Soon Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort will descend upon college campuses nationwide with their particular brand of evangelical drumbeating. On November 19 they intend to hand out over 50,000 copies of Charles Darwin’s, On The Origin Of Species. These copies of On The Origin Of Species have been blessed with a 40 to 50 page introduction penned by Ray comfort himself. Advanced copies of Comfort’s version of this book indicate that he has edited it. Kirk Cameron has also released a promotional video trying to drum up support for their campus campaign. I watched this video. It wasn’t easy but yes I watched it. After watching it I felt compelled to put together,what became, Â my first attempt at video editing in an effort to shine the light of rationality on the rantings of Kirk Cameron. Please enjoy.
Ray Comfort Loves His own Book
Ray Comfort the “ambush” evangelist and author has written his penultimate tour de force, Nothing Created Everything. Speaking of nothing, let’s talk about Ray’s sales figures compared to Richard Dawkins’. Dawkins released his book, The Greatest Show On Earth, the same day as Comfort’s. Dawkins’ book has been on Amazon’s top 100 list for 66 days now. Comfort’s book? (Now is the part where you hum the Jeopardy Game Show’s, “I’m thinking” music) It hasn’t made it there yet *Craig crosses fingers*.
It’s hard to believe that a man like Ray Comfort hasn’t hit a homerun with his latest tome. Out of all FIVE reviews on Amazon’s site it has one VERY complimentary review! And, oh wait. Who wrote the review? Why look, it was the author himself! Yeah, Ray “Banana Man” Comfort, objetively *gulp* reviewed his very own book. Well done Ray! Just when I thought your ethics hit a new low with your Michael Jackson Million Dollar Commemorative Tract, you prove me wrong again!
(Craig screams like Captain Kirk in Wraith of Khan, ” COMFORT!!!!!! “) Here is a link to Comfort’s brilliant expose on his own masterpiece, http://www.amazon.com/review/R3TFXA8B1XARBQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3TFXA8B1XARBQ . Please take note that “2 of 28 people found the review helpful”. I guess Ray’s wife and Kirk Cameron really appreciated his hard hitting review. I wonder what the book’s own website has to say about it in it’s reviews section? Let’s check: http://www.nothingcreatedeverything.com/category/reviews/ . Wow! What a shock there are…none. I guess there were too many positive reviews hitting the server and it crashed…uh huh, that’s it. It is worth noting that of the *giggle* five reviews on Amazon, Ray’s was the only positive one in support of his book.
To be fair the comments left by Comfort were less a review and more a promotion of his book. This still says nothing for the fact that there are only four legitimate reviews of this book. Four? FOUR? By the way none of the four were even positive.
The release of this book is only harder evidence for the non-existance of a God. For if there was a God, the skies would surely be filled with the rain made of his tears.
Religious Irrelevance
While watching the riders at a 4-H horse show today (my daughter is a 4-H member), I started considering the role that religion plays in people’s everyday lives. I don’t live in the most religious area of the country (South-Central Pennsylvania), but even so, on my commute to and from work, a total drive time of about an hour, I can count twelve churches, seven church signs at township borders, a church-run thrift store, and up until about a month ago, a “Jesus is the only way to God” billboard… and that’s a drive that’s mostly highway and rural farmland.
Thinking about the social events I attend, the work I do, and the conversations I have, it’s worth noting how little of a role religion plays, at least on the surface. At the horse show today, it was all fun and games: costume contests, relay races, apple bobbing, and the like. Everyone was having a terrific time, the weather was gorgeous, the horses were all behaving, and the conversations were light-hearted and good-natured. There was no mention of God, no intrusion of religion, no proselytizing… nothing. There were, perhaps, a few gasps of “Oh my God!” when a horse gave an unexpected buck or a rider lost balance enough to give a scare to the crowd, but I saw no bowed heads in silent prayer and certainly no obvious prayer circles, invoking heavenly protection from the forces of gravity on airborne, equine-launched riders.
It was a secular event. Most activities, for the vast majority of Americans, are secular activities: PTO meetings, birthday parties, book clubs, company meetings, family get-togethers, horse shows, sporting events, movie nights, grocery shopping, gardening, housework, fishing… the list goes on forever. The biggest display of religion that you’re likely to find at these types of activities is, perhaps, saying a prayer before eating. Your mileage may vary somewhat depending upon where in the country you live, but generally speaking, religion is only at the forefront at religious events like church services, funerals, and Saturday morning, door-knocking proselytizing by groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Almost all other religious activity is private… personal… internal.
