Religion poisons the world

**Despite some of his political positions, I still agree with Christopher Hitchens that "religion poisons everything." That's not to deny that some religious organizations and some religious people are antidotes to various poisons. But in general, the higher religion is esteemed in a society the worse it is for that society.

Much of the current oppression of women and minorities is impelled by religious dictates based on ancient texts written when cultures were uninformed, paternalistic and misogynistic. That these survive with a segment of the population in 2013 testifies to the tenacity of the irrational side of human nature.

What is now the United States was formed in order to rein in the extremes of religion. Harry T. Cook, still one of my favorite commentators from the "religious" field (because he's not very religious). His most recent essay (available via email subscription) is "An Argument for the Secular State," in which he reviews the inception of American democracy. He cites a response from Jefferson to an inquiry about religious freedom:

Jefferson answered the question thus: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

And yet he notes that the "present Congress is known for the overtly religious enthusiasms of some of its members." Since these legislators have awesome power to affect vast millons of citizens it's frightening to think of what we might have to live with (and through) if these fanatics hold sway.

Climate-change deniers eagerly support the coal and oil lobbies against the known fact that carbon emissions are poisoning Earth's atmosphere to the point of no return. Why? Because they believe (or say they believe) Yahweh's après-flood promise depicted in Genesis 8:22: While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. That pious hope is coupled with the earlier Genesis passage -- which those honorable members of Congress take literally -- to the effect that God gave dominion of the Earth to His human creatures, so drill, baby, drill.

Among the other poisons he cites are efforts to pass laws suppressing reproductive rights, and creationism/intelligent design advocates who insist that "the biblical story of creation is fact and therefore 'in all fairness' must be taught in the nation's public schools as long as modern science is taught."

It's not "fair" to ingest a certain amount of poison when you have the opportunity to exclude it. And using the dictates of an invisible and unproven deity to force it on the public mind and body is suicidal for any society, especially one built on the premise that such tyranny should not be allowed.

He concludes with a restatement of that wise maxim: "freedom of religion must logically include freedom from religion."

Fortunately (unless it's too late) the rising generation of millennials is not so dogmatic and seems less susceptible to the arguments for a religious state.

You know it’s going to be one of THOSE emails when…

**You know it’s going to be one of those emails when you see these at the top of the page: 

It means the sender is most likely older, or more correctly, unsophisticated in modern communications. Those lines mean you are being sent a message that has previously been forward many, many times by similarly unsophisticated communicators. It probably also means they are so passionate about the subject that they don’t hesitate to spew it around liberally. Which doesn’t mean they’re a Liberal – most likely the opposite.

And if the next thing you see is a picture of Ben Stein looking dour and pompous as usual

then you know they’re not a Liberal.

And when the message is presented in 36-point EndTimes Extra Bold – in color of course – and in italics – you know you’re in for a right wing christian screed:

And if it comes from a relative, then you know it’s going to be a pile of right wing religious bullshit – because as far as I know all my relatives are right wing Christians. 

I don’t get as much of this crap as I used to, because early on I let people know I wasn’t interested in their religious or political views.  But every now and then righteous amnesia, or something, overtakes them and they send out drivel like his hoping it will be a “comfort” to me, whom they believe to be languishing in atheistic angst. (I am, but their drug is no longer a palliative for me). 

Maybe it’s because of the “holiday” season, and it gets harder to maintain customary prudence and yield to the pent up desire to celebrate one’s delusions and disseminate them widely, like xmas gifts.

I was going to post the forwarded message here but then realized it would make this diatribe much longer, but also would be cooperating with the evangelical recklessness of the original poster and help spread manure on what they hope will be a field of fresh-grown recruits. If you’re really interested, you can look it up using the clues I’ve given above.

I did a Reply All to that message so that the rest of the family would have no doubt about where I stand. Here’s the reply:

I must have been put on this distribution list by mistake. I am a born-again atheist who thinks Ben Stein reached his peak of intelligence when he did voice overs for Garfield.

That prompted a reply from the original sender:

No mistake. I don't use distribution lists. What little I forward goes only to those I love and care about. Funny, I thought "born again" and "atheist" were mutually exclusive. Be careful what you close your mind to; it's the only one you have, and darkness is clarity, as ignorance is bliss.

Finally, it's the message not the messenger you should pay attention to. 

