Exploring the fundamental flaws of fundamentalist thought
Fundamentalism
If you’re straight, then why do you care?
Dec 3rd
“If you’re straight, then why do you care so much about gay marriage rights?”
This is a question I am asked far too often. Honestly, I find it somewhat unsettling that so many people find this concept so difficult to grasp.
The answer is quite simple. I care about gay marriage rights because I care about human rights. In our modern society, no one should have to struggle for the right to be treated with kindness, fairness, and respect. No one should have to suffer the indignity of having their rights denied or stripped away because of people’s stubborn adherence to ridiculously outdated dogma. The fact that this happens to anyone infuriates me.
Same-sex marriage isn’t a “gay issue”, because there’s simply no such thing as a gay or straight issue. When the most basic rights are denied to any group of people, we all bear the burden as a society. Whether or not you condone homosexuality is not the issue, as I don’t think anyone is asking for your approval. They are simply asking that you grant them the same basic rights that you take for granted.
Of course, many people who ask this question do so as a form of attack. They attempt to silence straight advocates of gay rights by calling their sexuality into question. Sadly, this tactic works far too often. Personally, I don’t care. If you want to “accuse” me of being gay, then be my guest. You’re free to think whatever you want. Despite what you may think, it’s not offensive to me in any way.
So I just want to implore all of you in-the-closet straight supporters of gay rights out there… Don’t be silenced by a bunch of ignorant fools. Don’t tell yourself that it doesn’t affect you so it’s not your problem. Take a stand for your family, friends, and coworkers who are forced to fight for their most basic rights. Only by standing up for one another can we hope to ever achieve a better future.
I should add one more point… I know I said that I don’t care if people think I’m gay. There is, however, one exception. If you happen to be a thoughtful, intelligent woman who is into opinionated atheist bloggers in their mid thirties… I AM STRAIGHT!!!!! 
Did the Devil Make You Do It?
Nov 16th
There are probably few topics which have been more contentious in religious discussions than that of the nature of evil. Are we essentially good beings that are led astray by a malevolent influence, or are we naturally evil creatures who require divine guidance to become good? This question has plagued humanity since we first became cognizant enough to ponder the true nature of good and evil. If we examine the mythologies of various cultures throughout human history, it becomes quite apparent that this philosophical quandary has been personified through any number of deities, spirits, demons, heroes, and villains.
In our modern western culture, this conflict has perhaps been simplified to its purest form through our depictions of a benevolent god and malevolent devil locked in some sort of endless conflict for our immortal souls. Although this allegorical concept may be satisfying on a dramatic and poetic level, I believe it to be inherently dangerous to society.
In order to explain this point, it is necessary to briefly discuss the question of the origins of religious belief.
This is by no means an easy question to answer, as religion seems to have always been a part of humanity. We can attempt to trace the evolution of belief back through our history, but its origins become obscured in the fog of antiquity. In many ways, it seems almost counterproductive. In evolutionary terms, it is quite expensive and yields no obvious benefits to our survival as a species. However, the fact that it seems to be an intrinsic aspect of human nature implies that its origins must have somehow been beneficial to our species at some point in our development.
Anthropologist Pascal Boyer provided an excellent theory on this subject. In an effort to understand the evolutionary origins of religion, he distilled the mythology, dogma, and philosophies of all religions down to their most basic components. He payed particularly close attention to the beliefs of preliterate cultures, as their beliefs were less likely to have been cross-contaminated with those of others. After a great deal of work, he was able to find only one unifying theme that permeated all known religious beliefs, both past and present.
What Boyer found was that all religions contain a belief in “the presence of unseen agents in the environment”. These agents were often used to explain the causation of certain natural phenomenon. However, the most prevalent beliefs seemed to imply that these spirits were malevolent entities that wished to bring some sort of harm to their unsuspecting victims… much like the devils and demons of our modern mythologies.
It is this simple fact that shines a light on the evolutionary origins of belief. Like all primates, sight is our primary sense. We do not have the heightened sense of smell or hearing that so many of our mammalian cousins enjoy. Since our species evolved in the canopies of African rain forests, sight proved to be the most effective sense to use from our high vantage points. As such, our ability to survive was entirely dependent on our ability to see potential dangers. If we could not see predators in time to take the necessary evasive actions, we would not survive to pass on our genes to the next generation.