Why, then, does the religious right insist on foisting their religious proclivities on others? Why lobby to ban gay marriage? Why insist on inserting Christian-specific clauses in legislation? Why put monuments of the Ten Commandments on government property? Why put up billboards that go well beyond advertising a religious organization, but condemn anyone whose belief differs from their own?
I don’t know the answer. I can only speculate.
There is, of course, the altruistic ideal of saving the unsaved masses from a lifetime of eternal torment in Hell. Perhaps some are motivated by that, but I doubt if it can account for the massive attempt of the religious right to assimilate all the unbelievers.
I think a more likely cause is the self-righteousness of fundamentalist religion… the unwavering faith that, as believers, they are, indeed, divinely special in the eyes of an almighty creator and are therefore granted unique privileges and special consideration in this world. They are overtaken by the notion that they are favored by God and therefore have righteous superiority and holy authority over the lives of others… and the infinite wisdom and enlightenment of their deity to decide what is best for everyone in public and in private.
Keep in mind that I’m not referring to those believers who quietly go about their business, say their prayers, attend their church services, and are privately devout. I’m talking about the minority of believers who are outward fundamentalists and vociferously insist that the rest of us fall in line, do what we’re told, and worship in the exact way they tell us… and respect their authority. They’re the ones who would turn our country into a theocratic nightmare, banish all non-believers (or “different” believers), and tell the scientists to back up the bible… or else.
They don’t like that religion is irrelevant in almost all the activities in which other people participate. It’s almost as if they’re secretly jealous and want to cover it up by proclaiming their beliefs to be the right ones… the important ones… the only ones. They want their religion to be everywhere, not just in religious activities, but in secular activities as well. If we let them, they’ll do it, too.
…and ruin a perfectly good horse show.
Bill O’Reilly revs up his war engine
Bill O’Reilly is playing his "War on Christmas" game again. It seems the Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky decided that the seasonal tree this year would be called a "holiday tree" instead of a "Christmas tree" (he’s since revoked that decision and it’s back to being a "Christmas tree"). This, of course, drew outrage from offended Christians and the ever so fair-and-balanced Bill O’Reilly.
Here’s the video. My take on it follows.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXbtmljvXuA
I’ll start off with my opinion that calling the tree a "holiday tree" is stupid. It is a Christmas tree. Let’s just call it that. However, saying "happy holidays" is not stupid. It’s inclusive. Not only is it inclusive of other religious beliefs (Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Al Hijra, etc), but it’s also inclusive of other secular holidays (Thanksgiving and New Years Day, for instance).
Christmas has been secularized to the point where there are very few people who get offended over a Christmas tree, Christmas lights, snowmen, candles, elves, Santa, and the myriad of other secular Christmas displays. Similarly, I don’t know anyone who gets offended over religious displays when they are displayed in an appropriate place… like a church or on private property. The problem comes when the religious aspects of Christmas are displayed, promoted, paid for, or endorsed by any government (or taxpayer supported) organization.
That said… on to O’Reilly’s buffoonery.
He starts off announcing the story, and then says "Kentucky is a traditional place, as you know." By "traditional," what he means is "right-wing religious," but he uses the term "traditional" to make it sound warm and inviting… all apple pie and warm cookies. He also says "that kind of nonsense usually doesn’t play down there," planting his cleated feet firmly in the camp of religious intolerance (as if he needed to plant them deeper than they already are).
Gretchen Carlson states that she thinks that Beshear’s change of heart is "emblematic of what was goin’ on this summer at the tea parties. I think that now Americans have the "fight within them and they’re gonna stand up and they’re gonna be heard." O’Reilly thinks she may be right, of course… but I take offense at being lumped in with her version of what "Americans" are. I sincerely doubt that the tea parties had any real effect on rational, thinking Americans. The right-wing Fox News minions? Yes, perhaps.
O’Reilly turns his attention to Margaret Hoover and says that "we" (his show? Fox News?) had to hammer Washington state last Christmas because the governor there put up an atheist sign (OMG HORROR!) next to the Christmas tree and nativity scene. He charges right past the whole "nativity scene" bit. Perhaps he didn’t want to draw attention to the overt religious displays in government buildings. I don’t know.
Hoover says that we’re a multi-ethnic country (true) and that "atheists can’t impose their atheism on the rest of us… and vice versa" (also true).
