Mocking Atheism

Ever since Randal Rauser kicked me off his blog three years ago, I have rarely gone back. This year my book The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver and Working the Rabbit’s Foot, a response to Rauser’s The Swedish Atheist, The Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails was released. Soon after, I was directed to a post on his website in which a reader asked if he’d respond to my critique of his book.

Needless to say Randal acted as I have come to expect from him, childish, overly defensive and not very professional. He went on to disparage me by slinging not one, not two, not three, not even four, but FIVE ad hominems against my character for the initial comments that got me banned three years ago.

Even so, I couldn’t help but venture over to Randal’s blog again when an interesting April 9, 2015 blog post came up in my Disqus news feed simply titled “Mocking Atheism.”

I read Randal’s comments, in which he basically sets out to defend atheists from mockery and ridicule by believers. A very noble thing for a Christian apologist to do, if you think about it!

This is one of the things that initially attracted me to Randal’s blog three years ago. He seemed like a breath of fresh air in that he was, to his credit, so unlike any of the other Christian apologists I knew. Randal does have a knack for boldly engaging with subject matter that would make most apologists uncomfortable, to say the least.

But here was this interesting blog post where Randal appeared to treat atheists with a modicum of respect and come to their defense against some nasty Christians who were mocking atheists, and that instantly set off red flags. After all, darn near every experience I have had with the guy informs me that he actually doesn’t care one iota about atheists, he certainly isn’t against calling them names, and he will straw-man atheists and what they may believe every chance he gets while banning every single atheist who tries to engage with him on his blog in honest discussion but proves to be persistent enough in their beliefs to pester Randal with differing points of view that he cannot easily dismiss.

So was Randal really being open minded and considerate, or was something else going on here?

In the post “Mocking Atheism,” Randal asks, “So is it ever appropriate to treat an atheist with ridicule, contempt and/or derision?”

Personally, I think it sort of depends on why you are ridiculing them in the first place. Randal seems to agree, when he says, “This prompts the question: to what end?”

After giving an example where a Christian mocks an atheist and then Randal goes to show that the Christian was acting immature by mocking the atheist simply because he disagreed with the atheist’s position, Randal concludes that

If you have the need to mock other people then you do nothing more than reveal your own emotional immaturity (as mom said, you can’t build yourself up by tearing others down) and your inability to grapple seriously with the ideas of other people. Mockery is little more than a warning flag for insecurity, xenophobia and provincialism.

Suffice to say, I feel there are more than a few things I need to say here with respect to mockery and ridicule, and I am going to preface this by saying I don’t just think Randal is plain ole wrong here – I thinks he’s being dangerously wrong and simultaneously completely naïve.

It seems that Randal has a hidden agenda. He wants to ban mockery and ridicule NOT to protect hapless atheists, mind you, but to safeguard himself and his beliefs – to protect his religion from criticism and scorn. 

Ah, and here lies the rub. The apologetic trick Randal employs here is the ole bait and switcharoo. You see, if you agree with him about not wanting these poor atheists to be mocked and ridiculed, then surely you must agree with him when he says religion must not be mocked or ridiculed too.

First, let’s go back to the example Randal gave in the post about a Christian theist ridiculing the atheist simply for thinking differently. Randal was right to call that behavior offensive and condescending, because such ridicule isn’t meant to draw attention to any greater point. It’s merely a bit of grandstanding meant to make yourself look superior while making the other side feel bad about themselves. And that’s clearly wrong. I agree.

In fact, I find such behavior bothersome and I’ve been known to call out conceited theologians who call their readers nasty names and who act condescending to their commenters because they have a superiority complex, and I won’t be nice about it. I might even mock or ridicule them. Ah-ha! But you see the difference, right?

Obviously, I have to part ways with Randal where he puts a full stop after saying that all mockery and ridicule is offensive and wrong, and promotes xenophobia and provincialism. Unlike Randal, I firmly believe that mockery and ridicule have a place. Meanwhile, it may or may not denote a kind of underlying insecurity – it really sort of depends on the context.

Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, there are other reasons to mock or ridicule someone, or something, than just to be mean. It seems that Randal goes out of his way to ignore such a possibility because he is attempting to do what all apologists do, build up his faith and protect it from exacting criticism, derision and ridicule.

But, in my view, mockery and ridicule are necessary because without these tools we could not have satire. As the literary critic Dustin Griffin reminds us in his book Satire: A Critical Reintroduction, “Some satires are of course more topical then others. At one extreme is the lampooning attack on an individual, and the other a ‘satire on mankind.’” (Griffin, p.121) So it seems that ridicule, another term for lampooning, is built into the very fabric of satire.

Randal says that mockery and ridicule of people are wrong, period. But then there are other uses for mockery and ridicule too, as is evidenced by their heavy use in satire.

In the opening paragraph of his blog, Randal defines what “mockery” means, but he neglects to give the full definition. As the Oxford Dictionary of English says, mockery can also be an absurd misrepresentation or imitation of something. This falls into the category of humor, of satire, and polemics.

The French satirist Voltaire, one of the leading figures of the Enlightenment (along with other notable figures such as Descartes, Locke, Newton, Kant, Goethe, Rousseau, and Adam Smith) was infamous for the mockery and ridicule of others. But we might wonder how could such a person ever write something as morally profound as “‘Quoi que vous fassiez, écrasez l'infâme, et aimez qui vous aime,’” or, in English, “Whatever you do, crush the infamous thing, and love those who love you.” 

Was Voltaire just a mean bully who sponsored xenophobia, provincialism, and all the terrible things Randal thinks comes out of the practice of mockery and ridicule? I think not.

Quite to the contrary, Voltaire was drastically opposed to such things, which is why he satirized them and used his fair share of mockery and ridicule when lampooning them.

Furthermore, as the author and intellectual Salman Rushdie has said, “The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.”

He’s not wrong.

After all, Rushdie is quite familiar what the end result of cultures which have become too overly sensitive, too insecure, and too thin-skinned that any trifling disagreement might just be enough for the oppressive authoritarians and conformists to call for your death. Taken to its logical conclusion, the desire to ban criticism and ridicule is the same desire that compels one to want to ban the opinions of others, calling it a blasphemy, while simultaneously attempting to turn one’s own opinions into sacred objects that must never be ridiculed.

In such a culture, a silly or irreverent satirical cartoon drawing could spark outrage and end in embassies get burned to the ground and countless innocent people being murdered. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the cartoon wasn’t offensive, it very well may have been, but perhaps it was drawn offensively to do as Voltaire said, crush the infamous thing.

I’m sorry, I have to strongly and emphatically disagree with Randal. Mockery and ridicule are powerful tools which keep the sacred in check by balancing it with the profane. For we have all seen what happens when those who honor the sacred try to criminalize the profane, who try to make blasphemy illegal, and who try to shield themselves from any form of criticism at any cost, they grow to despise the simple threat of other ideas and opinions different from their own, so much so that they are willing to kill others out of the simple fear of hearing words they may not appreciate or find offensive, hurtful, or irreverent.

I don’t know about you, but I personally find that killing people for their opinions is a far worse crime than mockery or ridicule used to stress a valid criticism or point. Now, if you’re mockery and ridicule is malicious, and simply meant to tear others down for the sake of tearing them down, like an evil stepmother constantly nagging the stepdaughter and making her feel worthless, then yeah, I feel this makes you an asshole, but it’s not worth killing somebody over.

The bottom line is this…

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.

Actually, this is a quote from the film V for Vendetta. But you can see why I chose it.

If we allow such censorship, then we lose more than just our freedom to object, to think and speak as we see fit, to go uncensored and unpunished for expressing ourselves as we wish – we lose our very vitality as human beings, we lose our ability to deliberate, argue, and confide and worse than all of this … we lose the ability to discern the truth from fiction.

Xenophobia, provincialism, censorship, and making the opinions of others unlawful, that is what comes from saying all mockery and ridicule is wrong and that all opinions, as well as the people who utter them, should be immune from criticism, derisive or otherwise. Again, as Salman Rushdie said, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.

