The email exchange began when I sent my friend a link to this article about a priest who urges those who voted for Obama to repent and do penance.  In a sense, I was baiting my friend.  The subject line of my email was “Sick people” and the text I wrote said, “There are indeed sick people in the world.  And folks wonder why some of us don’t like religion.”

Note that my original email did not actually say anything like “all Christians are sick.”  My friend read it that way, though.  He wrote a long and interesting explanation for why this wasn’t true.  (And, he is correct.)  Since he believed that I was saying “all Christians are sick,” he ended of his note by admonishing me: “Don’t fall for the bait.”  I responded to that by asking, “Why not?  You did. ”  I went on to say,

I have my personal views about religion, but they have very little to do with that priest’s comments and more to do with my own particular beliefs about human psychology and evolution.

Unfortunately, my comment lead my friend to think he’d “done all that writing for nothing.”

But you see, I enjoy a good debate over religion every now and then.  I knew my friend would be drawn in by the original email.  And I do not think his response to me was “for nothing.”

Although to the extent that I might have implied that every Christian (or even every Roman Catholic) is a sicko, that was tongue-in-cheek, and although I understand and agree with much of what my friend said, the fact of the matter is that religion is overall a destructive force in our society. Whatever good it does — and with some people it does motivate them to good — is overshadowed by the bad that results from its practices. (It’s worth noting, again, that I did not actually even say that every Christian, or even every Roman Catholic, is sick.  I just happen to believe the world would be a better place without those belief systems.  I could be wrong.)

That priest’s views are extreme and not everyone, including perhaps most of the people in his own congregation, holds them. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of people like him voted in this last election to deny rights to an entire group of people. And their Jesus would not have voted the way they did. He routinely left “choice” to individuals. In fact, a thorough reading of the so-called “New” Testament shows that it’s all about choice.

Jesus may not have approved the choices of those who would marry others of the same gender. (Although, in all fairness, he never says that. To get to that point, you have to assume that his “I did not come to destroy the law” statement means he endorses proscriptions against homosexuality set forth in the “Old” Testament. But then you get into the whole “why not endorse ALL the law?” problem. Why not kill gays as Levicitus 20:13 says? Why not put people to death for working on the Sabbath? Why not pass laws about haircuts so no one violates Leviticus 19:27?)

And, of course, in the end — if the views of Christianity were real — the Christian god would be better described as egotistical, selfish, vengeful and more likely evil than benevolent: after all, while he permits (even requires) people to make their own choices, he’ll destroy those who don’t make “the right choice” by worshipping him and ignoring the fact that he created them a particular way, with particular biological drives that make “obedience” to his supposed Will impossible. (But those are just reasons to recognize the internal inconsistency of the belief system.) However, it remains true that in every story about Jesus, he stood against the priests who would take away the choice of others.

In every story about Jesus, he was forever sending people on their way to make their own choices when they came in direct contact with him. “Go and sin no more,” he would say. He did not rustle up a mob to vote in new legal systems to enforce any particular way of life. Even when Paul came along and changed Christianity into something new and different from what Jesus, Peter and the others allegedly created, Paul did not suggest that his churches should transform local political and legal systems to force non-believers to live according to Christian codes.

The fact is that the majority of Christians are not really good people — if by “good” we mean they are the silent light shining on a hill so people can see their works and glorify their god, rather than noisily clamoring to take away the god-given right to choose. A sizable minority of Christians are good people. An even smaller minority are exemplary people.

Non-christians aren’t all that different, for the most part, because what I’m talking about above is a part of the human condition. It’s just that religion has been a more efficient organizing principle for lording it over others than any other belief system.  And Christianity has been one of the more successful of the religions in that regard.

Nevertheless, I wouldn’t say my friend’s writing was for nothing. It just that I already know the things about which he wrote and agree with what he said. (A re-reading of his note just now shows that his major point seems to be that you can’t judge every religious person by the actions of that one priest. I agree, even though I suspect that priest represents a much larger number of religious people than my friend would believe.) And to that extent, when I said “there are sick people in the world,” I meant that. But my message — although, again, I didn’t actually say this — could also unfairly imply that I meant “and that means everyone who practices religion.”

