Blasphemy day — a new tradition

The following is a gift from my facebook friend, Torbjorn Nordhagen

A Life of Blasphemy or, My Thoughts on International Blasphemy Day
Share
Yesterday at 8:58pm

Tomorrow, September 30, 2009, is International Blasphemy Day. The date was chosen to mark the four-year anniversary of the Muslim “Danish cartoon riots.” Rather than merely fire off another one of my pithy facebook status updates (although I reserve the right to do this as well), I thought I’d write down a few of my thoughts on the event itself and my own feelings on it.

From the official site: “International Blasphemy Day is not just a day. It is a movement to dismantle the wall which exists between religion and criticism.”

http://www.blasphemyday.com/

My guess is that almost anyone reading this note knows something of my background: raised Evangelical Christian, went through a protracted and very painful period of deconversion from late 2003 to mid-2005. I’ve long maintained the line touted by such “new atheist” luminaries as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens that religion should be subject to criticism. In all honesty, I’ve wrestled with formulating my own position on this: how to be candid and honest about one’s opinions while still maintaining cordial and amicable relations with friends and family members who are of faith. And yes, at times I was rather leery of the “new atheist” movement.

Today, however, I am a proud “new” atheist. Having come to my views through no small struggle I hold that freethought and religious skepticism is precious. It is a blood-bought treasure of Western civilization. Consider this: at the time of the American Revolution, Maryland had an anti-blasphemy statute. If you spoke blasphemy against the Holy Trinity three times (the magic number, three) and were of sound mind, the sentence was death without benefit of clergy. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The bloody history of the suppression of religious dissent is well-known and needs little elaborating, but here we go anyway:

The Medieval Inquisition was instituted in the early 13th century (if memory serves) by Pope Innocent III for the purpose of persecuting “heretics.” The focus was southern Europe, where trade across the Mediterranean had engendered the rise of the Cathari in southern France (also known as the Albigensians). The heinous Albigensian Crusade down the Rhone and into northern Italy was the result.

The European Witch Craze began in the late 15th century and raged throughout the sixteenth, mostly in northern Europe–especially the “Holy” Roman Empire (modern-day Germany) and Scotland. Around the same time that the Spanish Inquisition revived the bloodshed and madness in Spain (and then Portugal, and it spread from both places–even to Goa and Malabar with the Portuguese). The Salem Witch Trials of 1692 came at the very tail end of the appalling affront to human dignity. The vast majority of the victims of the Witch Craze were women. The Inquisition in Spain targeted Jews and conversos, derisively known as “Marranos” (pigs)–Jews who had converted to Catholicism to escape persecution. Spain’s remnant Muslim population was also not exempt. The Portuguese targeted Jews in Portugal and “heretic” Christians of the Syrian Church in India.

These are only two particularly notorious historic examples. Today, Ireland has a blasphemy law, as does Afghanistan–proof positive that the medieval streak runs deep in both Catholicism and Islam alike.

Source: http://www.blasphemyday.com/

But hang on, friends, because we haven’t even got to the meat of the argument yet. And for that, we must consider the source: the sacra, the canonical texts of the religions themselves. For purposes of brevity and salience I will confine my remarks to Christianity, as I am less familiar with Islam’s sacra for obvious reasons (never having been a Muslim).

You see, the barbaric and medieval notion currently enshrined in the jurisprudence of the Republic of Ireland has its source solidly in the Bible itself. I am referring, of course, to the Unpardonable Sin. In the words attributed to Christ:

28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”— 30 because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”
~Mark 3:28-30, NKJV.

Luke concurs:

10 “And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
~Luke 12:10, NKJV.

Source: www.biblegateway.com

But what does it MEAN to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? The pastoral opinion regnant in most circles (to my knowledge) is that “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” is the rejection of the Gospel–the perpetual, ongoing, ultimate rejection of the work and mission of the Holy Spirit.