All this to say, I think Randal is entirely wrong on the matter – mockery and ridicule should not be banished from the ongoing discourse, rather they should be embraced precisely because they are necessary tools for fighting xenophobia, provincialism, and totalitarian and tyrannical censorship. Contrary to what Randal may believe, the very things he so despises, things like xenophobia and provincialism, are not the end result of mockery and ridicule. Rather, the fact is, mockery and ridicule are the immunization against things like xenophobia and provincialism!

So, returning to the question at hand, is mocking atheists okay? As I said, it depends on what your goal is. Is it simply to be mean or is it meant to raise a bigger point? Perhaps the more important question we all should be asking is: Am I, an atheist, deserving of your mockery and ridicule?

I sure hope not, but if I’ve earned it—take your best shot!

As someone who needs his ego deflated on a regular basis, I can assure you, when someone mocks or ridicules me in a way that points out my character flaws, after the initial sting of it, I find that I come to appreciate the underlying message (not always, but a lot of the time).

Needless to say, if I ever get too big for my britches I’d hope someone points it out in such a way that we can all laugh about it later. No hard feelings. After all, the only people who stay perpetually butt-hurt after receiving exacting criticism are those who can’t seem to admit that they might have flaws and, if it wasn’t obvious by now, those who simply cannot take a joke.

Finally, I wish to share with you an extended quote by the little known but influential Freethinker G.W. Foote from his essay “On Riddicule.”  

Goldsmith said there are two classes of people who dread ridicule—priests and fools. They cry out that it is no argument, but they know it is. It has been found the most potent form of argument. Euclid used it in his immortal Geometry; for what else is the reductio ad absurdum which he sometimes employs? Elijah used it against the priests of Baal. The Christian fathers found it effective against the Pagan superstitions, and in turn it was adopted as the best weapon of attack on them by Lucian and Celsus. Ridicule has been used by Bruno, Erasmus, Luther, Rabelais, Swift, and Voltaire, by nearly all the great emancipators of the human mind.

 All these men used it for a serious purpose. They were not comedians who amused the public for pence. They wielded ridicule as a keen rapier, more swift and fatal than the heaviest battle-axe. Terrible as was the levin-brand of their denunciation, it was less dreaded than the Greek fire of their sarcasm. I repeat that they were men of serious aims, and indeed how could they have been otherwise? All true and lasting wit is founded on a basis of seriousness; or else, as Heine said, it is nothing but a sneeze of the reason. Hood felt the same thing when he proposed for his epitaph: “Here lies one who made more puns, and spat more blood, than any other man of his time.”

Buckle well says, in his fine vindication of Voltaire, that he “used ridicule, not as the test of truth, but as the scourge of folly.” And he adds:

His irony, his wit, his pungent and telling sarcasms, produced more effect than the gravest arguments could have done; and there can be no doubt that he was fully justified in using those great resources with which nature had endowed him, since by their aid he advanced the interests of truth, and relieved men from some of their most inveterate prejudices.

 Victor Hugo puts it much better in his grandiose way, when he says of Voltaire that “he was irony incarnate for the salvation of mankind.”

Voltaire’s opponents, as Buckle points out, had a foolish reverence for antiquity, and they were impervious to reason. To compare great things with small, our opponents are of the same character. Grave argument is lost upon them; it runs off them like water from a duck. When we approach the mysteries of their faith in a spirit of reverence, we yield them half the battle. We must concede them nothing. What they call reverence is only conventional prejudice. It must be stripped away from the subject, and if argument will not remove the veil, ridicule will. (Seasons of Freethought, p. 260-61)

--Sincerely,

The Advocatus Atheist

Introspection (Introduction)

Intro

My wife married a god fearing Christian and to her great relief an atheist emerged shortly thereafter.

I count myself among the lucky--that my prior faith--and so too my subsequent crisis of faith--played a minimal role in my relationship with the woman I love. In the end, I think it all really depends on how open minded both couples are--and how honest they are with one another (as well as themselves). If one of them turns out to be completely religious--and the other is not--there will undoubtedly be some friction. This friction can be smoothed over by the simple agreement not to talk about religion in the home--like the one my Japanese wife and I had when I was a raging, proselytizing, missionary for Jesus save em' all Christ.

Lesson 1: Family comes first. If you and your significant other share opposing worldviews, be it religious or political, don't talk about religion and/or politics in the home. It will save the both of you a lot of wasted breath and heartache arguing over trivialities.

Not talking about religion in the home is probably what saved my marriage. If I would have continued with my preaching--my every day religious rambling, regardless of how important it seemed to me at the time, I am almost positive my wife would have eventually worn thin--and in all likelihood probably would have distanced herself from me one way or another. Luckily, however, I came to see the light. By light, I mean the truth according to enlightenment values.

Lesson 2: Embrace change instead of fearing it.

It's time for a change of pace here at the Advocatus Atheist. So for the next several months I am going to focus exclusively on myself and my journey from believer to non-believer. It will be the most in-depth analysis of myself and what I believe that I have ever attempted. It will be--pure unadulterated Introspective reflection.

Hopefully you will enjoy reading about my journey from self-righteous Christian tub-thumper to radical atheist polemicist.

The reason I have decided to start this Introspection series is two fold. First of all, I feel it may be of use to others who may be experiencing the same sorts of doubts and who may have similar questions about their faith as I once did. Perhaps they can take something from my experiences. Secondly, I still abide by the rule--out of fidelity to my wife--not to bring the cruel mistress of religious dialog into the home. Therefore, all this and more is best suited for blogging.

Please join me--and remember--these are merely my opinions, experiences, and beliefs according to the revelations I have had along the path from theistic belief to lack thereof. Feel free to treat my Introspection series as one giant letter to the editor--take the best and leave the rest.

As it is a personal reflection of my own life--all I ask is that you be fair in your criticism--that is all. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Tristan Vick

Advocatus Atheist

(Click HERE to read Part 1.)

Criticizing Islam: Women are People Too!

In Saudi Arabia, there is an Islamic organization called the CPVPV which proclaims itself the executive arm of enforcing Sharia law. Sharia law, for those that don't know, is ridiculously absurd. That's all you need to know about it. I won't waste my breath even talking about it any further than to say--anyone who practices Sharia law is immoral and needs to learn how to respect their fellow human beings better.

Women are people too. Imagine my utter dismay when I read an article in USA Today stating that the CPVPV is now demanding that Muslim women cover, not only their heads, not only their entire bodies, but now their eyes too! Why? Because their eyes are, apparently, too attractive.

Attractive in this context means sexually stimulating--because simple beauty is not a crime. Arousing a man's carnal desires, however, is--in Islamic countries which practice Sharia.

What this tells us is that Muslim men who practice Sharia are without honor. They cannot muster enough courage or fortitude to control their own baser instincts, and so they cage their women in veils of darkness, and tell them that if they dare to come out--they will be punished, or worse, raped, caned, and potentially killed--because, according to the logic behind Sharia law, Muslim men are not civilized enough to know how to control themselves.

How could an entire religious culture find the very idea of feminine beauty offensive? Of course feminine beauty is tempting! It's basic biology. Men are attracted to women. Women are attracted to men. It doesn't mean we have to act like animals or beasts. Beasts, in the animal kingdom, frequently rape their females because it is the only way they can obtain a mate perchance to procreated. Civilized men show restraint, and thus separate themselves from the carnal instincts of their animal cousins. Monsters, on the other hand, make it a cruel habit to punish their women by treating the fairer sex less than equal. Tisk tisk. Whatever happened to a little self control, a little bit of dignity, and the simple sense of doing what's right? 

If Muslim men want to learn how to stop being sexist--here is how: Treat your women as equals. If you expect your women to cover themselves up--you shall do the same. It's that simple. If you desire to wear the clothes you want, then you must allow your women the same right. Until you can learn to respect women as equals--then your patriarchal chauvinism has no place in the civilized world.

If enforced, this Saudi law would make it legally binding for women to cover every inch of herself and make sure she is completely veiled, from head to toe, including her eyeballs! Not a single piece of her "flesh" would be allowed to be seen. She would be shrouded by the blackened stupidity of a religion which cannot respect her as a human being with basic human rights. Which is probably why the CPVPV has often been heavily criticized over its human rights violations--the CPVPV deliberately treats people less than human by adhering to a strict interpretation of Sharia law.