Believing in things that aren’t true doesn’t make one sick. If that were the criteria, then we’re all sick (me included), because we all believe in some things that are not true. I happen to think any belief in some supernatural god is an unfortunate mistake that causes more harm than good most of the time and for most of the people.

But I promise not to work to pass laws requiring you to adopt my lifestyle if you’ll make me the same promise.

Why not join our debate?  Post your comment using the form below!

Joel C. Hunter was to become the next President of the Christian Coalition. But, apparently, he’s too enamored of Jesus’ teachings for the Christian Coalition. They’ll have nothing to do with him…or Him.

And so, Hunter has resigned, before even taking office.

Finally. We had to wait almost 2000 years, but, finally. A real Christian.

Almost makes you want to start believing in God.

All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other responsibilities. Consciously or subconsciously, those who are “born again” or “chosen” have diminished respect for others who do not share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers “truth”, they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in but themselves. — Martin Foreman, God would be an atheist: Why can’t we all be Japanese? (November 12, 2005) Institute for Humanist Studies

Or, as I’ve always put it: “Christians Don’t Have to Be Perfect: They’re Forgiven.”

The sad part to me is that I won’t be able to live long enough to see a society where people are ashamed to show how ignorant they are and where churches are recognized as more dangerous and less entertaining than the circus freak shows they most often resemble.

A friend writes about the recent reports of a man who is defending himself against charges of sexually assaulting young boys who have physical or mental handicaps. My friend says,

This is what happens when Pandora’s Box is opened. This is one of the major arguments of the traditional Christian believers that once you loosen the definition of what ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is, you start a descent down a ‘slippery moral slope’ from which you cannot recover.

This IS one of the arguments currently being used against gay clergy. They are asking if we don’t draw the line here, where will it move to next?

As much as the argument creates fear and division, in a purely ethical sense it’s a reasonable question. The concept of right and wrong has been dramatically redefined in the twentieth century and is being debated with a new energy in the twenty first.

Subtract the politics and the sexuality and you have an honest question. If a church (or any group) is to retain its identity, then it has to have boundaries to its core values. If one of the core values is inclusive acceptance of people trying to be better people, then when do you exclude people?

My question to you is in a legal sense, how do you balance this guy’s claim that his religious freedom is being impinged versus keeping the community’s children safe? If his argument is upheld in any sense, doesn’t that require an examination of all previous similar cases?

I’m not going to answer any legal questions put to me while I’m sitting here awaiting the results of the California Bar Examination I just took last week. I will, however, address the implicit — erroneous — logic of these statements.

To showcase the illogic of the argument, let’s make it more clear:

Here is what happens when we allow people to question traditional Christian ethics. This is one of the major arguments of traditional Christian believers that once you allow people to reject traditional Christian orthodoxy, you’re screwed.

(And) this is one of the arguments currently being used against gay clergy. Traditional Christians are saying, “if we let gays have rights within the Church, don’t we have to give those same rights to child molesters?”

But don’t let yourself be confused about political correctness pertaining to clergy; I’m asking an honest question here. It’s true: If the Church doesn’t firmly stand up for its core beliefs — whether they’re about the gay clergy or something else — then the Church will lose its identity!

I think the key to understanding the illegitimacy of this argument — as you might guess by my use of italics — centers around the “if we do this, then don’t we have to do that” question. And the answer, from a purely logical point of view, is “no.” If we call a round red thing an apple, we don’t have to call a round orange thing an apple, too.

You might say, “We aren’t talking apples and oranges here.” But we are. A round red thing and a round orange thing aren’t (necessarily, anyway) the same thing. So, too, a person who advocates sex among adults who legitimately consent is not the same as a person who advocates sex with children who can not legitimately consent.