Whether you accept this definition or take the passages in question at slightly more face value and maintain that this means a verbal denunciation of the Holy Spirit, the mentality that this doctrine engenders and its ramifications are very clear and, for me as a skeptic, extremely noxious. Whatever interpretation you adopt, you are still left with an explicit doctrine of the sacred that precludes criticism–or at the very least, criticism beyond a certain point. In other words, these passages are the heart and soul of the anti-dissent doctrine in Christianity.

However I would submit to you, dear readers, that even discarding these passages–supposing for a moment that they were never written, or were found to be apocryphal in some way–that the problem remains. And the problem goes deeper than Christianity, to encompass certainly all of the three major monotheistic religions. The reason is simple: in Christopher Hitchens’s words, all of these religions enshrine a doctrine of god as Celestial Dictator, a kind of Divine Big Brother who monitors your every thought, word and deed–and finds you wanting. He can and does convict you of “thought-crime”–at least in Christianity. In Judaism and in Islam he demands a series of ritual observances and practices–certainly far more than in most Christian denominations.

Hitchens goes so far as to liken at least the Christian god to North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung, the “Great Leader,” and his son Kim Jong-il, the “Dear Leader”: both of which have been deified through Kim Il-Sung’s elaborate personality cult. North Korea, like the Abrahamic religions, extensively monitors the actions and deeds (they’re not quite up to the level of sophisticated thought-surveillance, to be fair, but watch out) of its citizens. Dissenters are silenced. There are slave-labor camps for not only dissenters but FAMILIES of dissenters and escapees. Indeed, the parallels are positively chilling.

And what is the ultimate fate of dissenters and blasphemers? While in North Korea the government has absolute power over its citizenry only in life, the god of the Bible and the Qu’ran has no such limitations. The Qu’ran speaks of the “fire whose fuel is men and stones.” I’m rather more familiar with the Bible’s stance:

[Christ speaking]:

28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

~Matthew 10:28, NKJV.

[In the words of John of Patmos]:

15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

~Revelation 20:15, NKJV.

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

~Revelation 21:8, NKJV.

Source: www.biblegateway.com

There you have it: by failing to accept the gift of salvation offered by the meek-and-mild savior, those of us who do not believe merit eternal perdition. So much for a loving god. The first conclusion that I draw from this is that it is religious morality that is fundamentally immoral, not atheistic morality. Secondly, dear readers, I propose that under this system those of us who do not believe are ALREADY COMMITTING BLASPHEMY. There is NOTHING that we can say, do, write or depict tomorrow or any other day which can further compound the blasphemy of our very lives of unbelief under such a system.

I am all for an International Blasphemy Day. But we must use it as a reminder of the true scope and scale of blasphemy. We must remember that blasphemy does not solely consist of pithy and humorous slogans and witticisms, of provocative pictures and images. There is no need to state “I deny the Holy Spirit” when our very LIVES are lived in denial of the EXISTENCE of the same!

So tomorrow, if you wake up in a time and place in history where you have the freedom to criticize the prevalent religion in your society if you so choose–be very thankful and be very humble. I don’t care if you’re a theist, atheist or whatever–free speech is precious. Dissent is precious.

And happy International Blasphemy Day, to believers and unbelievers alike! Remember, even if you ARE a believer, you’re not exempt–there will always be other believers of other sects and religions who find you a heretic or unbeliever in your own right.

Cheers, all, ~Tor

Note: The illustration is a portion of manuscript, which is identified by Wiki as Armenian and contains the passage from Mark concerning blasphemy.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Religion and The age of Consent

The Age of Consent album cover
Image via Wikipedia

The following article comes from a secular writer in the UK

In The Times on 18th Jan 2008 the Rev Peter Mullen claimed that not teaching children the Catholic Faith was a form of child abuse. I am finding it hard to find sufficient words to show the contempt that I have for this man and this idea.

Instead I post an article that I actually wrote before the deluded Rev Mullen published his and I ask: If children are not mature enough to drive a car before they are 17 years old, then why does the church claim they are mature enough to select a religion before that? After all, driving a car is no where near as important as God…

Religion and the Age of Consent.