In 2002, the CPVPV refused to let female students out of burning schools in Mecca for "not wearing the proper head cover," which contributed to fifteen deaths.

What does it say about a culture where if a person were to murder fifteen school girls--they'd be considered the next Ted Bundy psycho serial killer--but if a religious backed organization does it in the name of the "religion of peace"--it becomes "morally" permissible. The very thought that people could twist evil such as allowing fifteen innocent girls to burn to death into a moral obligation--and then call it justice--is just grotesquely sickening in the worst possible way.

What it seems to show me is a fundamental flaw in the tenets of Islam, in the morally reprehensible teachings of Sharia, and the degenerate social norms of a country so barbaric that it places a higher value on the strict adherence to sexism and abuse of women than it does on the sacredness of human life.

Until Islam does away with Sharia law and starts treating women like precious gems which need to shine instead of covering them up from head to toe, hiding them away, and not even letting them come out of burning buildings when their very lives are at risk--until it does away with the stupidity of these disgusting and barbaric tenets, well, then it's just proving the point its detractors are making when they call it the most despicable and offensive (not to mention dangerous) belief system in the world.

I know many good, kindly Muslims, and I am sorry that some of them have to face such horrors, injustice, and persecution. It just doesn't seem right--most probably because it's not. Basic human rights are universal human rights because they belong to all humans--regardless of their religion or where they were born. Islam needs to recognize this--or else its inhumanity will be its downfall.

Ethnohaulism and on Confusing Religion, Culture, and Race

An ethnic slur, or ethnohaulism as it's technically called, is when a term or combination of terms are used as insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnicity or to refer to them in a derogatory (critical or disrespectful), pejorative (disapproving or contemptuous), or insulting fashion. More simply put, an ethnic slur is a term or word(s) used to insult someone on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality.

Recently I was watching a debate about the pejorative term "towel-head" and whether or not the term is racist. Personally, I do not know the history of the usage of this term, but according to The Oxford Dictionary of English, the term is classified as informal/offensive. Not informal/racist.

The term, however, is commonly used as a term of abuse for a Muslim or Arab who wears the style of headdress, either a turban or keffiyeh, which looks like a wrapped up towel atop of a person's head.

I personally would never use the term "towel-head" to describe anybody, but as an ethnic slur, intended to ridicule a cultural style of head dress, I don't see how the cultural connotation denotes any real sense of racism. Certainly, it's not racist in the same way "sand-nigger" is explicitly racist. Racist terms usually refer to the person's race like sexist terms refer specifically to sex. "Tar baby" is a racist term whereas "Faggot" is a sexist term. "Towel-head" is neither. It's not attacking gender or genetics, but rather, culture. That may be bad enough for some, but it doesn't make it racist (although the tactless person using it very well may be a racist--however, that is a separate issue).

Again, it depends on the context and how the term is applied. A person who hates all Arabs is a racist. A person who hates silly hats, or wrapping up your entire body and head in drapes when you live in the blistering desert, is simply ridiculing what appears to them to be a bad idea. On the other hand, it could be argued that historically the keffiyeh styled headgear was used to protect a person from the sun and could be used to cover the mouth and eyes in sand storms--not at all a bad idea. But this is before the advent of sun screen, automobiles, and air-conditioning that is. After all, a silly looking hat is still a silly looking hat. I like the ones with little propellers on top.The point I want to make, however, is that the two usages are different.

a) Pejorative ridicule: In the first case, the term is being use pejoratively to mock, or ridicule, a bizarre religious or cultural observance.

b) Invective scorn: In the second case, the term is being used to mock, or ridicule, a person's ethnicity.

If I were to be asked whether the first case denotes a hint of racism, I would be forced to say no. Although, if I were asked whether the second case denotes a hint of racism, then I would have to say maybe. It depends on how the word is used. Some words, like the Hawaiian term Haole, may or may not be derogatory depending on how it is used. It can be used as a harmless slang for white people, or as and ethnic slur, or it can be used as an invective. Other ethnohaulisms can be both simultaneously racist and sexist, such as the derogatory term "Squaw."

Racism can be linked to ethnic slurs, of course. Such terms as "chink," "coolie," "spic," or "nip" are overtly racist. Some ethnic slurs are more imaginative, but no less offensive. Slurs like "Oreo," "Pepsi," and "Porch monkey," although amusing, should be reserved for foul mouthed stand-up comedians--not everyday speech. In each of these prior cases, however, the ethnohaulisms refer specifically to race--color of skin and/or genetic predisposition--whereas the term "towel-head" does not.

Here's the problem though. Many people don't make a distinction between the two usages. Which is where the trouble arises. I have observed, both online and in real life, that there are many who are quick to confuse the two cases. Interestingly enough, they always confuse the second one for the first and never the other way around. That is, in most every case I have ever seen or heard of, the culturally sensitive person is quick to cry racism whenever they hear a pejorative term like "towel-head"--but the term may simply be about a silly custom--not about skin color or race. The moral of the story is--the person may not always be racist, rather, they are most probably a culturally stunted, insensitive asshole. But then again, they may be a comedian. Like I said, it depends on context.

Many, however, do not see it this way. With religions like Islam, for example, ethnic culture and religious culture often blend together, and it is sometimes difficult to delineate a line between the two. This is where the ethnic slurs and racism are often confused for one and the same. When a culturally insensitive, callous critic negatively critiques a religious custom in a religion where there is no clear distinction between culture and faith, negative comments mocking or ridiculing some as innocent as wearing a kippah, hijab, neck rings, etc., can become highly inflammatory. This makes it difficult to criticize the religion without offending people--because the people will inevitably confuse it for a personal criticism, or worse, a criticism of the sacred--the one true unforgivable crime in religious eyes. The Danish cartoon controversy is a good reminder of what happens when people confuse their religion, culture, and race.

So although I do not feel it is a good idea to employ ethnohaulisms generally, I think it is more menacing to confuse religion, culture, and race as one and the same thing. Those who do so, in my opinion, are being just as culturally insensitive and threatening as someone who unashamedly throws around ethnic slurs. Of course, if you have any thoughts on the matter, feel free to share them in the comments section below.

God Is Love = Stupid Theology Part 1

God is love. (John 4:16)

Quite often these days I see religious folk posting quaint little blurbs like the above on the Internet.  It makes me really question whether they have thought through their beliefs--because if they post the above sound bite because they actually "believe" it--then all they have done is show how fallacious their beliefs really are. 

The above quote is not only a contradiction in terms--but it is also blatantly false. Only a person who has NOT taken the time to think about what the words are saying would be under the impression that the above sentiment is somehow agreeable. It's not, for reasons we shall soon discuss.

So from now on I have decided to rebut stupid theology anytime I see it--in a series fittingly called Stupid Theology--just to show why its not only categorically wrong to hold such beliefs--but ultimately such types of belief(s) prove false. I suppose you could believe it if you so wished--but to me this would only amount to the tacit admission that the only reason you hold the [specious] belief at all is because the lie makes you feel good.

The above proclamation of faith found in the quaint, and brightly painted yellow, epigraph is designed to squash your doubt with a catchy apologetic rationalization. In order to show why it is patently false, however, we need to re-examine it line by line. Methodical, I know--but hey--that's what using your brain is--hard work. Which is why people who post this stuff need to spend less time in the echo chambers of their faith--and spend a little more time thinking through their beliefs.

Sometimes I want to ask God why he allows poverty, famine, and injustice in the world when He could do something about it. But I'm afraid he might just ask me the same question.

Okay, so I broke the single sentence into two in order to better emphasize the clashing ideologies at play here. The first sentence is a secular humanistic response to the Problem of Evil (i.e., the Problem of Pain/Suffering as we find in the physical world). The Humanist thinks, if an all loving God truly did exist, then this suffering is inexcusable. Hence we must questions God's integrity, concern, and sense of justice.