This obviously put our ancestors at a distinct disadvantage in situations in which they were not able to see potential dangers. In darkness or in the dense foliage of the ground, they were little more than an easy meal for any of the larger, faster, carnivorous creatures that preyed upon them. Essentially, that which they could not see could easily cause their gruesome demise.
The connection to Boyer’s “unseen agents” now becomes quite clear. The primates who had an innate fear of the invisible did not venture into situations where their sight would be limited, whereas those who had no such fear didn’t survive for very long. In this instance, natural selection favored a primal form of superstition. Millions of years of selection hard-wired it into our ever growing hominid minds.
From an evolutionary point of view, old habits die hard. We’ve been bipedal for a few million years now, yet we still suffer from many of the problems caused by our transition from our ancient quadrupedal forms. In much the same way, our giant sentient brains still fall prey to one of our most basic primal fears… unseen malevolent entities.
Our modern understanding of psychology has shed a great deal of light onto what we have traditionally categorized as good and evil. The human brain has an unparalleled ability to experience empathy, an intellectual understanding of the feelings of others. It is our ability to feel empathy that has formed the very foundation of human society. By understanding the wants and needs of others, we are able to peacefully function in larger communities. This leads to the sort of individual specialization that allows us to function as a greater whole and achieve far more than any individual member of our species ever could alone. By utilizing our advanced sense of empathy, we commit acts of altruism which often benefit others more than ourselves. This is, in essence, what most would define as “good”.
In contrast, we still possess our primal instincts (the aspect of our psyche that is often referred to as “the lizard brain”). This is an even more ancient form of hard-wiring. It represents the most basic needs an organism has to survive and pass on its genes. The lizard brain gladly kills, steals, and rapes to serve its own self-interest, as it does not concern itself with the needs of others. In modern humanity, we define these characteristics as “evil”. While they served our very ancient ancestors, they are detrimental to a species that is dependent on its need to function as a society.
When we examine good and evil in this light, it becomes quite easy to see why the belief that evil is caused by the influence of an external, malevolent entity is fundamentally dangerous. By personifying evil as something which exists outside of ourselves, we provide ourselves with the false comfort of believing that it is not an intrinsic part of our psyche.
Given the right set of circumstances, any one of us is quite capable of abandoning our sense of empathy and reverting to our most primal instincts. It is essential for us to realize this and understand that we alone bear the responsibilities for our own actions. When we cling to our archaic notions of demons and devils, we create a sort of loophole. We tell ourselves that the evil that we do is no fault of our own… that we are somehow little more than the hapless puppets of some imagined demonic entity. Once we become convinced that anything else bears the responsibility for our actions, there is no limit to the atrocities we could allow ourselves to commit.
Many of the faithful will surely argue that they will never commit any such atrocities, as their faith in an all-powerful benevolent entity shields them from the influences of evil beings. This sort of thinking is even more dangerous, as the believer has engaged in a sort of magical thinking. The belief that our attachment to a good being protects us from the influence of evil is an incredibly dangerous rationalization… “Because I have faith, I am righteous. Because I am righteous, I am good. Because I am good, my actions are not evil.” This is the twisted logic that has led to countless atrocities committed throughout human history in the name of any number of gods.
We have reached a stage in our evolution in which we have the cognitive ability to understand the true nature of evil. It is not something that is forced upon us by malevolent entities, but rather the result of any number of factors which damage our psyche to an extent to which we abandon our empathy and revert to our more primal nature. It is time for us to cast aside the imagined ghosts of our primitive ancestors and embrace a rational view of what makes us good or evil. Only by doing this can we hope to overcome the demons of our minds and strive to create a world in which we truly embrace that which is good for all humanity.
The Divine Mystery of Substance XJ-237
Nov 4th
Most of you are probably well aware that I treat most matters dealing with religion and the paranormal with a great deal of skepticism. However, I have recently become aware of something that has radically changed my perspective. If you would be so kind as to indulge me for a few minutes, I would very much like to share my new found knowledge with you all.