O’Reilly, however, comes back with "But that’s not really true" and Carlson, in a flash of brilliance (not), says, "We call it Christmas because Christmas falls on December 25th. It’s Christmas!" Ummm… somebody needs to go back to remedial Sunday school, it seems.
O’Reilly’s argument is that "polls say" that 70% of Americans are "fed up with this nonsense" and want "Christmas to be Christmas." He doesn’t mention which polls or what "this nonsense" is specifically. He just gives a vague, unsupported statement as his means of "destroying" Hoover. He also says that the Christmas tree came from Germany and it’s a "tradition that America has embraced." He changes his tune slightly and says that (emphasis mine) "70% of Americans want traditional Christmas to be kept that way." Again, vague. I’m an atheist and, other than a Christmas Eve church service, my family’s Christmas is as "traditional" as it was growing up. O’Reilly’s statements are vague to the point of being… pointless.
But here’s where he really gets going. He says, "Don’t tell me about pluralistic nonsense. This is the tyranny of the minority." O’Reilly is a master of absurdism. Tyranny? Seriously? Calling a Christmas tree a "holiday" tree is tyranny?
Hoover says it’s up to the states to decide how to handle the issue and they have to answer to their citizenry. O’Reilly’s counter? "That dopey governor out there… and she is a giant pinhead… imposed her ridiculous view of life on Washingtonians." Wow. Because she allowed equal access for various religious displays (since the Constitution requires neutrality), she’s a dopey, giant pinhead? That’s classic O’Reilly, right there.
Carlson is no better and interjects that "they put up a Festivus pole" when, in actuality, they did not. They requested one, but the whole situation got shut down before getting too out of hand. Carlson goes on to make some remark implying that the American people would like to see their tax dollars being spent to stop all religious displays that are non-Christian.
O’Reilly finishes up by stating that the "Supreme Court has already ruled that you can have these displays. You don’t have to make these insane changes." What constitutes "these displays?" Christmas trees? Okay. Manger scenes? No. The Supreme Court has ruled no such thing.
O’Reilly is a master of delivering blustering, absolutist rhetoric while remaining pointless and vague. He spouts off with intolerant, bigoted tirades on a regular basis… but has a devout following of like-minded acolytes that hang on his every word, nodding their heads with a hypnotically zealous agreement. There was very little mention of Christianity in this video, but the undertone was there. From "traditional" Christmas to the tea partiers (who were, on the whole, overtly and fundamentally religious), the implication is that O’Reilly’s version of Christmas is the only acceptable way for Americans to spend the holiday season and, indeed, it’s the only acceptable holiday.
And remember, we call it Christmas because Christmas falls on December 25th.
Jon Stewart channels Glenn Beck
Jon Stewart displays his mad skillz as an impressionist, practically channeling Glenn Beck in this Daily Show bit on Comedy Central bit last night.
Though I would never wish an appendicitis on anyone and hope Beck recovers fully, his on-screen persona is, in my opinion, worthy of mockery and derision… and Stewart nails it.
Michelle Bachman hasn’t a clue
"No one that I know disagrees with natural selection — that you can take various breeds of dogs … breed them, you get different kinds of dogs," she said. "It’s just a fact of life. … Where there’s controversy is (at the question) ‘Where do we say that a cell became a blade of grass, which became a starfish, which became a cat, which became a donkey, which became a human being?’ There’s a real lack of evidence from change from actual species to a different type of species. That’s where it’s difficult to prove."
– Michele Bachmann quoted in the Stillwater Gazette, September 29, 2003.
I’m going to let this one stand on its own for now.
Facebook makes for interesting discussions
A friend of mine posted a Facebook update this morning proclaiming that she is a Christian and proud of it, asking others to proclaim the same and to pray for others who join in. Here’s the text of her post [sic… but emphasis mine].
[Her name] Is a Christian and proud to say it!! Let’s see how many people on fb aren’t afraid to show their love for God! Repost this as your status. Each time you see this on someones status say a quick prayer for that person!! Let’s get God back in this country like He should be!!! If you agree post this in your status. Like/unlike write a comment.
That’s all pretty innocuous and she meant it as an upbeat comment to start the day… but she did solicit comments, and after a few positive responses with prayers (“Father I lift up [her name] to you right now and I ask you to flood her with your presence today.”), another poster hit upon the phrase I highlighted above. He said [sic]…
[His name] while I’m pleased to know that your religious perspectives bring you joy and peace, I have reservations about the comment “Let’s get God back in the country like He should be”. I’m not sure who says “He should be”, but it certainly was not our wise and enlightened founding fathers, who were careful to institute concepts like the seperation of church and state and freedom of (and from) religion. Spirituality is a personal path, to be kept in one’s heart. Once you start declaring that God should play a role in an entire country, you infringe upon the rights of people with a different belief system. A quick study of Saudi Arabia or Iraq shows what that can lead to.