The age at which we can legally do all manner of exciting sounding things is a constant annoyance when we are too young; a source of great bragging when you are just over that age and your friends are not; a much too low a limit as soon as you become a parent!

At 16 a person can get married with their parents’ permission. A person can have sex and actually create a baby without parental permission. (I consider that parental guidance might be a little more useful in the decision to make a baby)

At 17 years old we allow a child to drive. In the UK we have no restrictions on what type of car, or what power that car has and in reality the only constraints are that the average 17 year old cannot afford to insure a powerful car: buying a half rusty 1970 super car is actually cheap however. But nevertheless we parents still allow our hugely inexperienced offspring to borrow our cars and hope they are responsible enough to drive safely.

At 18 we allow the ingestion of potentially fatal poisons for pleasure: tobacco and alcohol. We also allow this newly qualified adult to fight and die in the armed forces. Most importantly, from a democratic point of view at 18 years of age the right to Vote and decide the fate of your neighbours is activated. This is often considered the most important of the age related limits as a vote directly impacts everyone in the country.

The experience of society has set these age limits based on when society considers the average youngster has reached a sufficient level of responsibility to be trusted with the choices that are now permitted.

The most important thing about these limits is that no parent has the right to over-rule the law. The protection of the child and as a direct consequence of that, the protection of others is the first priority.

Where am I going with this?

Leaders of the various religions tell us everyday that the most important thing in a life (any human life) is their relationship with God. Those religions are of course in opposition to each other, but in modern times their doctrine has been subdued, to an extent, to prevent a repeat of the crusades. However they all believe they are right at the expense of all the others.

The legal ages of consent, or to put it another way, the age at which we expect a certain level of responsibility, as detailed above are ‘earthly,’ or for the purposes of this article, non-spiritual.

The church (I use that as a generic term for all religions) would probably support an increase in the age of consent for sexual relations. It is also likely that they would support a significant increase in the age of consent for homosexual relations and state that a 16 year old is not sufficiently responsible to make such a decision. More to the point many religions would still support a ban, effectively claiming that no person is able to make such a decision for themselves: the proper standard of heterosexual behaviour having been set by God.

So if a person under 18 years old cannot be trusted to vote responsibly, and a person under 16 cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions about sex, and by the very teachings of religion these are trivial when compared to the relationship with God, why on earth do we allow children to make a decision about their eternal soul?

When a person selects a God, or a Religion, or even a sect of a religion are they not simply voting?

Following the reasoning above the age of consent to select a religion should be about 36 if the relationship with God is twice as important as being able to vote! Or is it 3 times more important? Or is it infinitely more important? Of course religion must claim that to be true otherwise at some point a theist would have to admit that the ability to vote legally in an earthly election would be more important than God, when obviously nothing is more important than God.

Continue this article at the following Livejournal page:

http://reasonaboveall.livejournal.com/#reasonaboveall777

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


America’s Most Stupid Person?

World of Stupid on DVD.
Image via Wikipedia

Shaneen Barron is the woman’s name. The news video is from the Denver, CO ABC affiliate and was picked up and broadcast by CNN. Don’t say the CNN news producers cannot judge a priceless film clip when they see one. The clip is probably up on YouTube or many more video servers by now and is sure to go viral, but you can watch the original here:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/20704892/index.html

A search for Shaneen Barron turns up about 35,000 hits on Google. Here is a rant posted on Craigslist for Denver.

Keep your kids out of school and let them watch FOX all day like you do.

. Are you scared? You should be since George Bush made made enemies of this country faster than he could kill them. You are nothing more than a racist and a sore loser. You pass an opportunity for your childeren to listen to encouragement from the President of the United States of America to attempt to stimulate insill the desire within them to stay in school and make something of themselves. It then gives you the opportunity to talk to them about it and create an open channel of discussion between you and your childeren – God forbid!!

I am glad your dirtbag kisds won’t be in school. .

. I am a die hard card carrying member of the GOP and I am disgusted by you. .

. Your kids will have no more contact with mine – and you know who this is.