And my reply to that (and only to the sender, not All):

"Born again." Ah, you get the irony. In my case it means, been-there-done-that-got-the-t-shirt so I know it's all bullshit. And my atheism is only one degree more than yours: I include your god in the same list as you include everyone else's. 
When considering the message, it's wise to consider the source. I defer, not to BenStein but to Einstein, who said "The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
My mind is closed to what I saw when it was open to this monstrous belief in an imaginary friend.

And then today, this from one of the All (notice the BloodOfChrist font):

Make no mistake for sure....the message has meaning to all of us. I personally take offense at anyone who expects me to respect their views and rights, but finds it completely fine...even their right and their privilege to stomp all over my rights as a Catholic, as a Christian and as a Parent. Thanks Daddy, From a standpoint of someone who is growing the future leaders of this country.

It’s the last line that bothered me and prompted me to write (the rest is the usual paranoid fist-pounding). This person has no idea of what “the future leaders of this country” will most likely be. This is someone who obviously doesn’t realize that “this country” isn’t what they thought it was going to be when they were young. It is increasingly diverse in cultures, ethnicities and religious persuasions, most of which are neither Christian nor Jewish. It also ignores the fact that the portion of the population who today profess to be “non-believers” in any kind of god-like entity has increased from 8% in 1990 to 15% today. And this percentage is expected to grow. The “future leaders of this country” are more likely to be secular than religious, and most of them will be atheists. 

The brainwashing of children by religious parents is one of the most egregious silent crimes being perpetrated daily. But I expect that a goodly portion of those kids will be able to break out of the mental addictions their parents are cultivating in them. With a more educated populace, and continued rapid advances in science and technology, fewer young people will be enticed to hold to ideas that are so patently ridiculous. Even those who are right now being “raised” by parents who hope they will become fully robotized religious fanatics like themselves and get this nation back to its religious roots. 

And by the way, the assumption that America was founded AS a christian nation is bogus. It was founded as a place where even religious people could believe whatever claptrap they want without having the government prevent them. Here’s an excerpt from my handy “Atheist Pocket Debater,” an iPhone app:

Our Constitution contains no mention of a God, a Creator, or Christianity. It is a secular document. It mentions religion only once, in a passage dealing with religious freedom, which states, “No religious test shall be required to serve public office.” 

…

Many of our founding fathers and patriots were not Christians. They were Deists! These include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Monroe, James Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Paine. Some actually having much contempt for Christianity. Thomas Jefferson created the “Jeffersonian Bible,” in which he removed all of the supernatural events and miracles of Jesus, just keeping his teachings. Payne wrote” The Age of Reason,” a scathing critique of the Bible

And when these fist-pounders insist on the right to brainwash their children, and to be free to perform whatever form of hideous rituals and practices their delusions encourage regardless of their impact on innocents and bystanders, they grab all the freedom for themselves and leave the rest of society in want. In my own case, the belief that a god-like power would rescue a child dying from acute diabetes is not a delusion that anyone should have the right to practice without constraint. 

Religion thrives in a climate of fear. It shrivels in an atmosphere of reason, education and free discourse. What these spammers are possessed by is the fear that they could be punished for not believing enough in nonsense. They fear hell, and the wrath of some Uber-Parent they might piss off. So an underlying motive is to spread anxiety (which is why so many of them are Republicans) and in so doing build a widespread climate of cowering religiosity to ratify their own fears.

Ridiculous religionists - too easy

There are many funny moments in Bill Maher's "Religulous." And that's part of the problem. Freaks, nut-cases, extremists in outrageous costumes and inarticulate people can all be easily set up for a laugh. They are ridiculous religionists. There are a number of these in "Religulous," a film that Maher says is intended to raise doubts about the claims of religion. A laudable, even important, goal. But the toxins of religion also worm deep into the psyches of mostly ordinary people, not just the flamboyant crazies. Stand at the door of most churches prior to a service and you don't see freaks walking in. You see the hoi polloi, the intensely average mass of society. Some, if not many, of these people are awake enough to know that the claims of religion are ridiculous, but they choose to go along to get along. Many more just don't think about the claims, they just accept it as part of their cultural identity. They wear their religion like an occasional badge (or flag pin), a set-it-and-forget-it accoutrement to be displayed at the door of social acceptance.

