Decline and Fall

Via Art of the Possible: Jewish voters are stupid and insufficiently tribal because they voted for Obama, according to conservative columnist Don Feder. This article is all kinds of wrong, and someone needs to fisk the whole thing, but here are a few highlights:

That McCain had an unblemished, 20-year record of support for Israel, Obama is surrounded by advisors who are hostile to Israel, and Iranian Television described the latter as “highly educated” and “eloquent,” mattered not in the least.

Yeah, that Rahm Emanuel is an anti-zionist of the first order. And anything Iranian Television says must be false. If they say the sky is blue, they're wrong and deserve to be militarily occupied.

Even though Iran is led by a raving anti-Semite and Holocaust-denier – who’s said Israel “should be wiped off the face of the Earth” – even though Iran was voted most likely to commit nuclear suicide if it could take Israel with it, a plurality of Jews still said they’d oppose U.S. military action to forestall a second Holocaust.

Poor Iran. They so wanted to win "Most Likely to Create a Death Star," but that award went to Japan. There, there, it's just a popularity contest. Oh, and Ahmedinejad didn't say that.

As Jewish author Dennis Prager notes, if there was a connection between Judaism and liberalism, those Jews grounded in Torah and most committed to living a Jewish life, would be the most liberal.

Right. Because the more Orthodox you are, the more Jewish you are. And Dennis Prager is definitely the go-to guy for impartial analysis.

[Obama] attended Farrakhan’s 1995 Million Man March, and later lauded the neo-Nuremberg rally as an event that brought African-American men together and showed they were ready “to make a commitment to bring about change in our communities and our lives”

"Neo-Nuremberg rally"? WTF? Nothing hyperbolic there, Godwin.

[Obama] said the “legitimate claims” of Hezbollah are “weakened” by its violence

You mean to tell me there's absolutely nothing legitimate about Hezbollah's claims, which in turn aren't weakened by their use of violence? How on earth is that even a controversial statement?

[Obama] said the terrorist attacks of 9/11 grew out of “a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair” – to which we must not overreact

I don't know of any actual scholar in the field who denies that "poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair" are at least part of the root causes of terrorism. It's clearly an extremist position, taken only by those who truly hate the Judeo-Christian faith, and Israel is as good as incinerated now that Barack Hussein is in charge.

Those Jews also reject the Judeo-Christian ethic and the historic mission of the Jewish people – to repair the world under the rule of God.

Because there's only one way of interpreting the injunction to "repair the world," and that's to "vote Republican." After all, the world is in much better shape now than it was eight years ago. But Jews are too stupid to that..

How this bigoted, jingoistic moron has been allowed to write a sydicated column for a quarter century is beyond me. But he's certainly at home in today's conservative movement.

Labels: conservatism, politics, religion

On the sixth anniversary of 9/11, militants in Pakistan tried for a repeat of one of the acts that solidified their place in the "enemies of all that is good" category:

Suspected pro-Taleban militants have tried to blow up an ancient carving of Buddha in north-west Pakistan. The statue, thought to date from the second century BC, sustained only minimal damage in the attack near Manglore in remote Swat district.

At least the statue is mostly unharmed. But read to the bottom of the article:

Last week, militants blew up about 60 music, video and cosmetics stalls at a market in the valley after stall owners ignored warnings to close businesses deemed un-Islamic.

60 of them. That's a shocking number. Imagine 60 shops in an American shopping mall being destroyed in this way. It would be a national emergency. In Pakistan and much of the Middle East, it garners barely a footnote in the world press.

It's useful to remember why we are fighting in Afghanistan. It's too bad our reasons for fighting in Iraq aren't nearly so justifiable. And it's a crying shame that our fight in Iraq has taken us so far afield from the fight against violent religious extremism. No matter what your opinion of our military (mis)adventures in southeast Asia, it behooves you to remember that there are still bad guys out there, and they are still murderously intent on imposing their will.

Labels: fundamentalism, religion, terrorism

Via Stranger Fruit.