It all began with a dream… actually, more of a vision. In this vision, I was visited by an otherworldly being who simply referred to herself as “^”. She told me that I had to purchase a yellow spiral-bound notebook with at least 128 pages and a purple ballpoint pen (preferably one with the soft rubber comfort-grip handle). At exactly 2:43 am (Eastern Standard Time), I was to climb the tallest tree in the park, burn an incense composed of barley and oregano, close my eyes, and write down the truth that was revealed to me.
What follows is a summary of the One Great Truth.
Thousands of years ago there was a long forgotten race of malevolent beings who created a truly diabolical substance. This substance goes by many names throughout the universe. The insectoids of Alpha Beta 9 call it “Dark Mana”. The Avian Lords of Sigma 13 call it “Dire Milk”. The denizens of Omega Perseus 5 call it “Irving” (It is generally accepted by most sentient races that the denizens of Omega Perseus 5 “ain’t quite right in the head“, but I digress). K instructed me that we Earthlings shall know it as “Substance XJ-237″.
The purpose of this insidious substance is to mutate those who are exposed to it in horrific ways… to cause them to deviate from the Grand Design of the High Council of Krebulan (the all-knowing, all-powerful benevolent race who intelligently designed all life in the universe). These perversions against nature have taken various forms specific to the races who have fallen victim to its evil contamination. Fortunately, K informed me of the effect it has on humans.
Before Substance XJ-237 (which has no color, odor, mass, or energy signature of any kind), all human adults were designed to fall within a sacred height range. No one was shorter than 5’6″, nor were they taller than 6’3″. The reasons why the High Council of Krebulan chose this range are beyond our understanding, so suffice it to say that it represents all that is beautiful, sacred, happy, fluffy, and good. For many years humans happily adhered to these guidelines. Our race was perfect, living a life of bliss and joy in perfect harmony with our divine overlords of the High Council Krebulan (our most blessed praises unto them!). That all changed after “The Fall”.
The Fall was indeed humanity’s darkest hour (although some theologians within the reform movement now believe it to have only taken about 37 minutes). Upon seeing our perfect and happy union with the High Council of Krebulan, the jealous and malevolent race that shall not be named unleashed Substance XJ-237 upon our planet. It rained down upon the unsuspecting people of Earth, warping their minds in ways that would forever threaten their sacred bond with the High Council of Krebulan.
It brought great wickedness into their minds. All across the planet, people began to forsake the teachings of the High Council of Krebulan (hallowed be their sacred name!). Hidden in the shadows, humans began to question the very goodness of their intended design. The heresy was unthinkable… “Why CAN’T we be shorter than 5’6″? And wouldn’t it be kind of FUN to be 6’4″ tall? We could finally clean the top of the refrigerator!”
And so, great wickedness filled the Earth. Humans began to engage in unimaginable sins. In defiance of their sacred nature, millions chose to be shorter than 5’6″, while millions more chose to grow taller than 6’3″.
We have been cursed with this unthinkable sin, but all is not lost. Most of us are still righteous. Most of us have chosen to abide by the sacred rules of our nature. Most of us have chosen to be 5’6″ to 6’3″ tall.
Can we still save those who have strayed? Perhaps we can. We have seen great promise. Our missionaries have had a great deal of success bringing young children back into the light by convincing them to grow beyond 5’6″ (although we have had far less success converting those who chose to grow beyond 6’3″).
One thing we can… or should I say MUST… do is stop these deviants who have chosen to stray from the light from indoctrinating our children or forcing their way of life upon us. Across our great nation, the vile Shorties and Tallies have convinced our elected officials and activist judges to let them get married. As if that’s not bad enough, many of them actually want the right to legally adopt children.
We cannot allow this to happen. After all, they have chosen to succumb to the evil effects of Substance XJ-237. They have chosen to forsake the most blessed and sacred height guidelines set forth by our benevolent creators of the High Council of Krebulan. They have chosen to reject their reward in the afterlife (an eternity of bliss on the sacred pleasure planet Paradise 5, with its award winning all-you-can-eat buffet featuring the famous Triple Chocolate Orgasm… and that’s NOT just a figure of speech!).
Of course, some will argue that what I propose is wrong. There will be those wicked enablers of the Shorties and Tallies who claim that everything I’ve told you is complete and utter nonsense. They will point out that their is no proof that anything I’ve said is true, and that it’s perfectly natural for humans to be shorter than 5’6″ or taller than 6’3″. They will even say that it is wrong for me to deny basic legal rights and equality to my fellow human beings based on a ridiculous belief that no rational person in the twenty-first century should embrace.