Where the Great Average goes horribly wrong is when it has to make decisions that affect the world as a whole. In a political contest every candidate has to flash that badge because if they don't then Joe Average gets suspicious. And so dolts like Bush garner praise because they say they make foreign policy decisions based on messages they receive from a heavenly Father. An airhead like Sarah Palin can espouse freakish beliefs in End Times, fear of witchcraft, and messages from the divine and the religious “right” say amen to the possibility (probability) that she could become President. Even Barack Obama has to steer through the treacherous shoals of perception that he is either a Muslim terrorist or a Christian anarchist – so he just goes bland.

While it's true that the claims of religion are ultimately ridiculous, I wish Maher had shown (or had been able to find) more ordinary people. I would have recommended most of my family, who are good-hearted and generally likeable, even while they shamelessly take comfort in ridiculous, unprovable assumptions.

But owing to the hypnotic nature of these beliefs, I doubt that they, and most ordinary religionists, could be persuaded to doubt. But it would have been interesting for Maher to try anyway.

What is "White Privilege"?

Published on BuzzFlash.org (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles)
White Privilege, White Entitlement and the 2008 Election
Created 09/13/2008 - 3:44pm by Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin’ redneck," like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it, a "light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me (Soft Skull, 2005, revised 2008), and of Speaking Treason Fluently, publishing this month, also by Soft Skull.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash [1] | delicious delicious [2] | digg digg [3] | yahoo yahoo [4] | technorati technorati [5]
Technorati Tags: Guest Contribution [6] White Privilege [7] 2008 election [8]
Source URL:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/contributors/1755

Links:
[1] http://www.buzzflash.net/submit.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzflash.com%2Farticles%2Fcontributors%2F1755
[2] http://del.icio.us/post?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzflash.com%2Farticles%2Fcontributors%2F1755&title=White+Privilege%2C+White+Entitlement+and+the+2008+Election
[3] http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzflash.com%2Farticles%2Fcontributors%2F1755&title=White+Privilege%2C+White+Entitlement+and+the+2008+Election
[4] http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzflash.com%2Farticles%2Fcontributors%2F1755&t=White+Privilege%2C+White+Entitlement+and+the+2008+Election
[5] http://technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzflash.com%2Farticles%2Fcontributors%2F1755
[6] http://technorati.com/tag/Guest Contribution
[7] http://technorati.com/tag/White Privilege
[8] http://technorati.com/tag/ 2008 election

Hitchens on Christianity

I know he has many detractors but I can't help admiring Christopher Hitchens, whose intelligence and language skill is always persuasive. Granted, I haven't heard his defense of the Iraq war, but everything else I've seen is convincing - which is probably why I have avoided his views on the Iraq war!

Here's a YouTube "illustrated" talk on his critique of Christianity, which I totally agree with.

Goodness without godness

I follow my friend Laura's blog because I'm interested in the evolution of her thought, not because I subscribe to the theological ideas she espouses. On occasion, she brings up a topic that elicits a response from me. In a recent post she references an article dealing with her question: Is America a Christian Nation? The following is my answer:

What does it mean to be a "Christian nation?" Is it any different from being an Islamist or Jewish or Hindu nation? When we state the name of a religion do we mean to include all its trappings such as church institutions, "commandments" or laws and the apparatus to enforce them? Does it mean that the "nation" uses a common "book" for its guide to doctrine and morals?

All of the above seems very limiting to me. If the question means: what are the values to which a nation subscribes, then the highest ideals of ALL of them would be included: such as respect for life, freedom of thought and expression, compassion, generosity, and the like. All of which, in the end, are really human values, the things that experience has shown work best to promote the progress and well being of the race.

But as soon as those values are tied up in the belief of some kind of deity, some kind of non-human authority, everything falls into confusion, rivalry, antagonism and a general reversal of those values. I'd rather a nation be "humanitarian" rather than religious in any sense. The Founders of the United States had the right idea for the most part. They extracted the best human values from religions and codified them as distinct from any "brand."

Unfortunately, many Christians have construed the few passing semi-theological allusions in the Declaration, Constitution and currency to assert that America was intended to be a nation that holds to the existence and authority of a supreme being who has anointed a church and its ministers to carry out its will. When such theocrats gain office (ahem) they can commit all sorts of atrocities because they have god on their side.

Let's get back to the original intent that there be SEPARATION on every level and in every way between the conduct of government and religious theories. We can be good without god.