Your post requested a comment, I’m sharing mine.
I found that a pretty fair response. Given our secular Constitution and the religiously diverse population in this country, I think the idea of putting “God back in this country” is, at the very least, a bad one. [His name] calls it out perfectly, saying that it would “infringe upon the rights of people with a different belief system” and points to perfect examples.
The response came quickly from [her name] and said [sic]…
[Her name] Our God teaches peace. Their Gods teach violence. That’s all that needs to be said about that.
I thought the response was first, missing the point and second, misinformed. So I responded with a simple…
[Me] In [his name’s] defense, a theocracy is a theocracy, regardless whose concept of a deity is used.
I thought maybe that bit of simplicity might help [his name’s] point hit home. It didn’t. [Her name] posted another bit about the god of Islam vs. the god of Christianity, but deleted it shortly thereafter. Then another poster joined in… and inspired me to write this blog post. She said [sic]…
[Supporter] It’s been quite awhile since I studied this, so I could be incorrect, but the reason why there was “separation between church and state” was so there was not a dictatorship as in England. They did not want the government to dictate how things should be handled…they wanted each jurisdiction to have the right to dictate that, which is the main reason America was even founded. Now, it is important to not that it was “One nation, Under God”….so that negates the theory that they didn’t want God to be a part of things…..I still also believe that if you view Creationism as a religious theory, than Evolution should also be a religious theory, and then the answer in school would be teach neither, or teach both….just as some believe God shouldn’t be taught in school, others don’t subscribe to the “big bang THEORY” either……just some other thoughts to consider.
I pondered a response for a bit, but decided there was too much wrong with that to deal with in a Facebook status thread, so I bowed out by just saying “Too much for me to get into on a Facebook thread.” [His name] had one more go, however, with this [sic]…
[His name] Bear in mind, the God of Islam is the same God of Christianity and Judaism, and the Qu’aran speaks of peace (and violence) as much as the Bible does. Also remember that “one nation, under God” is a phrase that did not officially exist in the US until the 1950’s to seperate us from the “godless” communists. I generally keep my opinions to myself, but this post conveniently comes the day after an election wherein I am once again denied the equal rights (thanks, Maine) of the majority because of the loud and powerful religious right’s influence on government and voters. Anyway, being thought provoking can be upbeat and lifting. I’m not trying to insult anyone, and I’ll say no more.
Good for him. Not only did he call out one of the misconceptions in [Supporter’s] post (The “One nation, under God” part), but he called out the religious right’s negative influence on human rights in this country… with a perfect timely example.
[Supporter] is also misinformed about evolution and creationism (and the big bang theory, it seems), saying that if creationism is a religious theory, then evolution should be a “religious theory.” Those who know anything about evolution (or science) will automatically recognize that statement as absurd, but it’s one that is heard all too often. When people can’t discern the difference between biblical “magic” and scientific theory, it’s a pretty glaring sign that the educational system in our country needs some serious help.
It’s frustrating, to say the least, and I cringed when I read [Supporter’s] post. I pulled back from commenting harshly, though, because she’s been a friend for a long time and I value our friendship… and I think that particular Facebook thread was an inappropriate venue (it had been hijacked enough as it was).
Perhaps sending her a Richard Dawkins article would be a good starting point.
It’s a sign! …or not.
I was perusing all my blog RSS feeds in Google Reader when I happened to glance up to the page tab to see the count of unread blog posts. I found it amusing, so I thought I’d share.
Traditional Islamic Values
An Iraqi immigrant, 48-year-old Faleh Almaleki, has been arrested for punishing his daughter for becoming “too Westernized” according to this MSNBC article.
Okay, maybe “punishing” wasn’t the most accurate word for me to use. Here’s what the article says.
An Iraqi immigrant has been arrested in Georgia for allegedly running down his daughter because she was becoming “too Westernized,” police in a Phoenix suburb say.
“Running down?” Like… with a car? Yep.
The father was upset that his daughter had become too “Westernized” and he aimed his car at her Oct. 20 in a Peoria parking lot.