Seriously, folks… is what I say really that difficult to believe? It’s not like a claimed that a pillar of fire burned laws into stone, or that people who die for their faith will be rewarded with 72 virgins, or that a carpenter was born to a virgin, died for your sins, and rose from the dead. It’s not like I am suggesting that anyone be persecuted for anything as natural as their sexual orientation. That would be completely absurd!
Can I get a “Yam-nar*”?!
————————-
*From the Krebulan. Its closest English translation is “Amen”.
FSGP October Program Meeting: Marc Adams
Sep 20th
Friday, October 2: Humanist LGBT Author Marc Adams
Ethical Humanist Society of Philadelphia Building: 1906 Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia PA 19103
7:00-9:00 PM
Marc Adams is the author of nine books including his autobiography, The Preacher’s Son.Since 1997, he has traversed the United States speaking to nearly 100 Unitarian Universalist congregations, major universities, political organizations, GLBT community centers, pride festivals, atheist/humanist groups and others.
The Preacher’s Son is his story of growing up gay, the son of a fundamentalist Baptist minister, his time as an ex-gay, his life as a student and employee of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, coming out and becoming a Unitarian Universalist/Humanist. Adams’ most recent book, (lost)Found is a follow-up to The Preacher’s Son. It continues his story after coming out to his family and reflects ten years of his life being out in a corporate workplace, building a family of choice, dealing with the baggage from his fundamentalist upbringing and the patient, unwavering love of his grandmother. It is truly an homage to the real love that only real family can exhibit.
Join us as Marc Adams shares his story and journey; serious and important, yet filled with humor and interaction.
Free and open to the public.
Gay marriage vs. nuclear physics
Jun 10th
I am going to start out this post by assuming that you are scratching your head in some futile attempt to figure out how there could be any possible correlation between gay marriage and nuclear physics. I don’t blame you. Until today, I had absolutely no idea that the two subjects were related. It seems that I was, in fact, quite wrong.
I was enlightened by a brilliant analogy put forth in an op-ed piece written by Timothy Dalrymple, an evangelical contributor to Patheos.com. He so eloquently expressed why gay marriage is not only wrong, but apparently violates the laws of physics…
We can no more revise the basis of marriage than we can revise the laws governing atoms. Societies may shape marriage differently, but the intrinsic need of male and female for each other is written into the created order.
Did that statement just make your brain hurt? Don’t worry if it did, as that is only an indication that you have a healthy, rational mind. Apart from being little more than typical theological drivel, it contains one of the most egregiously false analogies of all time.
First, let’s examine exactly what marriage is. It is not an intrinsic aspect of nature. It is not governed by any natural laws. It is a societal construct. In essence, it is not a thing that actually exists by itself. It only exists because we, as a society, accept that it exists. Therefor, marriage is what any given group, be it a community, a church, or a government, defines it to be.
If we want to bring natural laws into this debate, then we should be clear about one thing. Natural laws do not govern marriage… they govern sexual attraction. It is true that the most common form of sexual attraction is between a male and female. If this were not the case, our species would have died out long ago. However, male/female sexual attraction is by no means the only form. Attraction between two individuals of the same sex is quite common throughout the natural world. While it does not serve the vital role of perpetuating the species, it is not harmful to the species as long as a sufficient breeding population is maintained.
I understand that this is by no means a flowery or romantic description, but we have to make one thing perfectly clear… we are talking about natural law here, so we have to reduce the concept to its most basic components.
Now let’s move on to the other half of the analogy… “the laws governing atoms”. What exactly are the laws governing atoms?
The answer is quite simple: THERE ARE NO LAWS “GOVERNING” ATOMS.
There is always a great deal of confusion when we talk about scientific laws. These laws are not some sort of codes imposed by an invisible nether-world government which instruct atoms how to behave. They are the result of our attempts to observe, understand, predict, and explain how atoms behave. The actual behavior of the atoms is, in fact, intrinsic to their nature. They do not think, and therefor do not care, about what these laws are.