And the idea that if we move the line from point A to point B, then we’re abandoning the validity of having lines at all is just a fallacy. Specifically, this form of slippery slope argument is — as the hyperlinked article explains — related to the straw man fallacy. This particular argument — that if we allow gay clergy, then we cannot argue against child molestation as a religious rite — may very well be an argumentum ad captandum; however popular, it is not logical.

It happens that people draw lines for all kinds of “reasons.” Some make sense; some don’t. Yet I doubt anyone would really believe that if we allow people to start wearing clothing made of mixtures of wool and linen — forbidden shatnez in Judaism — that this means we’ll have to allow murderers to take the pulpit instead of sending them to prison.

The fact that we have to draw lines somewhere or nothing is forbidden is a truism. It is true and uncontestable. Like a lot of truisms, though, it means almost nothing, standing alone.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood my friend’s contention. Maybe he really means to argue that without shatnez, it’s really not Judaism. Maybe. But even if that’s true — and I’m not going to take the time to delve into that argument today — that doesn’t mean that without shatnez, you can’t have a religion.

If it did, I’d have to give up my preference for 100% cotton underwear.

We live in a country where, unfortunately, we have to legislate a lot of things that seem obvious because people make such poor choices in life. — Ande Beckstrand, mother of four, quoted in Stephanie Simon, “‘Natural Family’ Resolution Divides Utah City” (June 24, 2006) LA Times online.

Unfortunately, she’s right. What she doesn’t seem to recognize or agree with is that one of the things which seem obvious, but has to be legislated because of the poor choices people make, is Separation of Church & State.

If religious people would learn to practice, instead of preach, and leave the rest of us alone, maybe we could all learn to live in harmony. The truth is, though, that apparently religious people are so insecure in their own beliefs that they have to insist upon the rest of us adopting those beliefs. So convinced are the most rabid of them that they’re right, that they cannot conceive that others might justly and justifiably choose to live another way. Religious people simply can’t live any other way, nor stomach others who try.

Frankly, I think religious people are fruitcakes. As I said at the start, they’re insane. But I’m content to let them live the way they want, so long as they let me live the way I want.

It’s time we recognize, as a nation, that the Separate of Church & State ensconced in our Constitution is like the laws against things like battery and murder. The Founders of the United States recognized that the seeds of religious insanity will ultimately always result in religious people attempting to force themselves and their views upon others by perversion of Law. And just as a well-functioning society requires that we don’t go around killing one another, so, too, does a well-functioning society require that no group of religious fruitcakes should find support for their animosity towards the rest of us in the instrumentalities of the government to which all of us, including those without this insanity gene, submit.

And just as with murderers and batterers, who are placed into prisons when they cannot conform their behavior to the rules which protect the rest of us, so, too, it may be time for us to recognize that the only way to deal with religious people who refuse to modify their behavior in such a way as to peacefully co-exist with the rest of us, should be imprisoned.

Lest you think I’m simply anti-religious, let me reiterate what I said above: Peaceful co-existence is a good thing; refusal to peacefully co-exist, not so much. I’m not calling for the persecution of religious people — although, frankly, christians were much more christ-like and did a better job of living in accordance with their own bibles when they were persecuted. I’m not saying that just because someone is religious, or even because they talk to others about being religious, or even because they vote (yikes!) they’re bad and should be imprisoned.

I’m saying when they show that they cannot leave those of us who disagree with them alone to live our lives as we choose, that’s when they should be imprisoned. Just as with people who commit battery against our bodies, so should it be with those who commit battery against others’ chosen lifestyles.

These people are nuts. And just like the nuts society already recognizes and has taken steps to deal with so as to keep the rest of us safe, so, too, do these people need to be handled.

Lock ‘em up.

Why would I say that proves God exists?

Because everything proves He exists, you moron! Just ask someone who believes in the power of prayer!

How do I know this? Because Pat Robertson said so.

As some of our more astute readers — you two know who you are — are aware, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently had a stroke and is said to be in a coma. His political career, regardless of what else happens, is virtually certainly over.