Of course the Problem of Evil is probably the most difficult theological obstacle any theist can ever face, so it seems suspect that it is purportedly answered in the following sentence. But pay extra close attention to what happens in the second line, because the apologetics at work shifts the burden and theodicy, or defending the goodness of God in the face of all the suffering and evil in the world, becomes the focus.

The fact that we are lead to believe that it is our responsibility to fix the ills of the world reflects the humanist sentiment behind the quotation--and I agree, it's up to us to address the issues of poverty, famine, and injustice in the world--but the problem here is the second line redirects our focus from the fact that the quote is about God's responsibility to act in accordance to his "all loving" nature. After all, according to believers, the Bible, and the theology, God is love.

So what of this love? Well, instead of doing anything about the ills of the world--God is content to ignore them. Hardly something a loving God would do. Especially one with the power to prevent such ills in the first place.

Yet it is this very realization which provides the negation to his "all loving" nature. We soon come to realize that there is a deeper problem we need to address concerning God's conflicted nature. God's assumed nature, according to religious belief, is likely to be false given the nature of the evidence. According to the evidence (i.e., the pain and suffering in the world), God can either be all loving or all powerful, but not both. We know this for the very reason that the idea of an "omnibenevolent and omnipotent" God willingly allowing evil (in any form) to exist is patently absurd.

God could be "all loving"--but not all powerful. That is, he might merely be unable to effectively change the natural order of things. This hardly sounds like the God believers profess an ardent faith in--it's certainly not the God who created the universe and everything in it--it certainly can't be the Orthodox God of Christianity.

So here's the rub, if God was all loving and all powerful--then God must act in necessity (in accordance with his nature) to prevent evils such as starvation, famine, sickness, etc. Yet these things are, sadly enough, found in abundance. Also, because God (supposedly) has the power to create entire universes and everything in them, then we know God has (at the bare minimum) the power to effectively change the physical laws--i.e., change how pain and suffering affect living organisms--but his very refusal to do so shows that God cannot be all loving.

Thus we know God is NOT love.

As such, we are left with three possibilities as to what constitutes God's true nature. 1) God is malevolent, or 2) God is indifferent, or else 3) there is no God.

The fact that the quote we are dealing with misdirects our attention from the issues of God's obligatory necessity to prevent evil (according to his "all loving" nature) is an apologetic trick meant to shift the burden and make us feel guilty for the problem(s) which, technically speaking, are not our problems--if a loving God exists.

The fact is, humans are anything but "all loving." But we are compassionate, so our conscience grows concerned when we see injustice, poverty, and needless suffering. This suggests we are morally superior to the God of theism, because we exhibit empathy where he does not.
 
Granted, there are some (overused) theistic rebuttals, e.g., rationalizations, the believer can fall back on when confronted with these prior set of objections. They can claim God works in mysterious ways, his mind is unknown to us, so who are we to question God?

Well, the answer to this rationalization is quite simple--we have the inescapable obligation to question such a God--because he explicitly allows for suffering which he should find as shocking, unsettling, and horribly unfair as we do--if he were at all a compassionate sort of person, such as we humans typically are.

[Of course, not all humans are compassionate, I get that. But most healthy human beings exhibit compassion as an inbuilt feature of being, well, human. We have evolved this way. As such, a loving God would undeniably have to, at the very least, exhibit as much compassion as we do in order to be considered at all loving.]

Moreover, we don't need to know the mind of God to know that idly sitting by and doing nothing, simply letting injustice, suffering, and evil occur without so much as batting an eyelid is, not only wrong, but morally reprehensible!

Hence the apologetic ploy is to leave us feeling guilty when the question is (deliberately) reversed to question our inability (or refusal) to obey the imperative to prevent evil by having God ask us why we do nothing. Again, the message here is, ultimately, humanistic--God wants you to right the wrongs--because he can't be bothered.

Ultimately, however, as I pointed out--it's not our burden--if a loving God exists--because the imperative dictates it is God's obligation to prevent evil, suffering, and injustice since it is his very nature to do so. 

[Coincidentally, this allows us to rule out the other oft raised rebuttal that God must allow for evil in order to realize the greater good--this makes no sense when God, being all powerful, could actualize the greater good without the allowance of even a bare minimum of evil. The free will defense, when used to explain evil, only shifts the goal posts further back--it doesn't solve the problem of God's imperative to prevent evil.]  

Thus, the fact that injustice, evil, and suffering do exist in the world is strong evidence that, contrary to John 4:16, God is NOT love.

Now here's the kicker. Remember the three possibilities we are left with? To reiterate, God is either 1) malevolent, 2) indifferent, or 3) non-existent.

As such, keeping these three points in mind, when we re-examine the quote:

Sometimes I want to ask God why he allows poverty, famine, and injustice in the world when He could do something about it. But I'm afraid he might just ask me the same question.

What we are really asked to consider makes no sense whatsoever. 

First of all, if God is malevolent, then the reason he allows poverty, famine, and injustice is obviously because that is in accordance to what he wills. In other words, God desires there to be poverty, famine, and injustice.
 
Secondly, if God is indifferent, then the reason such things exist in abundance shows God simply doesn't care to do anything about it--they exist--so what? No skin off God's back. Deal with it.

Last but not least, if God is non-existent, then the quantity of evil we find in the world exists simply as part of the natural order, so it makes no sense to question something which isn't even there--something that's not real--but merely a figment of our imaginations. It is the equivalent of asking the Flying Spaghetti Monster why there is so much evil in the universe. It's a ridiculous and absurd question to even posit--so much so that it's downright delusional.
 
Thus the above religious sound bite is not only self refuting, but it is also a case of extremely stupid theology. 

Theists would be quick to realize this if they took even just one minute to think it through more carefully. But the fact that we can see such blurbs pop up all over the Internet is strong evidence that most theists haven't thought long enough, or hard enough, about their beliefs. Subsequently, this goes a long way to explain why religious belief in God persists--presumably because the majority of believers have never taken the time to properly question, or adequately address, the speciousness of their cherished beliefs in the first place.

The Rebuttalist

Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll is fast becoming one of my personal heroes with regard to style and whit. I now must classify him in the same league of extraordinary gentlemen as Mark Twain, Bertrand Russell, and Kurt Vonnegut when it comes to witty rebuttals and savvy critical commentary of religion.

In 1878, the revivalist, old Mrs. Van Cott accused Colonel Ingersol of being "a poor barking dog."

When asked if he knew her personally, Colonel Ingersol replied, "I have never met or seen her."

The Colonel's interviewer asked him, "Do you know the reason she applied the epithet?"

Ingersoll's reply was thus:

"I suppose it to be the natural result of what is called vital piety; that is to say, universal love breeds individual hatred."

The Express, a New York newspaper published out of Buffalo, asked Ingersoll whether he wished to respond to old Mrs. Van Cott's crude accusations. Of course, he had already taken the liberty of doing so in the form of a personal letter, and he allowed The Express a copy to republish with his persmission.

His reply is one of the wittiest, and genuinely charming, rebuttals I have ever read with regard to addressing a dogmatically entrenched theist who believes simply because you disagree with them you are in league with the devil and amount to nothing more than a poor barking dog, in their righteous estimation. I republish the rebuttal in full for your enjoyment. I think you'll fin it short, sweet, and to the point.

Buffalo, Feb. 24th, 1878. Mrs. Van Cott:

My dear Madam--Where you constrained by the love of Christ to call a man who has never injured you "a poor barking dog?" Did you make this remark as a Christian, or as a lady? Did you say these words to illustrate in some faint degree the refining influence upon women of the religion you preach?

What would you think of me if I should retort, using your language, changing only the sex of the last word?

I have the honor to remain,

Your's truly,

R.G. Ingersoll

Touché Mrs. Van Cott.

[If you enjoy this blog, please be sure to subscribe either by clicking the "follow" tab next to the "Blogger" icon at the top of the page, or become a member and join this sight with Google friend Connect by clicking on the side bar under the authors picture where it says "join this site." Thanks!]

