noted that their attorneys have “advised” them that “under the law” the man is “entitled” to the plate has asked for. The reversal was only “due a broader legal review.” In short, they would have liked to tell the guy that his religious views won’t be tolerated, but their lawyer informed them that their bias didn’t have a legal leg to stand on and a court would rule against them in an embarrassing and perhaps expensive manner.

No doubt the guy will have his car keyed or something after getting the plates.

Categories: Religion Tags:

You Gotta Remember This Is Fox

May 16th, 2010 5 comments

Wow. You gotta be amazed at how someone passing himself off as a journalist can (a) get so many facts wrong, and (b) pack his interview with so much bias. And usually, these things are allowed to pass without remedy, but this time, the interviewee was someone who knew the actual facts and was willing to stop the conversation and make the corrections (if not point out the bias). Here’s Fox second-stringer Dave Briggs getting his fanny gently handed to him by Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation:

Note the usual Fox captions, including “Preying on Prayer,” and the suspicious ID of the judge, with photo–which, to Fox viewers, is a message saying “harass this person.”

But the vapid, error-filled arguments, really nothing more than right-wing talking points, are what really catch one’s attention. Briggs got pretty much everything wrong. He claimed that no one had complained, when so many had; he claimed that the central issue was that no one is forced to pray, when the issue was separation of church and state; he claimed that the Constitution made mentions of god, when he was quoting the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document. He even brought Christmas into it, rather lamely, suggesting that the guest would want to ban that next.

Barker replied well, and even brought up the Treaty of Tripoli, a legal document signed by John Adams himself, ratified by that early Congress, and published publicly without scandal or outcry, which stated unequivovally that the United States is not “in any sense” founded on Christianity. If anything, Barker was kind and gentle to this guy. Me, I detest “journalists” who don’t pay attention to facts, and would have called him out rather ungently. Barker’s approach was better, of course–but you can bet any amount and be safe to win that the vast majority of Fox viewers heard only what the interviewer said and didn’t believe anything said by Barker.

When will these numbskulls get the fact that separation of church and state is there to protect all beliefs, especially the right to religious belief? That this separation, in fact, was originally designed to safeguard the freedom of religion, and that if these evangelicals and wingnuts get their way, it will be the death knell of that religious freedom in this country?

Categories: Religion, Right-Wing Lies Tags:

Stay Classy, Vatican

April 13th, 2010 3 comments

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, considered to be the “deputy pope”:

Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true. That is the problem.

Um, nope. There is no demonstrable relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. The few studies that make such a claim are so flawed as to be meaningless. Pedophiles, in fact, are considered to have no adult sexual orientation at all–being a pedophile is their orientation. The whole thing about blaming gays for pedophilia is either a bigoted, homophobic lie intended to deflect criticism onto a persecuted minority, or sheer ignorance and a blind dependency on said sources.

Besides which, the remark on celibacy is a red herring–the question is not whether celibacy is “linked” to pedophilia (“link” is an extremely vague term which could mean many things), but rather whether pedophiles enter the priesthood in greater numbers because they believe the training and celibate life will help them repress their urges. It apparently does not do much in that respect, but it does place them in a highly trusted position with easy access to many young children–not a good place for a pedophile to be.

The cardinal did not address that issue. Apparently, it’s just easier to blame gays.

Categories: Religion Tags: