Saturday - April 07, 2007
Same as it ever was
Yet another pundit, this
time E.J. Dionne, calls out the oh so nasty atheists who aren't
sufficiently deferential to the religious. Oliver Willis chimes in here.
Yes, you are an atheist. Yes, the religious right has too much power. So, why do you have to be such an ass about it?
The problem appears to be that, like the newly assertive Democrats, the atheists are actually standing up for what they don't believe, and making a lot of religious folks look like idiots in the process. While both Dionne and Willis claim to be sympathetic to their right to be atheists, and their technical right to advocate for their ideas, each resents the fact that they do so.
But I'm heartened by this trend, inasmuch as it is simply another variation on a theme we have heard before from alleged sympathizers when previously quiescent minorities have started to speak. To paraphrase Oliver:
Yes, you are a [black person/woman/gay/immigrant]. Yes, you have been deprived of your rights to participate in this society or marginalized. So, why do you have to be so uppity about it?
Maybe because, as so many other groups have learned, you don't get anywhere if you wait for the other guy to do the heavy lifting for you. Some may think that this is much ado about nothing, but the fact is that atheists are barely tolerated in this society and, in fact, are constitutionally or statutorily barred from full participation in civic life in some states.
If history runs true to form, we can look forward to atheists "coming out" as Pete Stark did just recently (as a non-theist). As atheists acquire a human face, like gays they will become less frightening and more accepted. In the meantime, the in your face atheists are doing double duty. They are preparing the way for a more rational and tolerant country and they making the fundamentalists with whom they debate look like jackasses. That's not really so bad.
Yes, you are an atheist. Yes, the religious right has too much power. So, why do you have to be such an ass about it?
The problem appears to be that, like the newly assertive Democrats, the atheists are actually standing up for what they don't believe, and making a lot of religious folks look like idiots in the process. While both Dionne and Willis claim to be sympathetic to their right to be atheists, and their technical right to advocate for their ideas, each resents the fact that they do so.
But I'm heartened by this trend, inasmuch as it is simply another variation on a theme we have heard before from alleged sympathizers when previously quiescent minorities have started to speak. To paraphrase Oliver:
Yes, you are a [black person/woman/gay/immigrant]. Yes, you have been deprived of your rights to participate in this society or marginalized. So, why do you have to be so uppity about it?
Maybe because, as so many other groups have learned, you don't get anywhere if you wait for the other guy to do the heavy lifting for you. Some may think that this is much ado about nothing, but the fact is that atheists are barely tolerated in this society and, in fact, are constitutionally or statutorily barred from full participation in civic life in some states.
If history runs true to form, we can look forward to atheists "coming out" as Pete Stark did just recently (as a non-theist). As atheists acquire a human face, like gays they will become less frightening and more accepted. In the meantime, the in your face atheists are doing double duty. They are preparing the way for a more rational and tolerant country and they making the fundamentalists with whom they debate look like jackasses. That's not really so bad.
Saturday - March 03, 2007
People of Reason turn out for Democrats
I find to my surprise (via
Digby) that I am a member of the fastest growing religious group in
America: the
unchurched:
Since 1991, the adult population in the United States has grown by 15%. During that same period the number of adults who do not attend church has nearly doubled, rising from 39 million to 75 million - a 92% increase!
These startling statistics come from the most recent tracking study of religious behavior conducted by The Barna Group, a company that follows trends related to faith, culture and leadership in America. The latest study shows that the percentage of adults that is unchurched - defined as not having attended a Christian church service, other than for a holiday service, such as Christmas or Easter, or for special events such as a wedding or funeral, at any time in the past six months - has risen from 21% in 1991 to 34% today.
According to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, People of Reason are more likely to vote for Democrats.
In recent years, some have asked whether the Democratic Party has a serious "God problem" – an inability to appeal to evangelicals and other highly religious Americans. But the results of this year's election raise the parallel question of whether the Republican Party can appeal to non-Christians and less religious voters. Exit polls find that the Democrats' gains were concentrated among non-Christians and secular voters, indicating an even larger political divide between highly religious voters and the rest of American society.