. If you are afraid, then move to Europe or better yet the Middle East where they do shove religion down kids throats – ever heard of separation of Church and State – maybe your mom took you out of school that day…

. Just remember how many African American childeren were 14 years of age on last election day – they will all be voting in 2012 – so get used to having a black president. .

Obviously the lack of oxygen affect some of us more than others.

Do you sense the author of this post was in a hurry to express his thoughts? And here is a blog post by a Republican who is distressed at losing his party to right wing Christians.

America’s Most Stupid Person?
I know we’re not supposed to call these people stupid, but Shaneen Barron of Highlands Ranch, CO may be the most stupid person in the country. She’s on film crying because the President of the United States is going to give an address to tell school kids to work hard and take responsibility for their educations. And hand-washing. He’s also going to tell kids to wash their hands.
And that’s reason to go on TV and cry? Because her kids will have to listen to “that?”
Being a conservative does not make someone stupid. Crying on TV because President Obama wants to give a fluffy speech to kids about working hard and taking responsibility for yourself makes you a complete moron.

I can’t get the video to embed, so click here to see the face of hysterical idiocy.

The link doesn’t function when pasted into Amazon’s software. Here is a link to Huffington Post article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/03/obama-schoolchildren-spee_n_276544.html?page=21&show_comment_id=30330877#comment_30330877

Here is a comment that I thought was germane:

This right wing politics is getting pretty crazy. But what do you expect when so many right wing religious believers have rejected a scientific worldview and believe in a Flintstones history. This sector has always been pretty adept at adopting technology to get their message out, however irrational it may be. They appropriated radio after the Scopes trial and built an alternative cultural infrastructure and continued to use TV in the same way, and finally decided to use the city machine model, (perfected and formerly used by the democrats) to build political power in the last 30 years. We are witnessing the results of years even decades of the acceptance of modern technology built on a Flintstones worldview (it wasn’t the Flintstones fault). It’s enough to make you crazy–well not you.

On Wednesday, September 16th and again yesterday, Friday, September 25th, on the Rachel Maddow Show, Rachel interviewed a self-described former Republican, former evangelical, former rightwingnut person, Frank Schaeffer, author of the book Crazy for God, who made the interesting and profound remark that those “crazy” people who are sitting by their television sets watching and believing Glen Beck and waiting for the Apocalypse and Armageddon, for whom bad news is good news of the coming debacle, for whom facts are unpleasant diversions created by the Anti-Christ and his minions to deceive us and make us unsure of the coming End Times, are in fact living their own morbid and insane prophecy—they are truly the “Left Behind.”

They are left behind by science, which they were taught was difficult (for their teachers) and that science, like in the middle ages, conflicts with gospel they have been force-fed since childhood. They are left behind by technology, which is basically indistinguishable from magic for them, yet they employ it on a daily basis. They are left behind by the evolving culture, which now includes persons from places on this planet about which they have no idea. They are left behind in every way important to the growth and good mental health of human beings and they are frightened and resigned to a fate they cannot escape. They hope that their bodies and souls will be taken up in a Rapture of the Righteous, even while they thieve and scheme against every tenet and principle of their so-called Christian faith. They are so left behind the logic of their situation they cannot see the ugly irony of their existence … and there is a feeling among most of the rest of us that these people are lost forever, better left to themselves to fester into seething hatreds and to consume their own kind in pitches of religiously tainted political fury.

There are those who are preying on these people, of course. There have been snake-oil salesmen and Elmer Gantrys since the beginning of the republic and on back into the recesses of time. Humans do prey on weaker, more frightened humans, and their methods have become quite refined over the years and centuries.

James Brett, OPED News

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Left-Behind-by-James-Brett-090926-83.html

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


An insightful personal narrative of an apostate

"RELIGION IS STUPID, MURDEROUS, BIGOTED A...
Image by ruSSeLL hiGGs via Flickr

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/9fg1b/atheism_vs_theism_may_seem_like_a_battle_of_wits/

It is generally common for atheists to consider that the arguments against religion boil down to science, the facts, debate, etc. It puzzles many why someone when faced with all the evidence for evolution for example would still choose to ignore it. I think that many atheists are ignoring the REAL issue, the true reason why it is hard for someone to reject their religion.