Labels: conservatism, humor, reason, religion, science

For some reason, certain segments of the Christian world seem to think it's a good idea to demonstrate repeatedly that they are not just insane, they are standing on a street corner with a sign proclaiming the end of the world insane. This picture shows the city of Jerusalem minus the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam. It's from the website of Christians United for Israel (CUFI). But it's not just some picture they posted there. It's the logo. The masthead. The picture they have chosen to represent their organization. But what does it all mean? I'll let Bruce Wilson at Talk to Action explain:

As a possibly intentional provocation, the elimination of the Dome Of The Rock from CUFI's website logo is consonant with [CUFI Founder and Chairman] John Hagee's repeated vilification of Islam....

John Hagee has also repeatedly discussed, publicly and in his writing, his belief that, because history is unfolding exactly as described in Biblical prophecy, the destruction of the Dome of The Rock and the subsequent rebuilding of a Jewish temple on the site is inevitable.

Actually, "standing on a street corner with a sign proclaiming the end of the world insane" doesn't cover it. They're actually trying to end the world. Thank FSM this is isn't what constitutes mainstream opinion in Israel!

But, Pastor Hagee's, and CUFI's, political positions have no counterpart within Israel mainstream society. Rather, such views are held, in Israel, by groups considered to be on the extreme political fringe. A veteran Israeli journalist consulted for this story stated that, in mainstream Israeli political sentiment, actions, conspiracies, or even thoughts concerning the destruction of the Dome Of The Rock are considered "abhorrent" and repeatedly stressed the extremely marginal nature of such beliefs within Israeli society.

Unfortunately, what passes for "abhorrent" in polite Israeli society will get you an audience with prominent members of one of the two major parties in this one. John McCain and Roy Blunt have held private meetings with Hagee, and he was a keynote speaker at AIPAC's convention two months ago. Digby, as usual, put it best:

These crazy people (and I don't care if they do it in the name of religion, they are still crazy) really believe that all-out war is a positive thing and they are doing what they can to bring that about, including meeting with important American politicians. I believe in free speech, even for nuts. But for AIPAC, John McCain and Roy Blunt to pander to and fete people who are going out of their way to provoke a religious war for their own reasons by pulling ridiculous stunts like that really should be beyond the pale.

This is a country where a shock jock, who has been making racist and sexist comments for years now, is (rightly) forced to resign, but where Christian groups who beat the drums for armageddon confirm to the Muslim world exactly what they have suspected all along: that the (conflict formerly known as the) Global War on Terror is just another religious crusade against the infidel Saracens. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't kill anyone over religion (they especially wouldn't travel halfway around the world to do so), this is what al-Qaeda and the rest of their hateful breed preach, and it's believed, and acted upon, by a large enough minority in the Muslim world to be worth taking seriously.

Digby's right: this should be a slam dunk for the Democrats. Go after Hagee and his ilk (Jerry Falwell and Gary Bauer, for instance, who are members of CUFI's Executive Board). Show America and the world that this moron does not represent America, at least the non-crazy part. Repudiate these backwards lunatics in no uncertain terms. And for the love of all that is good in the world, stop hosting these jackasses on Capitol Hill!

Labels: conservatism, GWOT, religion

Mike the Mad Biologist has a post up about the fundamental dishonesty of the Creationist leaders. Money quote:

It took me a while to realize that the 'professional creationists' were not intellectually honest either. I am not referring to those who follow them, or those who are simply not very knowledgable about evolution. I receive emails asking me about evolution and creationism (particularly issues related to microbiology), and, believe it or not, I answer them politely (if not always quickly...).

Everyone can be misinformed, ignorant, or simply have not thought things through correctly. What I will not tolerate is willful ignorance. Creationist leaders and spokesmen are willfully ignorant. How many times do they have to be told what scientists mean by a theory? How many times will they misstate the basics of evolutionary theory, such as claiming that natural selection is a tautology? The list goes on and on. These creationists have heard the evidence-based rebuttals of their false arguments many times.

Quite true, as far as that goes. I cannot believe that the people at Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute have seriously considered the arguments against their position. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.

But what of the masses who follow them? Are they maliciously ignoring the evidence and fitting facts to their worldview? The answer is both yes and no. That they selectively cherry-pick evidence and arguments cannot be denied. But is it malicious? I don't think so.