The GOP held on to voters who attend religious services more than once a week, 60% of whom voted Republican compared with 61% in 2002. A majority (53%) of those who attend church at least once a week also supported Republicans. But less frequent churchgoers were much more supportive of Democrats than they were four years ago. Among those who attend church a few times a year, for instance, 60% voted Democratic, compared with 50% in 2002. And among those who never go to church, 67% voted Democratic; four years ago, only 55% did so. As a result, the gap in Democratic support between those who attend church more than once a week and those who never attend church has grown from 18 percentage points in 2002 to 29 points today.
Here are the numbers:
Since 1991, the adult population in the United States has grown by 15%. During that same period the number of adults who do not attend church has nearly doubled, rising from 39 million to 75 million - a 92% increase!
These startling statistics come from the most recent tracking study of religious behavior conducted by The Barna Group, a company that follows trends related to faith, culture and leadership in America. The latest study shows that the percentage of adults that is unchurched - defined as not having attended a Christian church service, other than for a holiday service, such as Christmas or Easter, or for special events such as a wedding or funeral, at any time in the past six months - has risen from 21% in 1991 to 34% today.
According to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, People of Reason are more likely to vote for Democrats.
In recent years, some have asked whether the Democratic Party has a serious "God problem" – an inability to appeal to evangelicals and other highly religious Americans. But the results of this year's election raise the parallel question of whether the Republican Party can appeal to non-Christians and less religious voters. Exit polls find that the Democrats' gains were concentrated among non-Christians and secular voters, indicating an even larger political divide between highly religious voters and the rest of American society.
The GOP held on to voters who attend religious services more than once a week, 60% of whom voted Republican compared with 61% in 2002. A majority (53%) of those who attend church at least once a week also supported Republicans. But less frequent churchgoers were much more supportive of Democrats than they were four years ago. Among those who attend church a few times a year, for instance, 60% voted Democratic, compared with 50% in 2002. And among those who never go to church, 67% voted Democratic; four years ago, only 55% did so. As a result, the gap in Democratic support between those who attend church more than once a week and those who never attend church has grown from 18 percentage points in 2002 to 29 points today.
Here are the numbers:
So, while the Democrats have been obsessed with the fact that their cup runneth half empty among the churched, they overlook the fact that it runneth over among the heathens. An obvious lesson one might draw is that rather than pander to the unreasoned, they might play to their strength with this fast growing group of rationalists. Among other things, it might not be such a bad idea to make it clear that they will not allow the reactionary right to impose their religion on everyone else. That would be popular among a lot of the more reasonable churched as well.
Now all of these polls have to be taken with a grain of salt. I note in the Pew Poll for instance, that 49% of white evangelicals indicated that "values issues" were of most importance (first or second choice) in making their voting decisions. We are not told what the question was, but as I noted in a post right after the election, the exit poll that I took contained such a question and it was loaded with cultural assumptions. Still, the more direct questions (What's your religion, how did you vote) are probably valid.
There is not much breakdown on where the members of the various religious groups stand on particular issues. It would be very interesting to see how things break down on various real social issues, such as help for the poor, health care, justice, the death penalty, and immigration. What I'm getting at is it would be interesting to see how the churched score on a test, updated to today's realities, that a certain someone imposed on those wishing to enter the great hereafter (upper stories, that is):
Tuesday - February 20, 2007
The Devil made them do it
Thank God this
couldn't happen in the Roman Catholic church, which adopted new
guidelines for driving out devils in
1999:
A Romanian priest has been jailed for 14 years for conducting an exorcism that led to the death of a nun who he believed was possessed by devils.
Irina Cornici, 23, died after being starved and chained to a cross at a secluded convent in the north-east.
The ritual in 2005 was led by Daniel Petru Corogeanu, 31, the priest at the Holy Trinity convent in Tanacu village.