So let’s put all of this together and look at exactly why this analogy is ridiculous. Since marriage is a societal construct, its nature is completely dependent on the society defining it. Although many religious fundamentalists may argue that the common “one man and one woman” configuration is the result of natural laws, it is not. It is the result of cultural influence and personal beliefs, and is therefor simply one possible subjective view. As a result, any laws we make defining it are attempts at imposing a single point of view on our society as a whole.
Atoms, on the other hand, simply don’t care what our point of view is. They pay no mind to our religious belief. They don’t sidestep our cultural taboos. If we were to pass a constitutional amendment banning protons from the nucleus, the protons would still be in the nucleus. These “laws” are constant and immutable. Atoms are what they are.
So why did one silly little analogy bother me so much? The answer is simple. In our society, there is far too many examples of theology being presented as something more than it actually is. In this one statement, Mr. Dalrymple has attempted to blur the lines between politics, science, and religious belief, stating his personal theological views as immutable fact.
While I don’t agree with his personal beliefs, I can at least respect his right to hold them. I cannot, however, respect his attempts to present theology as anything more than it is… mythology and dogma.
To paraphrase a popular t-shirt slogan, “Don’t bring your faith into our science, and we won’t think in your church.”
Gay marriage showdown in PA?
May 28th
There are a few constants in my morning routine… the bus ride to work, my 24 oz. black coffee, chocolate chip muffin, and the daily edition of “Metro” (a newspaper which fits comfortably in my price range). Although the paper is generally 20 some odd pages of ads and celebrity gossip, they usually manage to squeeze in a few good articles.
This morning, the dedicated a section of the front page to discuss the looming same-sex marriage battle coming to Pennsylvania.
Living in Philadelphia, I am confronted with a sort of political paradox. Philly is one of the most progressive cities in the country, and is generally regarded to be what is called a “gay-friendly” city. Most of the businesses gladly cater to gay clientele (apparently realizing that gay money is also green), and the overwhelming majority of us straight folks support gay rights.
However, large portions of central Pennsylvania are very much part of what can be considered the “Bible Belt”, a rural fundamentalist Christian stronghold.
Because of this contrast, the laws of our commonwealth do not always reflect the attitudes of our fair city. This had caused a great deal of frustration for Philly’s sizable gay community. While they have never actually passed, there have been attempts by our state legislature to define what many consider to be “traditional” marriage.
The latest attempt is a proposal by Senator John Eichelberger (R-Hollidaysburg) to amend our state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one women. Metro printed the following quote:
“The government recognized many years ago this is the best model for society. People live longer, they raise children better so they should use that model. …It’s a proven model that our forefathers recognized”
I think it should be pointed out that what he is describing are the benefits of marriage, although not necessarily straight marriage. As far as the comments about our forefathers, I would be quite curious to find out exactly what George Washington or Thomas Jefferson said about the subject of marriage equality. I don’t think the issue ever came up, as they were far too busy contemplating that fact that their slaves counted as three fifiths of a human being. But I digress.
In contrast to this proposal, another has been made by Senator Daylin Leach (D-King of Prussia) to recognize all marriages as valid and grant same sex married couples the same rights and responsibilities as their straight counterparts. I very much enjoyed his quote on the subject:
“It’s inevitable. We’ll think of it as we think of interracial marriage. … I want to … at least have Pennsylvania in the middle of the pack instead of hanging out toward the back with Alabama and Mississippi.”
I certainly hope none of my freethinking friends from the south are offended by this remark (I doubt they are, as they are usually the first to mock the fundamentalism within their own states). I think Sen. Leach has made a very important point with this statement.
Despite what our fundamentalist friends would have us believe, gay rights are moving forward and will continue to do so. Ultimately, any society which professes to uphold the principles of equality must abolish any vestiges of the old “separate but equal” philosophies of the past. Our generation will eventually be judged by those who follow many years down the road. Will we be seen as people who stood for fairness and equality, or will we be seen as a paradoxical generation who regarded individuals as three fifths of a human being?
Personally, I see a great deal of hope. Homophobia seems far less common among young Americans today. In addition, the ranks of atheists, agnostics, humanists, and progressive believers are growing every day. People are becoming far less inclined to allow antiquated dogmas to define their opinions on sexaul morality, adopting a “to each his own” or “live and let live” philosophy.
This is, of course, just a personal observation. However, I do strongly feel that we are seeing old fashioned religious fundamentalism in its death throws. We might not live to see the end of it, but I’m certain our children and grandchildren will.