Buddhist Religious Superstition Kills 13 Year Old Girl

Sad news, I am afraid. As some of my readers know, I live in Japan. My city is called Kumamoto. Yesterday, a religious man took his mentally ill daughter to a monk to have an exorcism performed. The exorcism is part of a water cleansing ritual where a person is dowsed with water. The water is usually from a natural waterfall, but a makeshift waterfall device, sort of like a manual pump rigged to flood gate showering device, is available for ritualistic purposes. The process entails having water poured down onto you from about three meters.

I've seen this practice done in real life at a beautiful scenic outdoor location with a beautiful waterfall. During the occasion I witnessed this ritual, the gathering only consisted of monks cleansing themselves. They would jump under the water, let it pelt them, and then scream chants. The idea is that the weight of the water, along with the cleansing properties (i.e., washing oneself clean), will wash evil spirits out of the body.

Now, if you've ever stood under a real waterfall you know the kind of pressure we are talking about. Even a strong shower head can be pretty painful. It's hard to believe anyone would throw their child into a waterfall. But that's exactly what this Japanese father did to his young 13 year old daughter, along with the help of a monk and his wife. The father and monk strapped the girl down, using restraints, and proceeded to pump water onto her for over a 100 consecutive times.

TBS (Tokyo Broadcasting Station) is reporting that the parents took the mentally and physically ill girl to the monk after doctors had failed to resolve her issues.

Of course the monk stated that he believe the girl was possessed by an evil spirit.

According to the news, the father held the girl's head, so she couldn't turn away to take a breath and breathe. Gasping for air, she died of suffocation, similar to how water-board torture victims die from water induced suffocation.

The mother of the 13 year old daughter sat by and watched her child take her last breath, and then called the ambulance. What kind of mother does that? This is child abuse in the extreme--as it involved water torture, bondage, suffocation, and ultimately ended in death. I hope these parents get a full life sentence for their deadly parenting techniques.

The Australian is reporting on it here if you want to read an English edition of this news.

[UPDATE] 

More reports are coming through. They can be read by clicking the following links:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110927006195.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8792357/Teenage-girl-dies-in-Japan-exorcism.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/09/28/Japanese-teen-dies-during-exorcism/UPI-89881317214570/

My wife (who is Japanese) said this is what happens when uneducated people put their faith in nonsense instead of using their common sense. I couldn't agree more. Moreover, my wife says this is why all religion is dangerous--because you don't know how or when it will impair your judgment--because it doesn't always--until it does. And that's when something terrible like this happens. My wife then said that people would be better off without such superstitious religious thinking.

I couldn't agree more.

International coverage of disturbing events like this can often paint Japan in the wrong light. Apparently this water cleansing ritual is only practiced by a very small minority of religious monks. Japan is by and large a secular country, and even the Japanese feel this superstitious practice is bizarre.

Many of my work colleagues commented how deranged this was. They seem to acknowledge that "evil spirits" aren't real--and that no amount of "dunking" will cleanse someone of something which is not even there.

This, however, all goes to show that people will do strange things if they believe. Indeed, belief in the supernatural, and the superstitious customs which come with religion, often show us how dangerous religious modes of thinking can truly be.

If the parents of the 13 year old girl weren't religious, would they have tortured their daughter in this despicable way thinking it would cure her? Not a likely. The same might be said for circumcision, baptism, or other strange religious rituals which affect the child physically and mentally but, sadly, they so often times don't have the liberty of being given their own choice in the matter. Their religious customs are often times forced upon them by their parents. This form of religious abuse was taken to the extreme in this case.

Religious thinking like this, that doing some form of religious related ritual for superstitious reasons often causes the believer's rationality to go out the window. In this case, dumping water on the girl repeatedly didn't work. She died. In fact, I guarantee that this type of cleansing ritual has never worked, and this is the proof. Will people stop doing it? Not unless a higher authority, such as the government, steps in and says that this form of religion is harmful to society. Most people will blithely keep practicing the ritual--as ridiculous and dangerous as it is. Why? Because they believe it works. Their reasoning is bankrupt. They think if they keep at it--eventually their prayers will be heard. But this form of religious belief is no different from believing that if you rub two ice cubes together enough you will be able to make fire. No matter how many times you rub them together it won't create fire. Just because the religion says it can make fire by doing it doesn't mean it will, but people put their faith in the religious promise before reality, and so needlessly go through the motions, hoping to get fire--hoping to get their one miracle. I think they will be badly disappointed. In fact, I know they will.

On the other hand, a better educated person would, hopefully, reject the ridiculous and absurd claims of religion based on a better understanding of the world. We know, for example, how to get fire, and rubbing ice cubes together is not it. The same can be said of curing mental and physical illness, we know how to deal with it, and going to a religious person and having them pray, chant, or do all kinds of useless rituals is not going to help cure that illness in the slightest. The only reason religious people think it will is because they believe it will. And well, if believing were enough, it would come to be. The fact that their beliefs fail them, time and again, should tip them off that something about their reasoning is seriously flawed.

P.S.

I felt I should report on this since I know I tend to focus my religious criticism on Christianity and the Abrahamic religions, but this just goes to show, religion everywhere is deeply flawed.

Burnt Up Bloody Fools and on Blasphemy

Burnt Up Bloody Fools

Disclaimer: Although I predict that some of my views will be considered controversial, these are sensitive topics involving highly sensitive issues and emotions, and I will do my best to keep an open mind and be reasonable. Personally, I am for peace, cultural tolerance, and developing healthy worldviews. End of disclaimer.

The Story of an Idiot, a Fool, and a Clown

If you’ve been following the news, you’ll probably have read a snippet or blurb about the antics of Florida based pastor Terry Jones, head of the Christian congregation at Dove World Outreach Center, whose recent burning of the Muslim religious book the Qur’an triggered Muslim riots in Afghanistan that led to the deaths of 21 people. Mob riots incited by the burning of the Qur'an lead to attacks on a U.N. compound in Mazar-e Sharif, killing seven U.N. employees, and on Saturday, related protests in Kandahar left nine dead and more than 90 injured.

In a recent essay on his blog The Oxonian called “Bloody Fools,” the religious historian R. Joseph Hoffmann condemned the act stating, “Terry Jones’s acts were not a stunt: they were intended to light fires and kill innocent people.  Indeed they were done to prove that innocent people would be killed.”

Indeed, Terry Jones was warned by government officials that such a brazen, tactless, and culturally insensitive act would incite riots and potentially murders yet he went through with it anyway. Hoffmann wants Jones arrested and charged as an accomplice in mass murder for having instigated the heinous act and deliberately inflaming the situation. In the article Hoffmann makes a comparison between the atheist PZ Myers whose antics a few years earlier made headlines when he poked a hole in a religious cracker and tossed it in a waste bin with some torn out pages of a Bible, Koran, and a torn up copy of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion all topped off with some used coffee grounds. Hoffmann writes:

Myers, simply an atheist showman, wrote a pretty nifty article about blasphemy on his site in 2008.  In it he documented the insidious reverence in which Catholics held to the doctrine of the “real presence of Jesus” in the eucharist in the Middle Ages and the violence shown to disbelievers, especially Jews, who were always getting on the wrong side of Catholics and always being accused of desecrating the communion host, or “cracker” as Myers snarkily likes to call the matzah used at Mass…. Myers’ antics made him the dark darling of full frontal atheists, those who hold to the curious view that the angrier you make people who believe in sacred books and objects, the likelier you are to win over people who hold a weak or no opinion on the subject… Desecration, confrontation, Yo-mama style insult and blasphemy are tangible blows for reason, the commandos believe.

Hoffmann goes onto to call Myer’s antics cowardly and adds, “The point was half-clever, but the whole incident was tasteless, and (as I’ve said before)  cowardly: to be effective, try it again, only this time in downtown Lahore after you send the memo.”

Coming to Myers defense is fellow biologist, academic, and atheist Jerry Coyne, who brings up a great point, asking, “Was it ‘cowardly’, as Hoffman states, for P. Z. to desecrate the Qur’an in Morris, Minnesota but not in Lahore? Not cowardly but prudent—who wants to die that way?  The fact that it’s imprudent to insult Islam in Lahore is not the fault of Myers; it’s the fault of Islam, which is so easily insulted and inflamed.”