He and four nuns were convicted of manslaughter. The nuns got jail terms ranging from five to eight years.
...
The Orthodox Church, which described the Tanacu incident as "abominable", has promised reforms, including psychological tests for those seeking to enter monasteries.
But, as I say, and the article points out, the Roman church updated its 1614 driving out devils guidelines just recently. I guess we can all be thankful for that.
Hmmm. Unfortunately, it turns out the new rules aren't much different than the old ones. I guess if something has worked for centuries there's no point in changing it much:
Except for some new formulas for priests authorised by bishops to read during exorcisms, the text is largely unchanged. What is new is the caution that determines if exorcism is warranted.
"The exorcist will decide with prudence" after consulting with spiritual experts and "if considered opportune, with experts in medical and psychiatric science," the new rules stress.
...
Signs of the devil's presence are said to include:
A Romanian priest has been jailed for 14 years for conducting an exorcism that led to the death of a nun who he believed was possessed by devils.
Irina Cornici, 23, died after being starved and chained to a cross at a secluded convent in the north-east.
The ritual in 2005 was led by Daniel Petru Corogeanu, 31, the priest at the Holy Trinity convent in Tanacu village.
He and four nuns were convicted of manslaughter. The nuns got jail terms ranging from five to eight years.
...
The Orthodox Church, which described the Tanacu incident as "abominable", has promised reforms, including psychological tests for those seeking to enter monasteries.
But, as I say, and the article points out, the Roman church updated its 1614 driving out devils guidelines just recently. I guess we can all be thankful for that.
Hmmm. Unfortunately, it turns out the new rules aren't much different than the old ones. I guess if something has worked for centuries there's no point in changing it much:
Except for some new formulas for priests authorised by bishops to read during exorcisms, the text is largely unchanged. What is new is the caution that determines if exorcism is warranted.
"The exorcist will decide with prudence" after consulting with spiritual experts and "if considered opportune, with experts in medical and psychiatric science," the new rules stress.
...
Signs of the devil's presence are said to include:
• Speaking unknown
languages
• Displaying strength
disproportionate to a person's age or body.
•
The rite of exorcism itself remains essentially the same, including making the sign of the cross, sprinkling holy water and ordering the devil to leave the possessed person.
People convinced they are victims of the "evil eye" and other curses do not need exorcisms, say the rules, but special prayers are suggested.
Should you laugh or cry when you read stuff like this? These are highly educated men. Can they possibly believe this drivel? I can see that it had some functional usefulness back in the day when they could get an uneducated peasantry to buy into it, and it all served as a good method of keeping said peasants under control, with the tithes rolling in. Maybe they think that if they give in anywhere, the whole edifice falls. Better to expose the Irina Corcinis of the world to a brutal and lonely death than drive a stake through the heart of their sacred superstitions.
Postscript: to add to my other woes, it seems I myself may be inhabited by the devil. I happen to swim a mile a day at the Norwich Y, and today the lifeguard on duty (who hadn't worked there for years) told me he remembered me swimming there years ago. He then went on to say that I swim pretty fast "for a person [my] age". This is the first time that dreaded phrase has been applied to me in my presence, so I am naturally somewhat shaken. In any event, there remains the possibility that I am fast for my age because I am displaying strength disproportionate (if only slightly) to my age. I have decided to put off my exorcism until I start frothing at the mouth or something, since if I went any slower (albeit still quick for my age) I couldn't finish the mile during my lunch break. I take heart that I have not yet spoken in unknown languages, though there are those who accuse me of writing in one.
The rite of exorcism itself remains essentially the same, including making the sign of the cross, sprinkling holy water and ordering the devil to leave the possessed person.
People convinced they are victims of the "evil eye" and other curses do not need exorcisms, say the rules, but special prayers are suggested.