And what will happen when they do? Will they thank us for the work we’ve done to move human rights forward, or will they see us as a group of apathetic individuals who said nothing while our brothers and sisters drowned in a sea of ancient dogma and intolerance?
As I said, to each his own. It is entirely up to you to determine how you will be remembered. Personally, I hope to be remembered as someone who stood up for the rights of all and rejected the mythologies of the past… and I hope that you will be remembered right there beside me.
AFA brings out one “Heck” of a straw man
May 11th
It’s always loads of fun to see the American Family Association take on the world of science. It’s one of their three natural enemies (the other two being some hideous phantasm known as “the gay agenda” and basic common sense).
Today, they treated us to an astute criticism of evolutionary immunology by a gentleman named Peter Heck. I naturally assumed that he was one of Ken Ham’s lackeys from Answers in Genesis… but it turns out that Mr. Heck is the host of a two hour right wing Christian radio talk show in Kokoma, Indiana.
His article, entitled “Darwinists’ swine flu science”, attempts to critique an article in Live Science magazine which explains how evolutionary science is critical in understanding the evolution of a virus (as if one would use any other sort of science to understand the evolution of an organism).
I began to read the article and was treated to one of the most epic opening paragraphs ever written. Mind you, it wasn’t epic because it was powerfully written. It wasn’t epic because it made a valid point. It was epic because I believe it set a new world record…
The number of straw men one can cram into a few short sentences.
I present this paragraph to you, in all of its strawy goodness (please… no open flames within the vicinity of this paragraph).
It never ceases to amaze me how intellectually condescending evolutionary naturalists can be. Keep in mind, these are folks who believe that an indescribably tiny wad of nothingness exploded into a fully functional, structured, and ordered universe of orbiting planets and complex creatures without any supernatural agency involved. They are the ones who cling to a theory known as spontaneous generation – the notion that dead matter can just suddenly pop to life. They are the ones who champion a man (Charles Darwin) who suggested that Africans were more closely related to gorillas than Caucasians. They are the ones who believe that a wolf-like animal with hooves took to the water, lost its legs, and morphed into a whale (Cetaceans). If anyone should go easy on the intellectual condescension, it’s these people. But they don’t.
First of all… he makes the statement that we believe that “an indescribably tiny wad of nothingness exploded into a fully functional, structured, and ordered universe of orbiting planets and complex creatures without any supernatural agency involved.” This is one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I have ever read. Notice that he begins with an incredibly glib description of the Big Bang theory, then quickly goes on to imply that we claim that every other natural process, from the formation of stars to the evolution of complex organisms, just happened randomly from there. I know of no scientists who would make anything even resembling this claim. This is a clear example of the dishonest tactics used by creationists to defcredit science.
He goes on to claim that we cling to the theory of spontaneous generation. Really? We do? That’s odd… I thought that spontaneous generation was an ancient and archaic theory that was finally abandoned after Pasteur’s experiments in the mid 19th century. I assume that he is attempting to cause his readers to confuse spontaneous generation with abiogenesis, the modern field of study which attempts to understand the formation of complex proteins and how they combined to form DNA, leading to our world’s most primitive life forms some 2-3 billion years ago. You don’t need to be a biologist to understand that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with spontaneous generation. You need only read up on the subject and apply a bit of common sense.
Heck then goes on to employ one of the favorite tactics of the creationists… slander Charles Darwin. I’m going to play devil’s advocate on this. For one moment, let’s assume Darwin was a racist. Let’s assume he was the biggest, most bigoted racist who ever lived. What, exactly, would this have to do with his work as a scientist? Would this automatically invalidate his theory of natural selection? No, it wouldn’t. I suppose this tactic is not quite a straw man. It’s more of a red herring… the squirmy little friend of the straw man.
Of course, I was by no means conceding that Darwin was a racist. In reality, he saw little distinction between the so-called races of humans, arguing that there was often more diversity within a race than between races. An excellent critique of the “Darwin was a racist” idea can be found at http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
So… are we “intellectually condescending”? At times, yes. I will not even attempt to argue this point. However, I would like to point out that we don’t start out that way. We become condescending when faced with absurdity masquerading as science. We become condescending when people base their knowledge of the universe on the mythological ramblings of Bronze Age scribes.