About Hoffmann’s rash call for the arrest of Terry Jones, Jerry Coyne states: 

There are far more innocuous acts that also have a reasonable expectation of causing trouble, like Geert Wilders’s and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s criticism of Islam. They now need police protection because they’ve “insulted” Islam. The threats against them were absolutely predictable. If they are murdered by Muslim extremists, as was Theo van Gogh, are they responsible for their own deaths?... In all of this Hoffmann misses the real problem, which is not the inimical effects of protected speech, but the fact that Islam is such a violent faith that even the mildest criticism, like naming a teddy bear “Mohamed,” can inflame Muslims and lead to murder…. There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for “racism” and “Islamophobia.”

In an update to his article Hoffmann retorts:

Some respondents think that there is a moral equivalence, such that Terry Jones and the Afghan and Pakistani responders are cut from the same cloth. How that renders Jones innocent or raises the dead I am not sure. I find that kind of response both uninformed and worrying. Very worrying coming from nonbelievers, and maybe because it raises in my mind questions about whether a certain level of atheism isn’t also an impediment to moral reasoning–specifically that kind that finds all religions “naturally” guilty of atrocity and hence no one at fault and no one innocent of crimes.

However, I must agree with Coyne here, that both in the case of Myers and Jones, the sayings and expressions of both men are in fact protected by the First Amendment of American free speech law. Hoffmann is essentially asking us to wave the rights of Jones because he equates Jones’ words and actions with the desire to instigate murderous riots, but nothing Jones said or did violates any American laws. Coyne is right to identify Hoffmann’s call fatuous. Furthermore, a distinction needs to be made, Terry Jones is an idiot. An insensitive, blithering, imbecile who is closed-minded, xenophobic, tactless, and shows such bad judgment that it’s a wonder he can even function in normal society (which probably explains why he remains at the fringe).

More than this, Jones is a sinister twat who cares more about professing his sanctimonious certitude than he cares about other people’s lives, and for this he will be remembered as an unsympathetic monster. By contrast, Myers is quite entertaining—he’s the clown in this story—and he is quite guiltless of any perceived offense, as blasphemy is a victimless crime (more on this later). This leaves Hoffmann, who plays our fool, because like all fools, he just can’t seem to grasp the irony of the situation—it’s not Jones to blame, it’s his religious upbringing. Perhaps Hoffmann arrogantly assumes people who, like him, have seen the light will sympathize with those poor schmucks who are still deluded and suffering a God Delusion. Perhaps his own moral convictions cause him to be blinded to what’s really going on here, and his call to lop off the head of the beast (aka Terry Jones) causes us to roll our eyes whilst atheists stand up for the rights of the radical Christian nut-job to voice his blinkered and painfully ignorant opinion. It’s not religious ridicule which is to blame, it’s not even defamation of religion, but rather, it’s the inviolable status which the religious have bestowed upon anything they deem is sacred which is at the core of the problem.

Criticism Where Criticism is Due

During the Herbert Reade Memorial Lecture in 1990, Salman Rushdie, who is no stranger to religious persecution, spoke on the matter of religion‘s inviolable status and simultaneously its drive to oppress dissenting ideas, by expressing, “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas—uncertainty, progress, change—into crimes.”

In fact, we might view the sacred as a perversion of religious certainty. Anything which seeks to inform the religious that they are wrong is perceived as a threat, for such suggestions may spark a crippling doubt which takes people away from God (and the consequences of this—according to most religious ways of thinking—are too horrible to bear). Thus to safeguard faith, such criticism is made criminal, blasphemy laws are written up, heretics and apostates get fatwas (i.e., bounties) put on their heads for anyone willing to silence the infidel for a price. The price of a life arbitrarily being doled out by Imams and religious clerics is bad enough, the fact that they have frequently gotten away with it in the 20th and 21st century is scandalous. The message is always the same: the sacred must go unchallenged at all costs—in order for religion to survive unscathed—and faith must be held up as the utmost highest of virtues—which is why it is taboo to criticize it. Anything less, and the religion would be trivialized to the point where it becomes quite meaningless—this is the dread driving the fervor of religious fanatics—a huge insecurity and the inability to cope with doubt.

The religious have turned faith into a virtue which must be sheltered from criticism at all costs, but it is this very act which acts as kindle to a flame. For those who are all stoked up on their own self righteous indignation, it doesn’t matter how ill conceived, sick, or twisted one’s faith gets—just as long as nobody every mentions anything about its failings and weaknesses. To admit to an imperfect faith would be heresy. However, when some bold skeptic, perhaps an atheist biology professor, does challenge the artificially buttressed inviolable status of religious faith, it seems the most insecure, often times the most stupid, of religious adherents become so riled up that, like a hornets’ nest getting stirred up, they frantically lash out at anyone (and everyone) who gives them even the slightest sideways glance. Hoffmann’s advice is not to ridicule them, don’t stir things up, but this is in itself a large part of the problem.

Christopher Hitchens has pinpointed the problem, quite nicely, when he observes:

[All religions] make the same mistake. They all take the only real faculty we have that distinguishes us from other primates, and from other animals—the faculty of reason, and the willingness to take any risk that reason demands of us—and they replace that with the idea that faith is a virtue. If I could change just one thing, it would be to dissociate the idea of faith from virtue...[i]

Hitchens is right. If faith wasn’t an uninfringeable subject matter, if the sacrosanct opinion of the most zealous wasn’t so insecure, if violence wasn’t so romanticized by religion, then one could safely criticize religion for its faults and failings—hoping to invoke change—instead of fearing for one’s life that they have (somehow) inadvertently wounded the pride of religious believers so deeply that the only retribution is retaliation and the forfeit of your life.

Rational, level headed, people call this sort of overreaction insane—precisely because rational, level headed, people usually do not demand your death when you bring up a legitimate criticism. Granted, sometimes it helps to be more tactful in how we bring awareness to other people’s faults. For example, you would not say to your friend, who suffers from bad breath, “Brush your teeth, stank breath!” You would likely approach them more sensitively, by offering them a mint first, or perhaps, by buying them a new fancy electric tooth brush for their birthday (and asking them regularly if they want a free refill on those used brush heads). Eventually the point would sink in. On the other hand, if you found out your boyfriend or girlfriend was a double timing, no good, floozy you might feel compelled to let him or her know they would be doing the whole world a favor by informing them to, “Crawl up their own ass and die.” Either way, various situations call for different levels of language usages to get the message across.

Hoffmann affirms, “Ultimately, the way forward is going to be a matter of tone and technique, not the outcome of the work of a few commando God-bashers writing from the safe haven of first world democracies telling the majority how foolish they are.” On this point I agree with him. But where I differ is on the notion that, somehow, censuring loud mouthed God-bashers, or worse still, stripping them of their freedom of speech, is somehow necessitated by the hypersensitivity of somebody else’s religious insecurity. On this point, Hoffmann is entirely mistaken. We can’t dictate how others ought to think or behave, but we can at least criticize their actions when they misbehave, and perhaps, if our message is clear enough, the point might sink in.

Even Morons and Blowhards are Entitled the Right to Freedom of Speech

It goes without saying that I too find Terry Jones despicable, in almost every way, and no matter how much I detest him or his book burning antics though, I can’t bring myself to deprive him of a basic human right—the freedom of speech. At the end of the day, no matter how vitriolic, venom stained, or hateful Terry Jones words are—he still has a basic privilege to say them. It doesn’t mean saying them is right, but at the same time, we need to realize, there is no law against burning books. Even morons and blowhards are entitled the right to the freedom of speech in the U.S., as well as most civilized Democracies (except for Ireland where they have an idiotic blasphemy law—and the one thing I hate more than blowhards which say idiotic things are the discriminatory politicians which think they can dictate what others think and say).