This isn’t the first time, of course, that Robertson has notified us of G-d’s answering prayers by killing someone, or G-d stepping in sua sponte to kill them, or just that Robertson thought that G-d (or someone, hint-hint) should kill them. Remember Hugo Chavez? Remember the Supreme Court?

And Robertson has been fond of pointing out how G-d answers his prayers whenever something goes “his” way. Sharon’s sad fate is just the latest incident Robertson has directly ascribed to G-d’s vindictiveness. It’s a little odd, though, that you never hear about G-d’s vindictiveness when someone like, oh, the Pope, dies. I mean, the Pope did die, right? And even some of Robertson’s followers have heart attacks, strokes, cancer, terminal accidents and illnesses and die, right?

Sadly for Robertson, Sharon has had surgery and is said to be “improving.”

No word from Robertson on whether this means G-d is changing his mind, or if he’s just an incompetent hitman.

Nevermind that such stores don’t have a god-given duty to evangelize. Jerry Falwell and his ilk will brook no excuses based on the idea that Target and other retailers might simply want to sell their wares — and that some of their customers might not want to have their shopping experience accompanied by wishes for a “Merry Holiday – You – Don’t – Celebrate – But – We’re – Shoving – It – Down – Your – Throat – Anyway.” Falwell’s Folks would not care if the majority of Target’s customers were non-Christmas-celebrators. “All the more reason the cashiers need to tell everyone about Jesus!” they might say.

And now they’re turning their guns on President Dubya.

Oddly enough, though, even Jerry Falwell has his limits.

I said it the other day and I’ll say it again: I really have no problem (none whatsoever) with people who wish to celebrate their religious holidays. I have, in the past, celebrated my own, albeit not usually in Target — and definitely not in Walmart, where I won’t even set foot. I don’t even actually care if — like the Pharisees with whom they share so much in common — christians wish to do so publicly. Jesus might have a problem with it (see Matthew, Chapter 6), but I don’t.

The sad part is that these folk couldn’t give a rat’s ass what God wants. I strongly suspect they don’t give a rat’s ass because, after all, they don’t actually know God.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ Matthew 7:21-23 (New International Version).

(Hey, I didn’t say it. Jesus did.)

What I do have a problem with is phony christians who insist that the rest of the world honor the fiction that they actually worship God by putting on a pretense of paying homage to “Him” as well. Fact of the matter, christian-pretendtabees, is that a large number of people shopping in stores aren’t out there because of Christmas. I know I’m not. And while I don’t get angry or upset if a cashier or waitperson reminds me that Kwanzaa, Hanukah, or any other December celebration is too unimportant because of the assumption that everyone celebrates only Christmas, I would also prefer not to be constantly wished a Merry Christmas when I will never celebrate Christmas myself and would not care if it retired to the relative oblivion in which it lived prior to the 1800s.

Increasingly, I find myself hearing the words “Merry Christmas” for what fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell really mean when they say them:

Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you! We’re not just offensive — we’re on the offensive! We’re tired of you not living according to our moral principles! We’re tired of having you pretend that our religious beliefs don’t have to be observed by everyone everywhere all the time! We’re kicking butts and you just don’t like it! Fuck you!

Because make no mistake. That’s exactly what Falwell and his followers mean these days. And when they wish one another (instead of someone who doesn’t want to hear it) a “Merry Christmas,” they’re saying:

Fuck them! Fuck them! Fuck them! We’ll show them! We’re not just offensive — we’re on the offensive! We’re gunna kick their butts and they’re not gunna like it! Fuck them!

Yes, increasingly, that’s what contemporary neo-conversative neo-Pharisaical idiots like Falwell intend by their message. Talk about missing the Christmas spirit!

And now those same folks — already in a twit because storekeepers fail to recognize that no one matters but the fundies — are in an uproar over President Bush’s “holiday” card. Nevermind that he’s the President of the United States (god that’s sad). Nevermind that the United States contains millions — yes, you friggin’ neo-Pharisees, millions! — of people who don’t observe christian or Christian traditions.