I was raised Christian all my life, in a VERY fundamentalist home. I was taught the earth was 6,000 years old created out of nothing, heaven, hell – the whole thing. I was taught how important it was to witness and attempt to “convert” others. I was taught that even bad things, really bad things, had some sort of divine reason and plan attached to them. I believed this into my early twenties.

When I was finally faced with the irrefutable facts, and raw science behind them, I let go – very reluctantly – of my cherished beliefs. It was not easy, It was like wrestling a priceless gem from someone who would just not let go of it.

When you reject religion, its not like – rejecting the earth is not flat for example. With something like this you can say “Oh ok, now I know” – but religion has a much darker and deep rooted hold on a person, and a much more profound effect.

There were times I was actually in tears thinking about the fact that there was no “afterlife” – and that those I had loved who had died – were really dead. They weren’t watching me, or having some hand in guiding me. They didn’t still “love me”. That was pretty depressing.

It is strange how religion gives you a way to reject the reality of death – which I guess does help to ‘ease your suffering’, that you “know they went to a better place” – but it also prevents proper mourning. When someone you love dies, and they tell you on their death bed that they will see you one day in heaven, you are more prepared for them to “die” because you know they aren’t really “dead”.

To reject heaven and accept atheism – is not merely about science, facts, beliefs, etc – it is about accepting the reality of all those who have died – being really dead. It is accepting the same reality about everyone you love NOW one day being – really dead. It is accepting the same reality about YOU one day.

The older you are, the more dear loved ones have passed away, the harder it will be to reject the notions of religion. To reject religion requires the re-mourning of everyone who you love who has died.

Death is just one piece of a very complex puzzle. If you have spent your whole life “living by faith” – and you have made decisions “by faith” that have resulted in really bad situations in your life, you now have to own up to the fact that these situations came about because of YOUR choices. You do not have God to take the burden of this. You can no longer say “This happened because God has some plan for my life”

By rejecting religion, you must also reject the notion that you can avoid responsibility for poor life situations. That too is a hard pill to swallow.

Next, you must reject the idea that your path is somehow guided, that God is walking with you, that you are not truly alone as you walk through life. Imagine a man walking through a room on planks of wood suspended over spikes with large holes to fall in if you take a wrong step. He always manages to take the right next step, but he is never afraid because he “knows” that this is a solid wood floor he is walking on. Now turn on the lights.

To reject religion means to accept the idea that you CAN fall – and fall HARD. It means you have to recognize that up until now you have been fortunate – but now you have to force yourself to think about your next steps.

If you have been spending your life “following Christ”, or witnessing to people, to the extent of even studying this in college, or spending hundreds and hundreds of hours reading and studying the Bible, praying, etc – only to find out that ALL of it was utterly and totally useless, then you have another hard pill to swallow. Imagine swallowing that pill as an older person.

To accept this means to accept that you have lived a large part of your life in vain, while thinking it was purposeful. Talking to such a person about atheism is similar to telling them that their whole life is without purpose, misguided, and that they have missed out on the only opportunity they will ever have to live life.

Surely one can then see why the concept of atheism is offensive and infuriating to so many people.

Then there is the concept of a personal relationship with God. The idea that God and you are “friends”. That you are somehow “above the world”. That you are living in a bubble safe and protected by God himself.

To reject religion, means accepting that you are just like everyone else – and in fact, worse off than most and behind the race because of your past religious belief. To someone who has spent a lifetime believing they are special in this regard, a piece of them is gone, never to return.

Worse than this, such a person values their imaginary relationship with God more than any aspect of their REAL personality. Who you really are takes second stage to your supposed relationship with the almighty.

Rejecting this is surely very difficult, as it entails rejecting a large part of the perceived value someone has in themselves.

I know I have not covered it all, but I hope I have helped to show that there is more to the picture of “religion vs atheism” than merely science, and facts.

The emotional side of religion is by far a larger and darker obstacle than any other that would stand in the way between someone’s freedom from delusion and accepting reality.