Even so, no matter how hurtful Jones’ actions or words were to the feelings (and pride) of others—it’s not a hate crime against Muslims, it’s not even a hate crime per se. There’s nothing to hold him criminally accountable for. Meanwhile, those who think Jones committed a grave offense forget that it’s only a conversation delusional fanatics hash out amongst themselves. It’s a pissing contest between giants with tiny, virtually non-existent, wieners. It’s why there are Holy Wars in the first place. Everyone wants to be vindicated, and their so full of piss and vinegar, that to challenge them on any point is to challenge their resolve. I’m right. No, I’m right. Obviously we both can’t be right, so I will kill you now. There can be only one. But I shouldn’t need to point out the obvious fact that where religion seeks to snuff out all dissenting views or differing opinions, everyone is a victim of tyranny. It’s why many of us have grown to detest religion. So often it seeks to oppress not just our criticisms but our individual opinions as well. That’s what the Muslim protesters are seeking to do, stifle the opposing opinions, and in so doing buttress their faith and shelter it from reproof—but only if you let their tyranny reign over you first. And that’s not a compromise any of us should halve to make just to protect a religious extremist’s feelings from being hurt by the very notion that there are others outside of his faith who do, and perhaps with very good reasons, disagree.

At any rate, we may not agree with what Terry Jones says or does, in fact we may find his ways downright deplorable (and I do), but it doesn’t make him responsible for the murders of some other religious nut in some far off country who, like Jones, shows no sense of moral judgment. To put it frankly, if a book means more to you than the life of another human being, your priorities are all messed up, and you need to seek help.  Terry Jones knowingly, and willfully, chose to spread hate instead of love, and like a bigot he took a position of intolerance over tolerance, and just like the flames he set to the Qur’an, his hate ignited the hate of others, and like a wildfire it spread. Lives were lost. But Jones did not take those lives—other idiots, fueled by religious delusions, filled with just as much hate in their heats as Jones, took those lives. And for what?  

Sam Harris chimes in with an essay titled “Losing our spines to save our necks,” stating:

Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for “seeking to inflame” the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

Sadly, it appears those lives were taken because a fanatical group of Muslims were just as morally depraved as Terry Jones. Meanwhile, Jones is lapping it us, as he gets to say, “I told you so.” His point? The Muslims will murder at the drop of a hat—and there’s the religion of peace for you. Jones entire goal was to prove the “religion of peace” nothing but a guise for the devil’s religion, a religion of hate. It seems that Jones ploy worked. He succeeded in proving to his congregation that religious extremists everywhere, whether Christian or Muslim, excel at practicing a religion of hate. Or rather, hate coupled with ignorance becomes their religion—and they prove it every time they burn books, insight riots, partake in rioting, or take innocent lives.

Instead of trying to build a better, safer, world for all to live religious extremists are all hell bent on tearing it down—but burnt over policies never work, and getting rid of religion, or other people’s religion for that matter, won’t fix the problem. Such destructive people would exist regardless of whether or not religion did, but it cannot be denied that religion does frequently contribute to their ignorance and zeal, making for a deadly mixture, and often spurs on their behavior by means of a tenacious dogma which refuses to show any mercy. Religious apologists would do best to dispense with the excuses and start addressing the very real problem of violent acts which are specifically done in the name of faith—whether it is the rape of children as so prevalent in the Catholic Church, or whether it is female genital mutilation as seen in various Islamic countries, or honor killings, or witch hunts in the Dark Continent—these are religious acts compelled by superstitious modes of religious thinking. Addressing these evils, and figuring out how such perverted thinking arises in the first place, and how exactly this relates to the underlying religious ideology, would be a large step toward addressing the larger problem of how such deep felt religious convictions can so easily lead to acts of human atrocity.

Some Common Sense

Yet, I can’t help but feel, in all this negativity that we begin to paint with too broad of brush strokes. Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism reminds us that all harmful religious dogmas are despicable. But this doesn’t give us any right to be culturally insensitive or intolerant. I agree with Luke when he states:

It’s not very useful to paint with such a broad brush. For example, there are large populations of Christians who are more destructive than certain large populations of Muslims. This point is illustrated—with devastating emotional force—in a 2006 story on This American Life about a Muslim family’s life in America the day before, and the day after, September 11^th.

True enough. The story is heartbreaking, which Luke summarizes on his blog, and it shows how cruel a Christian community was to a Muslim family—so cruel in fact that they literally ruined the family due to their own fear, hatred, and ignorance. Luke, showing more empathy than most, adds, “My one-note coverage of Islam on this blog, focusing on extremism, has probably “contributed to an atmosphere” in which Muslims are harassed, tormented, and hated. That wasn’t my intent, but I should have thought more carefully about the consequences of my choices.”

This is wisdoms worth sharing—if more people cared enough to think about the consequences of their words and actions before they said or did them, then maybe, just maybe, we’d all benefit from this prudence. Instead, we are stuck with the likes of Terry Jones and those religious radicals who love nothing more to do than throw flaming snowballs of piss at each other because of some sanctimonious high-horse they are on. The only problem is, all the innocent people who get caught up in their petty blood feuds and holy crusades of self indignation.

Blasphemy: A Victimless Crime

Why, one might wonder, is my scorn reserved for hate filled abusers like Terry Jones but not for the clowning around of wise-guy atheists like PZ Myers? First off, if you’ve ever had the honor of meeting PZ Myers or hearing one of his anti-religious lectures, you’ll find that he is quite mild-mannered, well spoken, and jovial. Sure, he has a juvenile delinquent who has yet to get through puberty trapped inside a fifty-four year old man’s body, but who doesn’t? What cannot be ignored, however, is that PZ Myers frequently makes a good point.

Hoffmann is straining mightily to turn all the focus on a jerk and a hate-monger, while neglecting the actual results of religion's actions: that some people are so dedicated to their delusional superstitions that they will threaten or even commit violence at slight provocation. We live in a world where some Catholics will froth at the mouth and send death-threats and call for people to be fired over insults to a scrap of magic, holy bread; we live in a world where some Muslims will kill random people if someone insults their magic, holy book. That ought to be recognized as the real problem and a call for more criticism, not less, of religion…

Myers’ call for more criticism of religion echoes Thomas Jefferson’s sentiment that “Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.”[ii] Nowadays, many seem to have forgotten the necessary reasons for this sort of freedom of speech—because past theocracies not only dictated what could be said, but would put to death anyone who said differently, or who was guilty of the perceived crime of blasphemy. This is the dangerous path religious fundamentalism leads down for those too caught up in the literalism of their faith that they don’t heed the warnings of Young Goodman Brown, or PZ Myers for that matter. The only way to combat such inviolable status of religion is to deflate it, and this, of course, requires an occasional prick. After all, by taking religion down a few notches, people can speak more openly (even candidly) about faith—and this often leads to revivals of faith and stronger felt convictions. Confessions of faith which cannot be spoken, not even uttered on a whisper, due to a fear that your co-religionists will do what John Calvin did when he betrayed fellow Christian Michael Servetus, whom Calvin deemed a heretic and handed over to the Inquisition to be burned at the stake for nothing more than a difference of theological opinion, sponsors a very real fear of being silenced, or worse. 

PZ Myers, like an expert rodeo clown,[iii] takes this fear sparked by mad religionists and dances around it, taunting it, prodding it, getting it riled up. Then, when it bursts into a bucking bull full of senseless rage, Myers expertly evades the sharp horns of the dangerous beast. Then, he asks us to join him in the dance. The goal is to tame the wild beast—and maybe the beast will be less prone to violence, less quick to temper, and more apt to shrug off the occasional prick. The bull, finally tamed, will be forced to retire from the rodeo. Myers point, I feel, is that if you sensationalize every trivial offense, getting angrier and angrier, then like a mad bull enraged to the point of uncontrolled violence, you’re going to inadvertently call in the rodeo clowns—and it is their job to defuse the situation. If religious people don’t want clowns like PZ Myers dancing circles around them, taunting them, prodding them, honking them on the nose, and getting them all worked up—then they have to learn how stop making mountains of mole hills and learn to cope with criticism—otherwise their just inviting more of it.

