Just passing the word along…Christopher Maloney is a quack.
Today’s Toronto Star has an article about how atheists have to “grapple” with Christmas; that the religious aspects of Christmas are just too much for us to handle.
This is, I think, part of a larger idea that atheists are incapable of enjoying anything having to do with the notion of god or religion, which is nonsense; you can watch and enjoy Star Trek, all the while knowing that Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are not real. So too, I can enjoy ‘Silent Night’ as a nice piece of music, while still content with the knowledge (self-evident, I would think) that a virgin did not give birth to a holy infant.
Secondly, Christmas is not simply a religious holiday; indeed, did you ever stop to wonder why it falls on December 25th? Do you really believe this is the actual birthday of Jesus? Or is it, perhaps, simply that pagan religions had been celebrating the winter solstice for millenia , and early Christians wanted in on the action too?
But that, too, is irrelevant; I enjoy Christmas because it is a time of year to take a break from the craziness of the world; to step back, to enjoy time with friends and family, to simply relax.
No ‘grappling’ required.
I would say something about the underlying cause of the 13 murders that took place at Fort Hood on November 5, but I can’t say it any better than Ibn Warraq, so I’ll just quote him:
It is time to abandon apologetics, and political correctness. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims are implicated in the horrendous events of September 11, 2001 — or of November 5, 2009. However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with 9/11 or the Fort Hood massacre is willfully to ignore the obvious. To leave Islam out of the equation means to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam, the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Osama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. Without Islam, the West will go on being incapable of understanding our terrorist enemies, and hence will be incapable to deal with them. Without Islam, neither is it possible to comprehend the barbarism of the Taliban, the position of women and non-Muslims in Islamic countries, or — now– the murders attributed to Major Hasan.
This is what I mean when I say that religious faith is always and everywhere exonerated of blame for these types of things. I’m not merely saying that religious faith is the cause of a great deal of evil in the world (though that would appear to be self-evidently true, given what is actually written in our ‘holy’ books). No, it is not merely that. The real issue is that, in deference to political correctness and ‘liberalism’, we always fail to point the finger at religion, even when it is really and truly to blame.
Warraq is right; the actions of the 9/11 hijackers make no sense, except when you allow for their religious beliefs. The actions of Christian abortion doctor murders make no sense, except when you allow for their religious faith.
That is not, as Warraq points out, to say that all Muslims or all Christians are evil; far from it. Clearly, many Muslims and Christians have learned to shelve the less palatable aspects of their religious dogmas (despite the fact that they are no less canonical than any other aspect by which they choose to live their lives). This is especially relevant for western Christians, who have gained an unprecedented level of financial and political success (and not quite as much for western Muslims, who have not). We are all far better off because of this. Nor is it to say that all tenets of religious faith are bad; the Golden Rule, much as it did not originate in Christianity, is a wonderful principle by which to live one’s life (slavery, on the other hand, not so much…shame about it being tacitly approved of in the New Testament).
It is to say, however, that these acts of terror cannot be reconciled with any rational motivation unless we first accept that the perpetrators believe – truly believe – that the creator of the universe approves of the killing of non-believers, heretics, and apostates. Moreover, it is to say that by failing to even mention the unmentionable (for instance, that Islam itself was necessary, if not sufficient, for 9/11 or that Christianity was necessary for the Inquisition and for abortion doctor murders), we are, as Warraq points out, doomed to forever misunderstand these things.
We cannot simply ascribe these events to bad men with bad ideas. No; it takes a special kind of bad idea to un-make oneself (and thousands of others) at 500 miles per hour, to slowly roast a suspected witch, or to gun down 13 soldiers in cold blood; generally, it takes a religious idea to do that.
We cannot simply say that these are were mis-interpretations of religious faith. First, who are we to say that, and on what basis? The theological know-how of the 9/11 hijackers or the Inquisitors was, very likely, beyond all criticism. But more importantly, these acts simply are not mis-interpretations of anything. They are the logical result of believing that books written in a pre-scientific age, an age in which human beings did not know enough about their world to know to keep their toilets away from their food supplies, are the actual or inspired word of the creator of the universe. Once you accept this, you must logically accept that what is written in these books is true; that god does approve of killing apostates and heretics, at least in certain circumstances.
Once again, we come to the realization that we cannot long endure the co-mingling of Bronze Age ideas about morality and the nature of the universe with 21st century technology. Sooner or later, we will recognize the enormous price we are paying to ignore the real causes of much of what ails us. Hopefully this will come through the rational realization that religious faith is, by-and-large, anathema to long-term human peaceful co-existence; we will learn to recognize that, what ever else we may call ourselves, we are human beings first. There is nothing, however, to suggest that this will be the case. The alternative is the continued descent into faith-inspired conflict at an ever-increasing, and ever deadlier, pace.
Yes, it’s true. I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit, but I really am defending the actions of our Prime Minister.
It seems that while attending the funeral of former Governor-General Romeo LeBlanc, Stephen Harper was caught on video accepting a communion wafer and, gasp, putting it in his pocket instead of immediately consuming the body of Christ right then and there. Well, today must have been one heck of a slow news day because this made the front (web)page of most Canadian news outlets.