There are professional people who specialize in “deprogramming” those who have been captured by a cult such as the Moonies. Society grudgingly approves, with reservations because cults are judged to be “dangerous” and harmful. But try to deprogram someone from a mainline “religion” and now you will encounter blatant open hostility from every quarter. This means there is a double standard. A person who succumbs to the mind control program of a cult deserves help to extract themselves. The theology practiced by Catholics, Mormons and other mainline religions is just as non-nonsensical and can harm the mental state of adherents just as much as the most superstitious cult. Why doesn’t the principal of harm apply here?

There are many self help groups on the web that offer advice and encouragement. But woe to the person who sets out to forcibly separate an individual from a religious faith. It has to be because there is wide spread denial that the fear mongering and guilt inducing methods used by mainline religions are not harmful. If only that were true.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Is religiosity beneficial in affluent first world nations?

Funny Religious Sticker
Image by Amarand Agasi via Flickr

Contact: Gregory Paul
Tel: +01 410-243-0316
Email: GSP1954@aol.com

In recent decades, scholars have discussed the evolutionary origins of religious beliefs. Some hold that religious beliefs confer benefits to individuals’ abilities to cope with their life experiences; others propose that religious beliefs and identities facilitated the successful survival of human groups and their competition with other groups for land and other scarce resources.

As some nations become increasingly secular, one may wonder what role religious beliefs play for those living in technologically advanced societies. Advocates for religious systems often argue that these beliefs are instrumental in providing moral foundation necessary for a healthy, cohesive society – a view shared by Benjamin Franklin and Dostoyevsky.

In a follow up to his 2005 paper, Gregory Paul argues that high religiosity is not universal to human populations, and it is actually inversely related to a wide range of socio-economic indicators representing the health of modern democracies. Paul holds that once a nation’s population becomes prosperous and secure, for example through economic security and universal health care, much of the population looses interest in seeking the aid and protection of supernatural entities. This effect appears to be so consistent that it may prevent nations from being highly religious while enjoying good internal socioeconomic conditions.

National level statistics suggest that strong mass religiosity is invariably associated with high levels of stress and anxiety, which are created by impoverishment, inequality, or economic security, related to high levels of societal dysfunction. These relationships are largely consistent when the United States, an outlier amongst advanced democracies in the high level of both religious belief and social decay, is removed from the comparison.

The belief held by some scholars that strong religious belief is the universal human condition deeply rooted in our psyches, may be false. Also contradicted is the hypothesis that evolutionary selective forces have played the leading role in determining the popularity of religion. Environmental conditions appear to exert great influence on the degree to which religious beliefs are held. The popularity of religious belief may be a reflection of a psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety resulting from adverse social and economic environments.

Because creationism can be popular only when religion is widespread, extensive disbelief of evolutionary science is also associated with the dysfunctional societal environment, which encourages the conservative, scriptural based theism that favors special creation. Large scale secularization is the only method proven to suppress creationist opinion to well below majority status.

The findings also have strong implications for consequential political debates, such as the current tussles amongst politicians and interest groups over health care reform in the United States. This may be seen as part of a larger ideological battle between those advocating for progressive government policies leveling health and economic outcomes and social conservatives who oppose the secularization associated with such outcomes.

The study, The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions, appears in the current issue of Evolutionary Psychology and is accessible at: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


How Idiot America got that way

! God Bless America !
Image by permanently scatterbrained via Flickr

atheism.about.com/b/2009/09/02/faith-religion-make-conservative-republicans-impervious-to-facts-reality.htm

… increasingly frenzied claims have become so detached from reality that they often seem like black comedy. The right-wing magazine US Investors’ Daily claimed that if Stephen Hawking had been British, he would have been allowed to die at birth by its “socialist” healthcare system. Hawking responded with a polite cough that he is British, and “I wouldn’t be here without the NHS”.