Nevermind that the President sends many of his “holiday” cards to some of “those other, insignificant, unimportant, ignorant heathen bastards” who populate this once-great nation. And nevermind that perhaps no other President has made a better job of mixing christianity and government than George Bush. Who pulled an anti-abortion candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States because the neo-Pharisees didn’t like her? (And why not? Was it because she was a woman candidate — after all, neo-Pharisees can’t abide a woman in such important positions.) Who continually invokes God in his public speeches? Who kowtows more to the neo-Pharisees than George Bush?

Yet the neo-Pharisees are pissed off because, in recognition that his cards will go to other people (who might actually vote!) who don’t celebrate even the secularized version of Christmas (let alone either the true Christian or the Jerry Falwell FuckY(o)uleTide), the President’s card doesn’t mention Christmas.

Seems to me that maybe what Christianity needs these days is a return to persecution.

I just can’t think of any other way to purge it of the infestation of christianity that seems to have overtaken it.

Oh, as for Falwell’s limits mentioned near the beginning of this article? He’s apparently okay with the card — I guess he’s keeping his eye on the Target and won’t go after his ol’ buddy for opting out of Christmas just because the other neo-Pharisees will.

Dammitman! Are you even a hypocrite when it comes to the way you practice your hypocrisy?!

I’ve recently been accused of being a bigot because I think the fact that the bigotry of the theocratic conservative right — which as near as anyone can tell consists almost entirely of Republicans — is a natural result of their being poor and uneducated. This was despite the fact that they themselves answered an ABC poll that showed they were. To be fair, I added to that — based upon my experience and what I’ve read in the news — that they are easily led by the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and, lately, James Dobson. And when you scratch the surface of your average theocrat, you’ll find that most of them aren’t able to build their own arguments; they reproduce almost verbatim what they hear from these wonderful “leaders.” (And, again, to be fair, there are people like this “on the left,” as well. But as I explained in a reply to Mark Byron, these folk are less dangerous and therefore get less of my attention. I also think they’re less numerous on the left.)

I’m not exactly sure why my pointing out what the poll and my experience have shown is bigotry. At any rate, what I said about theocrats is not nearly as bad as what one of those theocrats said about the early childhood he and every other boy who grew up on a farm in Georgia experienced. (What’s truly amazing about this interview is to hear this theocrat readily admit to having sex with a mule, state that this is perfectly normal for Georgia farm-boys, but he goes ballistic over the idea that he pressured two ex-girlfriends to have abortions!)

Fact is, the only real difference between theocratic followers and their leaders is that their leaders usually have gone to school long enough to gain more than second-grade-level reading skills.

And if that’s not proof enough of their ignorance, all you need to do is turn your eyes towards the Midwest. Scientists these days have every reason to identify with the words of Dorothy to Toto: “We aren’t in Kansas anymore.” And no amount of clicking heels will get them home, either, because while Kansans apparently believe in magic, they just don’t believe in science.

Part of the trouble is that christian theocrats not only can’t spell, they don’t understand the difference in meaning between a scientific theory and a fairy tale, or an hypothesis and a guess. (For the record, gravity is a “theory,” too.) And this, as much as their ignorant dependency on words written by primitive men with theoretically (oops!) less knowledge of the world than even these ya-hoos, helps account for their continued bigotry. (Amazing to think how far we haven’t come in several thousand years.)

For while they insist upon the idea that sex with mules is normal God created the entire world in six days and evolution is thus an affront to Him, they do so in spite of the fact that their Creator apparently deliberately manufactured a few individuals with a propensity to love members of the same gender — something strictly forbidden by, even if often practiced by, christians through the ages.

There was a time when I was concerned about America’s return to serfdom. No more. It’s exactly what those folk deserve. The only thing that bothers me these days is that I can’t avoid them just by staying out of Wal-Mart.

Oh and my belief that they’re easily led? Just watch them.

Incidentally, for more discussion on the justification for believing that I’m a bigot, see Poorer, Less Educated, but not Easily Led over on Mark Byron’s blog. Mr. Byron, Mr. Bradley and myself each have something to say about it there. After my final exam in Constitution al Law is out of the way (it starts at 1:30 p.m. today!), I’ll be posting a reply to Mr. Bradley’s latest comment to that article.