Should you laugh or cry when you read stuff like this? These are highly educated men. Can they possibly believe this drivel? I can see that it had some functional usefulness back in the day when they could get an uneducated peasantry to buy into it, and it all served as a good method of keeping said peasants under control, with the tithes rolling in. Maybe they think that if they give in anywhere, the whole edifice falls. Better to expose the Irina Corcinis of the world to a brutal and lonely death than drive a stake through the heart of their sacred superstitions.
Postscript: to add to my other woes, it seems I myself may be inhabited by the devil. I happen to swim a mile a day at the Norwich Y, and today the lifeguard on duty (who hadn't worked there for years) told me he remembered me swimming there years ago. He then went on to say that I swim pretty fast "for a person [my] age". This is the first time that dreaded phrase has been applied to me in my presence, so I am naturally somewhat shaken. In any event, there remains the possibility that I am fast for my age because I am displaying strength disproportionate (if only slightly) to my age. I have decided to put off my exorcism until I start frothing at the mouth or something, since if I went any slower (albeit still quick for my age) I couldn't finish the mile during my lunch break. I take heart that I have not yet spoken in unknown languages, though there are those who accuse me of writing in one.
Sunday - February 11, 2007
No Tom Paine Day in Arkansas...yet
Tom Paine has been a personal hero of mine every
since, as a wee lad, I read Howard Fast's
Citizen Tom
Paine. The book has remained in my personal
library ever since, and has been in my possession longer than any other
book.
So it was with particular interest that I read an article in today's Times (Bill to Honor Paine Stalls in Arkansas). Poor Tom. He was harassed on his deathbed by religious zealots and they continue to pursue him even beyond the grave:
Representative Sid Rosenbaum, however, took exception to Paine’s stated preference for reason rather than religion. Quoting from Paine’s “Age of Reason,” published in the late 18th century, Mr. Rosenbaum, a Republican, proclaimed the book “anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.”
So it was with particular interest that I read an article in today's Times (Bill to Honor Paine Stalls in Arkansas). Poor Tom. He was harassed on his deathbed by religious zealots and they continue to pursue him even beyond the grave:
Representative Sid Rosenbaum, however, took exception to Paine’s stated preference for reason rather than religion. Quoting from Paine’s “Age of Reason,” published in the late 18th century, Mr. Rosenbaum, a Republican, proclaimed the book “anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.”
Monday - January 08, 2007
Intelligence is next to godlessness
I just finished Richard Dawkins
The God
Delusion, another of my literary Christmas
presents. Some might say that getting a book that preaches atheism on a
religious holiday is somewhat odd, but since no less an authority than the
Supreme Court says that nativity scenes are not religious, I submit that, so far
as Christmas is concerned, anything
goes.
I learn from Mr. Dawkins that folks like me (Since my fall from grace, I have always called myself an agnostic) are actually De facto atheists, A De Facto atheist takes the position that it is possible there is a god, but that the probability of his/her/its existence is vanishingly close to zero. In this I apparently join company with Dawkins himself, who is too good a scientist to take the position that an absence of evidence is conclusive evidence of absence.
I learn from Mr. Dawkins that folks like me (Since my fall from grace, I have always called myself an agnostic) are actually De facto atheists, A De Facto atheist takes the position that it is possible there is a god, but that the probability of his/her/its existence is vanishingly close to zero. In this I apparently join company with Dawkins himself, who is too good a scientist to take the position that an absence of evidence is conclusive evidence of absence.
Tuesday - December 05, 2006
Thou shalt bear false witness
Some days I get very bitter. Here I am, slaving
away at this blog for my paltry number of readers when there are people out
there who get to opine on a national stage without having to know anything or
even be able to think.
Today I present the strange case of one Dennis Prager, a columnist for Human Events, the National Conservative Weekly. A short time ago Mr. Prager opined that newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison, who happens to be a Muslim, has no right to be sworn into office with this hand on the Koran. No, according to Mr. Prager, only the Bible will do, and only the Christian version thereof.
Well, even in the warped America of today this went a little far, and Mr. Prager found himself at the receiving end of a lot of criticism. So today he defends himself from the critics on the left and, he says, the right, who dared to disagree with his views.