Marx has often been quoted saying that "religion is the opium of the people." The corrollary to this is not often stated, however. As much as Marx believed that religion is the illusory happiness of the masses, his program merely substituted another belief in its place, rather than eliminating the need for opiates altogether. His insight was that no matter what, the people will always seek something to believe in. I define this something as ideology. (To be fair, he seems to have believed that Communism would eliminate this need, but that's the problem with ideology, and opiates: they're terrible at seeing themselves for what they actually are.)

Why do I bring up Marx in this context? To make a point about malice when arguing for logically indefensible points: as much as those of us who value intellectual honesty want to believe that our position is widely held, it isn't. We are as blinded by our belief in reason as a panacea as the fundamentalist Christian is by his belief in biblical inerrancy. It's not malicious to succumb to the temptation to see the world through your own narrow perspective, it's human.

Don't take this as one of those relativist "science-is-just-a-belief-system-like-all-the-others" arguments that one occasionally hears from post-modernists and fundamentalists (see the Sokal Affair for more on this). The scientific method has developed the clearest, most rigorous check on bias that has ever been known. Science is superior to ideology precisely because it acknowledges the bias problem and has put procedures (peer review, reproducibility, falsifiability) in place to counter it. But scientists and their fellow travelers (I'm one of the latter) do have a tendency to be blind to the extent to which the rest of the world doesn't think the way do, which is to say they proceed from different values and assumptions.

So what is to be done about the problems with ideology? Continue making the arguments, continue to show where professed Christians bear false witness in order to make their arguments, and persevere until the idea that the universe is only 6,000 years old is as antiquated as the idea that the earth is the center of the universe. But I don't think we should hold out too much hope for the ultimate tiumph of reason: as soon as one myth is shattered, a new one takes its place. My prediction is that people will be more inclined toward silly beliefs in aliens, horoscopes, crystals and biorhythms as their reliance on biblical inerrancy falls to the wayside. But it could be anything, really.

Labels: creationism, reason, religion, science

Best quote I've seen in a long time:

I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie.

Thanks for brightening my day, Stupidity Tracker.

Labels: creationism, reason, religion, science

There's an interesting discussion going on at Mixing Memory about the way atheists approach the topic of religion. Citing the obvious sense of "superiority" of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and the plain fact that religion itself shows no sign of going away, he asks the question:

Would it not be better to recognize that the content of specific religions has, historically, varied according to the spirit of the times, and therefore the most effective avenue for social critique is to focus on changing that spirit, thereby necessarily effecting change in the content of religion? If you want to make the religious less intolerant, and less hostile towards members of outgroups, wouldn't it be better to work towards a society that is itself less intolerant and hostile towards members of outgrups?

Well, of course I agree. (Just look at my comments!) It seems to me that there is approximately zero chance that belief in the supernatural will ever go away. But there is ample reason to believe that the religions that have stuck around for as long as they have will change to fit the times. Christianity has managed to disavow the Crusades, the geocentric theory of the universe, and almost the whole of Levitical Law. This is not a small change. But it only happened as a direct result of societal changes that found such things as the injunction to kill uppity children (Exodus 21:17) incompatible with basic moral behavior.

The perfect should never be made the enemy of the good. Although I would love to see people embrace reason as wholeheartedly as the Pope embraces superstition, this isn't about to happen. Religion is too ingrained to disappear altogether; fighting against belief in that which cannot be seen is the definition of tilting at windmills. But we can find ways to get along, and I would submit that it is the atheist's duty, as he who would claim moral superiority, to find ways to make this argument without resorting to childish ad hominem attacks or belittling people for whom their faith is an important and civilizing force in their lives. I'd be happy to settle for a world in which religion sees morality through a human lens, embracing the golden rule rather than certitude about God's will.

Labels: reason, religion

Andrew Sullivan ponders the significance of a study that says conservative Christians are more likely to have been divorced than atheists and agnostics. I don't find this surprising at all. I've long thought that the trend toward fundamentalism is a product of the perception that the world is getting worse and that something stringent needs to be done about it. We can see this in the Muslim world, where the increasing liberalization of their traditional way of life is changing their society in new and unseen ways; and we can see it in America, where people are turning more and more toward more radical and literal interpretaions of our version of the good book. People turn to strict observance of age-old dogmas because they are afraid of the modern world.