And we certainly become condescending when conservative Christian talk show hosts spew forth a heady mixture of straw men, red herrings, and pseudo-science.
Thank you, Peter Heck. Thank you for making our job so damn easy. Thank you for providing such a brilliant example of everything that is wrong with contaminating science with religious thought.
Although it doesn’t spontaneously generate form the back end of a bull, it certainly does from the mouths of the religious right.
The Crusade for a Christian Military
May 7th
“The Crusade for a Christian Military”: Are US Forces Trying to Convert Afghans to Christianity?
The military is denying it allows its soldiers to proselytize to Afghans, following the release of footage showing US soldiers in Afghanistan discussing how to distribute Bibles translated into Pashto and Dari. We speak to Air Force veteran and former Reagan administration counsel Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and journalist Jeff Sharlet, author of a Harper’s Magazine article on “The Crusade for a Christian Military.”
————————————–
“Democracy NOW!” did an amazing story concerning the radicalization of the United States military by Evangelical Christians. This is a MUST SEE story for all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.
This is some truly frightening stuff. Allowing an organization as powerful as the US military to fall under control of religious extremists presents a danger to our entire world.
Please check out the story, and pass it along to friends.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/6/the_crusade_for_a_christian_military
Again with Darwin and the Nazis…
Mar 16th
I think we’re all aware of the fact that religious fundamentalists love to make the rather absurd claim that Charles Darwin’s revolutionary work was the foundation for the acts of genocide committed by the Nazis. In the past, I’ve generally laughed this off as the ridiculous joke that it is. However, I recently had a conversation with someone I consider to be an intelligent and rational individual who felt that there was merit to this argument. For this reason, I’ve decided to briefly address why this idea is a blatant falsehood.
In order to do so, we must first take a quick look at exactly what natural selection is. Essentially, the theory states that an organism which possesses advantageous traits will be more likely to survive long enough to pass these traits on to subsequent generations. Such traits are born of genetic mutation, but become a dominant trait within the species when they allow the organisms which possess them to excel and multiply.
Let’s look at bipedal locomotion as an example. This is a trait which sets us apart from our primate brethren, so we can safely assume that our ancestors were in an environment in which this was clearly superior to quadrupedal locomotion. Being bipedal is useless when you spend most of your time swinging around the forest canopy, so it is unlikely that this would become a dominant trait through natural selection.
However, we know that around the same time primate bipedal locomotion developed there were some major changes in the environment in which our ancestors lived. Many areas which were previously rain forests with lush tree cover began turning into grasslands. We could no longer spend our entire lives in the tree tops safe from predators. We had to climb down out of the trees and traverse large fields of tall grass in order to get to the safety of the next closest tree.
Since these thickets of grass were often the hunting grounds of rather large, nasty cats, this was most likely a death sentence to the poor little primates forced to charge blindly through on all fours. However, a select few had a mutation which allowed them to run significant distances on only their hind legs, which allowed them to keep their eyes above the grass and see oncoming predators. The quadrupeds became kitty chow, while the bipeds lived on to reproduce. This is a beautiful example of natural selection.
In contrast, we have to take a look at the idea of artificial selection. One of the clearest examples of this is the domesticated dog. Natural selection gave us wolves, which are predators which are ideally suited to their environment. However, humans began to keep some of the more docile wolves as pets and bred them to be more desirable to us. Thousands of years of artificial selection gave us lovable dog breeds like pugs and poodles. While they might make wonderful pets, they would be lucky to survive for more than a day when released into the wild. In this case, we have undone the work of natural selection through selective breeding.
So… How does this relate to Darwin and the Nazis?
The fundamentalists would have us believe that the Nazi idea of a “master race” was based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. In reality, the Nazi ideas contradict natural selection and represent artificial selection.
The Nazi ideal of the superior human was a Caucasian with blond hair and blue eyes. They believed that these characteristics were indicative of a genetic makeup that was superior to the so called “inferior” races. For this reason, they actively sought to breed individuals who possessed these traits while eliminating other races from the gene pool. This is NOT natural selection, but artificial selection.