Today I present the strange case of one Dennis Prager, a columnist for Human Events, the National Conservative Weekly. A short time ago Mr. Prager opined that newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison, who happens to be a Muslim, has no right to be sworn into office with this hand on the Koran. No, according to Mr. Prager, only the Bible will do, and only the Christian version thereof.
Well, even in the warped America of today this went a little far, and Mr. Prager found himself at the receiving end of a lot of criticism. So today he defends himself from the critics on the left and, he says, the right, who dared to disagree with his views.
Sunday - December 03, 2006
Nick Kristof takes on the atheist threat
In this morning's Times Nicholas Kristof bemoans
the threat from the aggressive atheists that are an
emerging threat to ..to.. something. These folks who refuse to be polite about
absurd religious faith are no better than fundamentalists, according to Kristof.
I'm not going to spend any time debating whether aggressively promoting atheism is the same as aggressively promoting fundamentalism, except to point out one thing: None of the people that Kristof discusses are seeking to impose atheism on anyone. They are just not willing to pretend that absurd religious beliefs are worthy of intellectual respect.
I'm not going to spend any time debating whether aggressively promoting atheism is the same as aggressively promoting fundamentalism, except to point out one thing: None of the people that Kristof discusses are seeking to impose atheism on anyone. They are just not willing to pretend that absurd religious beliefs are worthy of intellectual respect.
Thursday - September 21, 2006
God speaks to us in mysterious ways
A message from God, courtesy of the Onion:
Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.
Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.
Sunday - September 17, 2006
Sweet reason from the Pope
Dear Pope
Benedict:
First of all, I would like to thank you for giving your recent speech at the University of Regensburg . Just when the well is running dry on things to write about, up you pop and give a speech arguing that Christianity, in contrast to the Muslims, has always attempted to reason with people of other religions, rather than engaging in those awful jihads the Muslims like to use. Thanks ever so much.
First of all, I would like to thank you for giving your recent speech at the University of Regensburg . Just when the well is running dry on things to write about, up you pop and give a speech arguing that Christianity, in contrast to the Muslims, has always attempted to reason with people of other religions, rather than engaging in those awful jihads the Muslims like to use. Thanks ever so much.
Tuesday - August 29, 2006
God released from prison
The day after a federal court struck
down a taxpayer-supported evangelical Christian program in an Iowa prison, Mark
Earley, president of Prison Fellowship, issued a press statement. He was not
pleased.
"The courts took God out of America's schools, now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons," Earley groused.
"The courts took God out of America's schools, now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons," Earley groused.
Thursday - June 15, 2006
The Ten Commandments
Brilliant work by Steven Colbert with Georgia
Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, who flunks his religion test. See how I
do.
Tuesday - May 30, 2006
Ratzi goes to Auschwitz
The Pope went to Auschwitz Saturday . He met with 32
concentration camp survivors, "all but one Polish Catholics". However, the lone
Jew got not one, but two kisses on the cheek, so that's all right.
Saturday - April 15, 2006
Easter Explained
As I've mentioned in the past, I have a degree in
theology from Our Lady of Sorrows Grammar school, so I know all about Easter.
Last year I wasn't able to share my knowledge about Easter with my readers,
since I was in the middle of my soon to be aborted campaign for Pope, but this
year the decks are clear.
Thursday - March 02, 2006
Florida to try integration of church and state.
Domino's Pizza Founder Thomas Monaghan is bankrolling a Catholic community in Florida
.
Saturday - January 07, 2006
Monday - January 02, 2006
Monday - January 02, 2006
Thursday - December 29, 2005
Monday - November 07, 2005
Tuesday - October 18, 2005
Kurt VonnegutRendering unto Caesar
Hate the sin, kill the sinner.
Up ours from the Gipper
Just another day's killing
George Bush, philosopher and scientist
The price of righteousness
Sentenced to Church