Add to that the zeal of the newly-converted, and you have set the conditions for fundamentalism to flourish.

My own parents serve as an object-lesson in this. Both of them lived through the 60's, and while neither participated fully in the "tune in, turn on, drop out" culture of the bay area in those days (Dad was a grad student at Berkeley and Mom lived in San Francisco in 1969), they didn't reject it out of hand, either. After the societal degradation they witnessed during the 70's, they were searching for something real, something to make sense of the crazy world they had seen change before their eyes. When Christ came a-knocking (in the form of their 6-year-old son, yours truly, who wanted to go to church because the girl down the street did) they grabbed at it. It was what presented itself in their moment of need.

A couple of years later, they were homeschooling me in the ways of Christian fundamentalism: we watched the 700 Club every morning, we learned all about the "holes" in the theory of evolution, and we learned about the "Christian History" of America, as taught by charlatans and faux-historians such as Rousas John Rushdoony, David Barton and Peter Marshall. Mom even chaired the Pat Robertson for President campaign in our area. They indoctrinated me into the religious right, which, to their credit, was what they believed to be the truth.

I was able to escape that dogma through keeping an open mind and doing research of my own, but I often wonder if part of the reason I was able to see behind that curtain was simply a function of having never had it as bad as they did; at least in terms of world-upheaval. I didn't grow up in the post-war boom, I never saw the Eisenhower years, I missed Watergate entirely, and I never had to deal with the excesses of the drug culture.

My parents did, ultimately, teach me to seek the truth behind the way the mainstream presents it. This bit of skepticism turned out to be the foundation of my own skepticism, which has led me to atheism (or at least agnosticism, which in my case is practically the same thing), distrust of government, and distrust of authority, even religious authority.

I well remember learning about how John Wycliffe bravely challenged the prevailing Catholic orthodoxy to publish the Bible in English. I managed to translate that lesson into challenging the puritanical American orthodoxy's stranglehold on what constitutes "Christian" behavior. I also learned to be scrupulous about telling the truth and being humble about my estimation of my own abilities. I also learned to value the American experiment for its focus on the reason ("God's viceroy," to quote John Donne) of the average person. I was brought up to be a child of God, I ended up being a child of the Enlightenment.

Another thing about my parents: one was a divorcee (the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree there) and the other had a child out of wedlock. So they had made mistakes they weren't keen on repeating. In a lot of ways this caused them to rear me correctly, which has ultimately, ironically, made enough of an independent thinker of me to make a free thinker of me.

So I'm not surprised that conservative Christians are more likely to have been divorced. It is precisely that sort of foundational experience (or "Primal Scene," to use Freud's term) that lends itself to such an abrupt and total change in outlook.

Labels: fundamentalism, personal, reason, religion

Some things are simply beyond parody. Kos links (via Burnt Orange Report) to a report that the Chairman of the Texas State House Appropriations Committee, Warren Chisum (R-Pampa), doesn't merely believe that God created the Earth in six days, but that the earth is fixed, and the sun revolves around it.

But that isn't even the worst of it. Chisum distributed a memo detailing the strategy to take the teaching of evolution out of public schools by exposing the true root of the "religion" of "Copernicanism." What is this root, you ask? If you guessed the Jews, you're right:

Indisputable evidence--long hidden but now available to everyone--demonstrates conclusively that so-called "secular evolution science" is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate "creation scenario" of the Pharisee Religion. This scenario is developed concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic "holy book" Kabbala dating back at least two millennia.

Now you might say this is all just the crazy rantings of one seriously unstable legislator. But it's not just him. He got the idea from a Representative in the Georgia House, Ben Bridges (R-Cleveland), who is a member of the Higher Education Committee. This guy has a say on matters relating to the University of Georgia system, including funding priorities.

I'll give the whackjobs at The Fair Education Foundation this: they actually take the Bible as literally as young-earth creationists only claim they do. They point to 67 places in the Bible where it strongly implies that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This cannot be denied--it's right there in the good book. Thus, it is only logical to conclude that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is thoroughly incompatible with the universe as it is actually observed. Either the evidence of science is right, or the Bible is. Both cannot be true.

Labels: creationism, fundamentalism, religion