If they were following the teachings of Darwin, they would know that if these traits did provide any real genetic advantage, they would already be dominant traits throughout humanity. The allegedly inferior traits (brown hair, dark skin, brown eyes) would have been eliminated through natural means. Essentially, the traits embodied by their “master race” provided no clear advantage and were in no way indicative of genetic superiority.
From a Darwinian perspective, the fact that other races have survived and prospered is an indication that they are NOT inferior.
I understand that this was a rather glib, quick, and dirty explanation of some rather complicated ideas, but I think it communicates the essential points. The eugenics and genocide of the Nazis were NOT based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection… they were acts of defiance of it. The were a truly horrific example of the arrogance and prejudices of mankind.
Kind of like religion, eh?
Help the fundies say “no” to special rights
Mar 2nd
For those of us used to dealing with the religious fundamentalists, hypocrisy is nothing new. In fact, it seems to be their bread and butter (or should I say, the body of their savior and margarine?)
However, I occasionally stumble upon something so utterly hypocritical that it seems to don a top hat, tails, and cane and perform an epic song and dance routine celebrating its hypocrisy. When I encounter such a thing, I am always flabbergasted that the individuals making such statements seem to be completely unaware of it.
The subject of today’s flabbergastery is a One News Now article entitled “Christian school showing film about homosexual agenda”.
The article discusses a documentary (which is apparently the term the AFA uses as a euphemism for “propaganda film”) about the ever present, evil, and shadowy force known as “the homosexual agenda” (insert dramatically scary music here). It quotes a woman by the name of Mary Balkema, a spokesperson for a group called Kalamazoo Citizens Voting No to Special Rights Discrimination, which was “successful in getting city commissioners to rescind an anti-discrimination ordinance for homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals”. Let’s take a moment to review what she said on the subject…
“We’re talking about behaviors, and behaviors people are accountable for. We think that being a cross-dresser or transgendered is a behavior,” she contends. “We’re talking about the effects that a behavior has on society. So certainly we’re trying to act in a very fair fashion in bringing that forward.”
This viewpoint is, of course, nothing new. The very basis of the religious right’s argument against the rights of the LGBT community has always been the “nature versus nurture” issue. Essentially, their point is that homosexuality is a choice, and therefor should not be protected under the same laws that ensure equal rights for other minority groups.
Nature versus nurture is an incredibly complicated debate which is still being researched by many experts, so I will make no attempt to resolve it here. However, I would like to point out that homosexuality occurs commonly throughout nature and is by no means confined to humanity alone. Most people agree that this indicates at least some degree of natural inclination toward homosexuality.
Since the fundamentalists seem to be quite fond of using the nature versus nurture argument to explain why homosexuals should not have rights, I believe we should hold them up to the same standard.
Our constitution ensures that all American citizens have the right to practice their religions. In fact, groups like the AFA often argue that anti discrimination laws which protects homosexuals violate their right to religious freedom. There is some degree of merit to this argument, as any laws which involve the right to free speech can get quite tricky. I do not intend to debate this issue in this post.
What I would like to do is pose one simple question… Are an individual’s religious beliefs a result of nature or nurture?
This question is far more simple to answer. No child is inherently Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion. The religious beliefs held by an individual are clearly the result of upbringing and personal choice.
To the best of my knowledge, no child has ever been born with a cross, rosary, or star of David in their hand. If they were, I think it would be less an indication of inherent faith and more of an indication that the child’s mother had some sort of a bizarre fetish involving religious symbols (which brings up a whole new set of psychological issues that I have neither the time, expertise, nor desire to discuss at this time).
I know many people will claim that their personal religious views are intrinsic, but this simply isn’t true. If a child was isolated from society at birth, it is seriously doubtful that he would independently arrive at the conclusion that a carpenter died for his sins 2,000 years ago. Such a belief is clearly an example of a child’s upbringing and personal choices.
I believe it’s time for the religious right to literally practice what they preach. If you believe that people should not be given legal protection for behaviors and beliefs that are a matter of environment and personal choice, then you should immediately start lobbying for an amendment to end the rights and protection provided to religion in our society.
Doing so will demonstrate that you are firm in your beliefs and reject hypocrisy. Only after you have done this can we begin to have a fair dialogue about the “special rights” being given to homosexuals.
To put it quite plainly… It’s time for you walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.
Or will the rejection of hypocrisy cause the very foundation of your beliefs to crumble to dust?