The argle-bargle (fooferaw?) results, of course, from the long-standing tradition of religious people getting all uppidy when other people don’t consider the same things sacred as they do. Roman Catholics are outraged because they believe the cracker, once “consecrated”, becomes the literal body of Christ (usually to be washed down with the blood of Christ, in the form of communion wine). By not consuming the cracker, Mr. Harper is offending the religious sensibilities of Catholics. The story goes something like this: Catholics think the cracker is sacred, and so, therefore, must everyone else. At the very least, those of us who are not afraid to call a cracker a cracker (ummm…) must treat the cracker with a certain amount of respect that would not ordinarily be afforded to other pieces of unleavened bread.
Stephen Harper was under no obligation to do anything with that cracker. If he (or I) were actively preventing Catholics from eating their holy cracker, THAT would be grounds for anger. But he was not interfereing in anyone’s ability to practice their (ridiculous) religion as they deemed fit. If Mr. Harper had, say, taken the cracker home, driven a nail through it, and then tossed it in the garbage, that would be his right. Catholics might not like it, but I’m afraid that’s the price you pay to live in a liberal democracy.
Of course, in the end, Stephen Harper ate the cracker, which is a bit odd. He’s not Catholic, and as far as I know, Catholics have a very well-enforced “Catholics only!” policy on these things. Perhaps they shouldn’t have offered it to him in the first place, or perhaps he should have declined. I don’t really know. This is the most ridiculous non-news piece of news I’ve heard in a long time.
Bottom line of how this should all go: Catholics, go ahead and delude yourself into thinking cracker = Jesus, and we here in realityland wont get in your way, so long as you don’t get in our way of making merciless fun of your ridiculous superstitions.
The Family Institute of Connecticut*** has posted the following ad in the Connecticut Post. Be prepared to feel the stupid:
Let’s go through this slowly:
“Same-Sex Marriage Bill 899 will deny citizens their religious rights.”
How, exactly? Religious groups are protected from all kinds of things that us bad atheists have to deal with; you know, things like taxes and hate laws. And I haven’t parsed the details of Connecticut’s Bill 899, but I would assume it doesn’t have a mandatory same-sex marriage clause. Does it really force people to marry within their own gender?
“Schools that wish not to teach gay marriage will have no choice in the matter.”
Ahhh, I have such fond memories of my high school man-on-woman marriage classes; those were the days. I sure am glad I learned how to opposite sex marry all those years ago!
“Church groups who won’t comply will be punished by the government.”
You mean, groups that pay absolutely no tax and distribute books that are filled with the most vile garbage (which would land the rest of us in jail for promoting hate) are upset that they might have to follow the law and marry people who are legally entitled to do so? Pshaw!
“Business will have to close their doors.”
Well, perhaps the wedding planners will have to close their doors for one day while they finally get to marry their long-term partners. But they’ll be back open the next day, ready to help grant others the same right.
I sure am glad that the FIC produced this ad. I finally “get” it; same-sex marriage isn’t about ending discrimination and providing everyone with the same rights. This Connecticut bill isn’t about bringing the state in line with a growing cohort of other western democracies that have seen fit to end this type of discrimination.
Nah! It’s about making sure that religious people don’t have to think about icky things like same-sex marriage, and get to keep on foisting their Bronze Age morality on the rest of us.
*** – Have you ever noticed that if a group has the word ‘family’ in its title, it is invariably evil? Just sayin’…
Thanks to Friendly Atheist for the original link
I have sent the following question to Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology), via email:
Does the Honourable Minister of State (Science and Technology) accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that all life on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor?
This should be fairly simple for him to answer; it’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
If you wish to ask a similar question, you may do so at GoodyG@parl.gc.ca. I figure that some Canadians may wish to know whether the Minister for science is anti-science or not.
Well, things are certainly clear as mud now.
You’ll recall that Gary Goodyear, Canada’s Minister of Science and Technology, refused to state whether he ‘believed’ in evolution, stating:
“I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,”
Well, last night on TV, the Minister ‘clarified’* his position, stating:
“Of course I do, But it is an irrelevant question”
It is not an irrelevant question, Mr. Goodyear. It speaks to your abilities to comprehend scientific fact, and to be a good advocate for science in the Federal Cabinet room. Failure to accept the fundamental underpinnings of modern biology is, I think, a fatal flaw in a Minister of Science and Technology.
But it gets worse; much worse.
MP Marc Garneau, the Liberal Party’s Science and Technology critic, then came out with this festering pile of crap in response to the whole situation:
“It is a personal matter. It is a matter of faith.… I don’t think it prevents someone from being a good minister”
This frightens me, because Marc Garneau, a former astronaut, should know better. It is absolutely in no way a matter of faith; it is a matter of accepting the overwhelming evidence, or not. It is not a personal matter, any more than accepting that DNA is the genetic material is a ‘personal matter'; you may be entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
And if the Minister did not believe in gravity, or was an HIV/AIDS denialist, I would put it to you that it would prevent him from being a good Minister. The same holds true for denial of evolution.
What a sad episode.
* – Why is it that politicians always have to ‘clarify’ things? I can’t recall the last time I ‘misspoke’ or ‘misremembered’ something, yet politicians seem to do it all the time.