Religious faith needs to be more open to criticism, not only for the good of society, but for its own good. This is something I feel most religious adherents have a hard time accepting because they are under the notion that everything within their faith is sacred and must not be met with irreverent treatment. Yet this begs the question, does what PZ Myers or Terry Jones have done in their irreligious stunts in any way equate to a religious offense? In other words, to frame the question another way, can blasphemy (or more generally speaking irreligion) even be considered a genuine offense at all? Can we bully God to the point of making him cry? The question itself rings absurd.

The atheist philosopher GW Foote brings to our attention the fact that:

Atheists are often charged with blasphemy, but it is a crime they cannot commit… When the Atheist examines, denounces, or satirises the gods, he is not dealing with persons but with ideas. He is incapable of insulting God, for he does not admit the existence of any such being…. We attack not a person but a belief, not a binge but an idea, not a fact but a fancy.[iv]

Blasphemy, it seems, is a victimless crime. In fact, the Oxford Dictionary of English states that: blasphemy is the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God (or sacred things). Originally, if we trace the etymology of the term, the word blasphemy stems from the ecclesiastical Latin from the Greek blasphémia or to ‘slander’. Yet it is well understood that one cannot slander something which doesn’t exist to feel the pangs of a hurt reputation. Most nonbelievers, as Foote noted, do not admit to the existence of any such being. Even if we assume God exists, then God’s complete absence of presence, conveniently enough, allows for him to avoid direct defamation (and so he cannot be properly slandered). Criticizing God would amount to little more than people talking behind God’s back. If he showed up, then maybe his detractors would think twice. But, then again, he might merely invite the ire of his most ardent followers if he should prove to be as big as a scumbag as his detractors say he is—the let down would cause a massive loss of faith amongst the majority of beliers. Which begs the question, is God intentionally avoiding a face to face confrontation with PZ Myers because he know PZ is right? Perhaps God just doesn’t care enough of one man’s lofty opinion. Certainly, such an indifferent being wouldn’t care much about crimes of blasphemy. Why should his followers?

If we take the skeptical view, however, God’s complete absence of presence may be evidence of non-existence. If this turns out to be the case, then blasphemy is even a more erroneous concept than initially thought, as there would be absolutely nothing to ridicule or slander, thus nothing to take offense against. Therefore blasphemy cannot possibly be a punishable offense—since there is absolutely nothing to offend. Which is exactly why I feel modern blasphemy laws are senseless, arbitrary, and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which breach international human rights laws and goes directly against the Geneva convention—sorry to say (I’m looking at you Ireland).

Religious believers need to start getting used to criticism. Plain and simple. The first step, if I may be so bold as to offer advice tempered by experience, would be to stop overreacting and perhaps pause to ask yourself, why is it that I’m being criticized? Was any constructive criticism offered, what can I learn by this, and how can I change for the better? Getting in a tizzy anytime somebody voices a differing opinion is not the way to justify one’s beliefs. The only way you will ever be proved right is by testing your beliefs and holding them up to scrutiny. Do they pass muster? In fact, the reluctance of the religious community to do just this (hold their own beliefs up to scrutiny) causes impatient, sometimes smart-alecky, atheists and religious critics to do it for them.

Religious detractors like PZ Myers are literally forcing the mirror up to the religious zealot’s face and asking them to look as what they see staring back at them. I should think, in the case of Terry Jones and those violent Muslim rioters, that what they see in the mirror should shame and humiliate them. The corrupt and depraved, unfeeling, creature staring back at them with nothing but contempt and scorn for everybody and everything should not be a mark of Saintly devotion, but should be seen for what it is, a complete and utter failure of humanity. And this less than human form should, like J.R.R. Tolkien’s golem, be condemned to crawl back into whatever slimy, filth ridden, hole it came from and keep there.

Meanwhile, the very refusal of the religious to keep their deplorable religious ideas, tenuous teaching, paltry practices, and tortured thoughts to themselves simply invites criticism—if religion can go so wrong, so frequently, what’s wrong in reminding them of it? Why not lambast it into the next century? If it survives the scrutiny it will be better off for it, if not, it will crumble away like a house built on a foundation of sand. One might wonder, don’t the religious want the truth? Aren’t they the ones always confessing to have the truth? It’s the least we could do to ask them to back up their claims and put them to the test. More importantly, it would be doing them a favor. After all, if their beliefs are all illusions, if they are under a shared mass delusion, wouldn’t they want to be free of it? Wouldn’t they want to enjoy the liberated freedom of thought that the secular free thinker enjoys—if in fact their religious beliefs prove false? I for one value the truth over lies, and if someone showed me that I had only been lying to myself, and with reason and compassion helped me to think differently—then I’d like to think that perhaps I would be capable of changing my mind, even if it meant that I may have to eat crow. I’m certainly not conceited enough to think that I never err—or that every belief I have is infallible—or that I am privy to some ultimate truth that nobody else is because I believe in tenuous things. No, I can no longer abide the arrogance and self conceit of such narrow-minded reasoning. 

At the same time, we must not be too quick to revile all religion. Not all religious practices are harmful, not all religious beliefs are absurd (although many are), and certainly not all religious people are mad zealots with violent intentions. I have many Muslim friends, both in America and abroad, and they express the same horror and shock I do at these events. At the same time, many religious traditions are beautiful. Buddhist funerals are elaborate ceremonies which both honor the memory of the deceased and provide closure for the mourning—even minus the traditional belief in god. Even as a nonbeliever I still find Christmas day a day worth having—if not for the time it affords us to be with loved ones and family then for the joys of children’s laughter as gifts are exchanged and Christmas cakes are divided. Like Tim Minchin, however, it won’t be about Jesus so much as enjoying each other’s company and drinking white wine in the sun. I love being invited over to Jewish friend’s homes and breaking bread, slathered in honey butter, and sharing a glass of wine over a good conversation as they prepare for the Sabbath. I like the Japanese festivals revolving around Buddhist tradition, such as the Hina matsuri (or Princess Festival), in which I can celebrate the joys of having a beautiful daughter, but also, celebrate darling girls everywhere. I enjoy throwing beans at imaginary oni (devils) during Setsubun, the bean scattering ceremony, which occurs during the last day of winter on the Japanese calendar. Although I speak only for myself, I also like reading Bible stories, not as a religious text, mind you, but as a work of literature containing ancient poetry, wisdom, and human history.

In all of this, the lesson to be had is, religion is not all bad. But some of it is. Similarly, some religions are worse than others, in fact some are downright disreputable, and this is why criticism is necessary. It will always be necessary. This is why it is so important for religious believers to become accustomed to this fact—not everyone is going to necessarily value your religion to the same degree you do—nor should they have to. That’s the open minded awareness and tolerance I hope to prompt by engaging with these issues. It’s not just a polemic against religion, because I think you will find religion can often times be more subtle than the caricature which gets painted of it. But at the same time, the religious need to realize that there is probably, more often than not, good justifications for the caricatures of religion.  

Conclusion: In a Perfect World

In a perfect world those Muslims would never have been offended because in a perfect world Terry Jones would be a quite amiable fellow. In a less perfect world, those Muslim rioters would be spending the rest of their lives behind bars and Terry Jones would be executing a court order demanding he take bi-weekly sensitivity training classes, but the world we live in is less perfect still. Terry Jones will likely continue to insight Muslim violence, and fanatical Muslims will happily oblige him, and all will get off the hook—and go home proud of each small victory they gained by getting the other to jump through their hoops like they do—all acting like a bunch of trained monkeys. In summary, if there is one point which needs to be emphasized, we need to stop shifting the blame by pointing toward everyone else, and begin to take responsibility for our own words and actions.  Religion may help or hinder this endeavor, but ultimately, we have no one to blame for our failings but ourselves.

NOTES

---

[i] From his speech with David Berlinski, available online:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-mS5nr-dU8

[ii] Thomas Jefferson, ―Notes on Religion, in The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, Federal Edition, ed. by Paul Leicester Ford. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904), Vol. 2, p. 256.

[iii] Note: Rodeo clowns are noble and valiant. Their job is vitally important, because it is their antics which distract the bull long enough to allow the cowboy time to escape, with his life. I am not intending to ridicule PZ Myers by comparing him to a clown.

[iv] GW Foote, “Who are the Blasphemers?” in Flowers of Freethought