This tendency to simply deny inconvenient facts and invent a fantasy world isn’t new; it’s only becoming more heightened. It ran through the Bush years like a dash of bourbon in water. When it became clear that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, the US right simply claimed they had been shipped to Syria. When the scientific evidence for man-made global warming became unanswerable, they claimed – as one Republican congressman put it – that it was “the greatest hoax in human history”, and that all the world’s climatologists were “liars”. The American media then presents itself as an umpire between “the rival sides”, as if they both had evidence behind them. …

How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? It begins, I suspect, with religion. They are taught from a young age that it is good to have “faith” – which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don’t have “faith” that Australia exists, or that fire burns: you have evidence. You only need “faith” to believe the untrue or unprovable. Indeed, they are taught that faith is the highest aspiration and most noble cause. Is it any surprise this then percolates into their political views? Faith-based thinking spreads and contaminates the rational.

Johann Hari, The Independent

If children are taught to not only believe things on faith, but to also reject claims that are supported by evidence and reason when those claims contradict faith, then it shouldn’t be surprising that we get beliefs like those listed above. This sort of attitude is a great benefit to authority figures since they are, of course, the ultimate arbiters of which beliefs should be taken on faith and which shouldn’t.

What would happen if American schools instituted not just classes on critical thinking and skepticism, but actually inserted lessons on critical thinking throughout the curriculum? What would happen if students in public schools were consistently taught the importance of believing things based on evidence and reasoned arguments, not faith or slavish adherence to tradition or authorities? Who would be able to object without looking completely foolish? — Austin Cline, About.com
Religion Makes Conservative Republicans Impervious to Facts

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


A Q&A with Charles P. Pierce, author of Idiot America

NOVI, MI - MAY 3:  Radio talk show host and co...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Question: What inspired, or should I say drove, you to write Idiot America?

Charles P. Pierce: The germ of the idea came as I watched the extended coverage of the death of Terri Schiavo. I wondered how so many people could ally themselves with so much foolishness despite the fact that it was doing them no perceptible good, politically or otherwise. And it looked like the national media simply could not help itself but be swept along. This started me thinking and, when I read a clip in the New York Times about the Creation Museum, I pitched an idea to Mark Warren, my editor at Esquire, that said simply, “Dinosaurs with saddles.” What we determined the theme of the eventual piece—and of the book—would be was “The Consequences Of Believing Nonsense.”

Question: You visited the Creation Museum while writing Idiot America. Describe your experience there. What was your first thought when you saw a dinosaur with a saddle on its back?

Charles P. Pierce: My first thought was that it was hilarious. My second thought was that I was the only person in the place who thought it was, which made me both angry and a little melancholy. Outside of the fact that its “science” is a god-awful parodic stew of paleontology, geology, and epistemology, all of them wholly detached from the actual intellectual method of each of them. The most disappointing thing is that the completed museum is so dreadfully grim and earnest and boring. It even makes dragon myths servant to its fringe biblical interpretations. Who wants to live in a world where dragons are boring?

Question: Is there a specific turning point where, as a country, we moved away from prizing experience to trusting the gut over intellect?

Charles P. Pierce: I don’t know if there’s one point that you can point to and say, “This is when it happened.” The conflict between intellectual expertise and reflexive emotion—often characterized as “good old common sense,” when it is neither common nor sense—has been endemic to American culture and politics since the beginning. I do think that my profession, journalism, went off the tracks when it accepted as axiomatic the notion that “Perception is reality.” No. Perception is perception and reality is reality, and if the former doesn’t conform to the latter, then it’s the journalist’s job to hammer and hammer the reality until the perception conforms to it. That’s how “intelligent design” gets treated as “science” simply because a lot of people believe in it.

Question: You delve into Ignatius Donnelly’s life story. In 1880, he published the book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World in an attempt to prove that the lost city existed. Yet, you characterize Donnelly as a lovable crank, and don’t take issue with him as you do with modern eccentrics, like Rush Limbaugh. What’s the difference between a harmless crank and a crank in Idiot America?