A double plus on this is that when I first read the article which Bob wrote me about — before Bob sent it — I thought about blogging it, but decided blogging had to wait until after finals. Then Bob sent me the link to the article and the exact same excerpt with which I had originally intended to lead off my blog article.

Hmmm…perhaps it’s a sign!

The role religious faith should play in political life is not a settled one. Some argue religion is a private matter and does not have equal standing in political debate with, say, economics, or historical precedent, or simple logic. Others, including me, argue religion animates people’s actions and should play a part in the public arena, along with one’s race, gender, economic situation; whatever one wants to bring to the table. — Brian Healy, Cheapening Faith (April 29, 2005) CBS News.

If the quoted section of Healy’s article is intended to mean that religious arguments are okay in politics, that’s fine by me so long as:

1. The religious arguments are not made by politicians who, under the Constitution, have no right making them in support of their projects.
2. Any ordinary citizen making them realizes that a perfectly proper counter-argument to them is either silence, noting that the arguments are bullshit unworthy of a response, or calling the person making such arguments an idiot for making them.

As to the first item, the minute a politician makes a religious argument for a particular piece of legislation — whether it’s abortion or anything else — he or she has indicated that religion plays an important part in support of that legislation. It’s at least important enough to count as a reason for passing the legislation being discussed. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution then requires that if challenged in court, the court must strike it down. (And the Supreme Court has actually done exactly that in a few cases where congressional representatives posited religious arguments for a particular law and it was subsequently challenged.) You simply cannot say, “And here’s one reason we should support this legislation! [Now supply some religious argument]” without it being an establishment of that religious belief when the legislation is enacted partly because of the success of that argument.

As to the second point, non-religious logical arguments attacked in the way I suggested would be unwounded. A proper retort to anyone attacking them thusly would be to point out that they have failed to meet the argument; they have committed a logical fallacy. But a religious argument favoring legislation in a nation where the law forbids the establishment of religion is ipso facto contrary to the systemic bases of non-theocratic law. At their very best, religious arguments favoring passage of legislation under such systems are irrelevant; at their worst, they’re destructive of the system in which they have no legitimate place.

And efforts to change this to the contrary notwithstanding, it is at least the case right now that the United States is not officially a Theocracy.

Furthermore, since religion is essentially an unsubstantiated belief — and not just unsubstantiated, but incapable of substantiation — it’s no more valid than arguing that the legislation should be passed because the tarot cards “require” it. In fact, it’s exactly the same kind of argument. And I’m fairly certain there would be an uproar in the United States if so-called “mainstream” Christian religions learned that Congress passed a law because of a tarot card reading, or after consulting a oujia board.

But then, “religious freedom” in the United States is intended only for Christians.

While it’s true that here at Unspun™ we sometimes make religious arguments — heavy emphasis on various (mostly Christian or Jewish) scriptures and all — we don’t make such arguments in favor of laws. And we never would.

Ironically, one unintended consequence of such religious arguments as we’ve made at Unspun™ is to show, in fact, what I essentially said above: Religious arguments are bullshit. If they were not, then the use of scripture and religious arguments to explain why what Bob refers to as “little-c” christians — which I refer to usually as neo-Pharisees — need to transform themselves into “Big-C” Christians, would have some impact. But the way 99.99% of the United States citizens who call themselves “Christian” live is a disgrace, considered in light of the principles outlined in the Christian Bible. Anyone reading that Bible would recognize this; any arguments based on that Bible highlight this. And yet the United States continues to be plagued by the unchanged 99.99%.

Hmmm…maybe that explains a lot: Ninety-nine percent of the people who claim to follow Christianity do not. Yet there’s a book which actually tells you how to live and they nevertheless continue to live contrary to Christian principles. It’s no surprise, then, those same people are incapable of reading the Constitution of the United States and recognizing that the First Amendment eschews Theocracy.