His twenty year old daughter, Noor Faleh Almaleki, is hospitalized in serious condition. Her father had reportedly threatened her because of her lifestyle, saying she was not living up to “traditional Islamic values.” Another woman, purportedly her roommate, suffered “non life-threatening injuries.”
I haven’t read the Qur’an yet, but I’m starting to wonder if “traditional Islamic values” include running down your daughter (and her roommate) in a automobile? This is barely a step away from “honor killing,” a horrid practice not uncommon in some Islamic societies and almost always perpetrated against women.
I don’t know what kind of punishment, if he’s convicted, would be appropriate for Mr. Almaleki. I suspect he feels that he was being true to Islamic teachings as he smashed his car into his increasingly “Westernized” daughter, and that alone should put him in the category of “dangerous psychopaths,” in my opinion, and he should be treated accordingly. Any parent, regardless of religious affiliation, should be considered despicable for brutally beating a child, regardless of the reason… including (perhaps especially?) in the name of their religious beliefs.
Religiously-inspired violence is particularly heinous because it has all the indications of pre-meditation. It’s not violence in a blind fit of rage, but violence that has been considered, calculated, and deemed righteous in the eyes of the perpetrator… because of his interpretation of his chosen religious dogma.
In Almaleki’s case, he seemed to have felt that his daughter’s acts were an insult to Allah or Muhammad (or whatever “traditional Islamic values” are) to such a degree that she should be intentionally struck by a speeding vehicle and hospitalized (or killed… don’t know what his intended conclusion was). If his parenting skills are based in “traditional Islamic values,” then I think we need far, far fewer of those kinds of values.
I’m guessing his daughter might feel the same way.
Hate Crime Legislation Updated
Existing hate crime legislation has been updated with the passing of a new federal law designed to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named for a gay man who was murdered eleven years ago, expands the original list of criteria which includes race, color, religion and national origin. The legislation specifically targets actions, not speech. From the article linked above…
“Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press or the freedom to assemble,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. “Let me be clear. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act targets acts, not speech.”
That seems simple enough. If there is already hate crime legislation, it should probably include groups that tend to be targets of hate-based violence. Again from the article…
The FBI says more than half of reported hate crimes are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias, at around 18 percent, and sexual orientation, at 16 percent.
Sixteen percent seems like a large enough percentage to warrant the special protection offered by hate crime legislation. So there’s no problem, right?
Of course there’s a problem!
Conservatives have opposed it, arguing that it creates a special class of victims. They also have been concerned that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.
Doesn’t hate crime legislation automatically create a special class of victims? That’s sort of the point. The opposition is creating a smokescreen argument. The second part of the above quoted paragraph is the most telling… though with an additional attempt at misdirection.
Opponents of the legislation are afraid it would silence clergymen (or others) who oppose homosexuality because of their religion… or on philosophical grounds. Wait… what? I call shenanigans. That’s an attempt by the homophobic religious right to add a smidgen of validity to their bigoted religious arguments. “Philosophical grounds” sounds completely secular… so it’s not just those religious folks who oppose homosexuality, right?
Seriously? No.
I don’t want to state outright that there have never been purely philosophical arguments opposing homosexuality, but I’ve never heard one. I’ve heard a feeble attempt, but in the end, it boiled down to religious belief. Every single argument I’ve ever heard or read in opposition to homosexuality is based on a religious belief… Christianity, Islam, Judaism… take your pick. Philosophy? Not so much.
So the conservatives who oppose this legislation oppose it because of their religiously-based bigotry. That’s really the bottom line. It’s not going to silence free speech. It’s not going to put outspoken, anti-gay, religious zealots in danger of being whisked away to the hate crime gulag. It targets actions, not words.
To highlight the fear-mongering alarmism of the religious right…
That didn’t convince Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who said the bill was a “dangerous step” toward thought crimes. He asked whether the bill would “serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views.”
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the measure was “part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.”
DeMint obviously misses the whole “targets actions” concept, but uses his alarmist “dangerous step” and “thought crimes” and “don’t speak too loudly” phraseology to rouse the faithful… or rather misinform his religious right constituents so they can shout their Leviticus-fueled outrage from the hilltops.
Perkins seems more of a conspiracy theory propagandist… radical social agenda… silence Christians… force of government… marginalize faith… eliminate bigotry… Okay, I made that last one up.
He seems to think that adding homosexuals to a list of people who are targets of hate-fueled violence will somehow “marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.”
I don’t think the list has anything to do with it.