Charles P. Pierce: Cranks are noble because cranks are independent. Cranks do not care if their ideas succeed—they’d like them to do so—but cranks stand apart. Their value comes when, occasionally, their lonely dissents from the commonplace affect the culture, at which point either the culture moves to adopt them and their ideas come to influence the culture. The American crank is not someone with 600 radio stations spewing bilious canards to an audience of “dittoheads.” The concept of a “dittohead” is anathema to the American crank. He is a freethinker addressing an audience of them, whether that audience is made up of one person or a thousand. A charlatan is a crank who sells out.

Question: What is the most dangerous aspect of Idiot America?

Charles P. Pierce: The most dangerous aspect of Idiot America is that it encourages us to abandon our birthright to be informed citizens of a self-governing republic. America cannot function on automatic pilot, and, too often, we don’t notice that it has been until the damage has already been done.

Question: Is there a voice or leader of Idiot America?

Charles P. Pierce: The leaders of Idiot America are those people who abandoned their obligations to the above. There are lots of people making an awful lot of money selling their ideas and their wares to Idiot America. Idiot America is an act of collective will, a product of lassitude and sloth.

Question: What is the difference between stupidity and glorifying ignorance?

Charles P. Pierce: Stupidity is as stupidity does, to quote a uniquely stupid movie. It has been with us always and always will be. But we moved into an era in which stupidity was celebrated if it managed to sell itself well, if it succeeded, if it made people money. That is “glorifying ignorance.” We moved into an era in which the reflexive instincts of the Gut were celebrated at the expense of reasoned, informed opinion. To this day, we have a political party—the Republicans—who, because it embraced a “movement of Conservatism” that celebrated anti-intellectualism is now incapable of conducting itself in any other way. That has profound political and cultural consequences, and the truly foul part about it was that so many people engaged in it knowing full well they were peddling poison.

Question: While writing Idiot America, what story or incident made you the most incensed?

Charles P. Pierce: Without question, it was talking to the people at Woodside Hospice, who shared with me what it was like to be inside the whirlwind stirred up by people who used the prolonged death of Terri Schiavo as a political and social volleyball to advance their own unpopular and reckless agenda. There are people—Sean Hannity comes to mind—who, if there is a just god in heaven, should be locked in a room for 20 minutes with Annie Santa Maria, the indomitable woman who works with the patients at the hospice. Only one of them would come out, and it wouldn’t be him.

Question: With the election of President Obama, is Idiot America coming to an end? Or, will there always be a place for idiocy in America?

Charles P. Pierce: Look at the political opposition to President Obama. “Socialist!” “Fascist!” “Coming to get your guns.” Hysteria from the hucksters of Idiot America is still at high-tide. People are killing other people and specifically attributing their action to imaginary oppression stoked by radio talk-show stars and television pundits. That Glenn Beck has achieved the prominence he has makes me wonder if there is a just god in heaven.

Question: Are there any positive signs that we are moving away from Idiot America? If you could create a twelve step program to America back on track, what would be your first suggestion?

Charles P. Pierce: Remember that perception is not reality, that opinion, no matter how widely held, is not fact. An old and wise friend of mine said that the only question that any American citizen is required to answer is “Do you govern or are you governed?” It has to be answered in the former, and that answer has to be continuous. We have to get back to that.

(Photo © Brendan Doris Pierce, 2008)

From Publishers Weekly
Journalist Pierce delivers a rapier-sharp rant on how the America of Franklin and Edison, Fulton and Ford has devolved into America the Uninformed, where citizens hostile to science are exchanging fact for fiction, and faith for reason, and glutting themselves on reality TV and conspiracy theories. Pierce makes no apologies for his liberal bias, and some conservatives—notably evolution opponents and Rush Limbaugh—endure a good deal of bashing. Pierce writes that in the U.S., Fact is merely what enough people believe, and truth lies only in how fervently they believe it. He supports his thesis with references to James Madison and other founding fathers, who may have foreseen and rued the emergence of cranks who would threaten the Enlightenment-based nation they were shaping. Although the book is not likely to win any converts from the right wing Pierce so energetically decries, it is an engaging catalogue of those unscientifically verified truths that enthrall and impassion millions of Americans. (June)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]