The Stupid Brigade

Max Blumenthal's visit to the Value Voters Summit has to be seen to be believed:

Just when you think that the Rev. Lou Sheldon -- "Remember, homosexuality could strike you" -- is as whacky as it could get, Max introduces us to Star Parker. After stating that "abortion is the No. 1 killer of black women between 25 and 34" (i.e., the 76th through 103rd trimester), Parker says this:

"We want Sodomites quarantined."

Besides demonstrating that she doesn't know what Sodomite means,* Parker's weird non-sequitur call for internment camps illustrates how full-gonzo loony religion can become once it lies down with authoritarian politics.

Neither politics nor religion is intrinsically authoritarian. Neither is compatible with authoritarianism -- neither can survive it. The authoritarian impulse takes over, reducing religion and politics both to mere tools for achieving its ends. That is, after all, the nature of the thing -- to reduce everything to a means for its ends.

The Stupid Brigade usually takes this as their cue. Religion, I have just said, is not and ought not to be authoritarian. Aha! cry the irregulars of the Stupid Brigade, "Here you are claiming that religion is not authoritarian and yet at the same time you're telling others what they should and shouldn't do. Your telling others not to be authoritarian is, itself, authoritarian!"

It's not very nice to call them the Stupid Brigade, and it's probably not particularly constructive. But then again nothing can be constructive with these folks because, well, they're kind of stupid. They're not open to persuasion, nor are they interested in trying to persuade others. All they're really interested in is showing off what they consider to be their irrefutably clever wordplay and their semantic Gotcha! games:

Aha! You say you're for tolerance, but that just means you're intolerant of intolerance!

Aha! You say you're opposed to authoritarianism, but that just means you're trying to tell the authoritarians what they can and can't do!

Aha! You say you're for "love," but that just means you hate hatred!

You can try to respond to such people, if you have the patience, but there's nothing there to respond to. They offer nothing that can be engaged: No coherent argument; no apparent capacity for recognizing coherent argument; no sense of the ability to distinguish between sense and nonsense.

And anyway, they can't hear you. After firing off one of their tail-swallowing semantic pretzels, they're too preoccupied with their undeserved victory lap to listen to any attempt at a response.

So there's really only one appropriate response to the Stupid Brigade and their triumphalistic illogic: Take that hypothetical rock of theirs, the one that's so big that Almighty God can't lift it, and drop it on their heads.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has to do with gang rape. And then there's this, from the prophet Ezekiel:

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Comments

[Fred]

Instructions on bottle of J. shampoo: Lather, lather, lather. Repeat.

Translation: "J. not like Bible. J. think Bible dumb." We got it, thanks. Further repetition is just, well, repetitive.

[ako]

I haven't known any F-to-M pre-ops, but wouldn't they use the men's restrooms (and perhaps use the stalls to avoid the other men)? It's genuinely a question if anyone out there knows, I've never been apprised of the proper etiquette for that situation.

F-t-Ms who are getting experience living as a man (I know there's a better term for this; it's one of the requirements for sex-reassignment), are supposed to use male facilities as much as is feasible, and generally do. Stalls are popular. There are a range of devices used to facilitate use of the urinals, which can be discovered by a quick Google search. Most of them aren't supposed to stand out with a hand wrapped around them, and there's the social benefit that relatively few men will admit to looking at another man's equipment in the urinal. I imagine it's still somewhat risky, though.

[J]

I find it very odd that some atheists hold exactly the same view of the Bible that the fundamentalist literalists do, that it is a single static document dictated at one discrete moment, without internal contradiction or self-criticism, meant to be understood literally without reflection or reason.

Actually, I bet you don't find it odd at all, but rather that you think it's totally fitting.

But you're having a hard time telling atheists apart from fundamentalists, then let me make it easy for you:

Atheists: Write books, make blog comments, give lectures.

Fundamentalists: Steal elections, blow up cars, beat women, burn books, censor films, shoot doctors, mutilate genitalia, imprison journalists.

[Victoria]

J,

You're angry. I get it. What I don't get is why you're venting your anger on a site like this, where a lot of us share the same political opinions and social values that you do, and who just happen to also be Christians. We're not the ones who read the Bible literally and take passages out of context just to score a political point or prove moral superiority. It seems like you want us to be apologists for this narrow way of understanding the Bible and Christianity, which is just not what we're about.

[Karen]

I love the "you may be struck by homosexuality" thing. My next-door neighbors are a gay male couple, and so far they haven't hit me, my husband, or my kids. I think I'm missing something.

I do think that we're on to something with the idea that sex role deviation is an important source of the gay-hate among the religious right. I occasionally waste time by reading conservative Catholic blogs and one thing that strikes me is that they believe abortion is wrong as much because it's a woman denying her inherent motherhood as they think it's wrong to kill the fetus. That's why they go all over the post-abortion syndrome thing. If a woman has an abortion and isn't miserable over it, then somehow that means she's rejecting her entire purpose for existence. The idea that the women just don't bloody want to be pregnant at that time with that particular fetus, full stop, doesn't enter into their heads at all.

Same with the gay thing. Being gay means rejecting one's designated place in the universe. Women are supposed to be nurturing, supporting, slightly dimwitted "hearts" of the family, and men are supposed to be wise, stern, strong disciplinarians. The idea is that the sexes are 'complementary,' each supplying the other's deficits. That people would be utterly miserable married to someone who cannot possible even understand your likes and dislikes, much less share any of them, seems to escape their thoughts. I strongly suspect they're actually envious of gays; gays can share lives with people who share their tastes.

[hapax]

Hmm. Okay. Shall we do a page count? (I'm using my New Oxford Annotated Bible)

Genesis/Exodus 19. Various legends of tribal history and national origin. In turns edifying, entertaining, and horrifying. 92 pp.

Exodus 20 - Deuteronomy. Tribal laws and regulations, ranging from universal moral precepts to stultifying picayune legalism. Interspersed with charming accounts of inter-tribal slaughter. 150 pp.

Joshua -- Judges. More and more slaughter, culminating in the later editor's blanket condemnation of a pox on all their houses. 62 pp.

Ruth. A later introduced story, indicating that perhaps things would work better if we tried to be nicer to other people, even furriners. 5 p.

1 Samuel -- 2 Chronicles. Accounts of various attempts to restore order through human institutions. Things keep going wrong, culminating in eventual destruction of the state. 242 pp.

Ezra-Nehemiah. An account of the reestablishment of the state, "but this time we're REALLY going to keep those rules, even if it means KILLING everybody!" 30 pp.

Esther. A very odd fairy tale about "how they were going to kill us, but we killed them first, ha HA!" 10 p.

Job. Another very odd fairy tale. Originally about God playing pawns with humans; later editors turned into a rather interesting meditation on the immortal human complaint, "But it isn't FAIR!" 42 pp.

Psalms. An extended series of songs, prayers, and poetry on the basic theme of "Isn't God nifty?" 112 p.

Proverbs -- Ecclesiastes. More songs, prayers, and poetry on the basic theme of "Don't people suck?" 46 pp.

Song of Solomon: More poetry, this time the theme being, "Isn't sex nifty? God is sorta like that!" 6 p.

So far, okay, out of about 800 pages, a little less than three quarters might possibly fall into your categories.

But wait, what's this? Almost four hundred straight pages of prophetic writings continually repeating scathing condemnations of empty religious cults, lip service to worship, authoritarian religious leaders, insisting that all God is interested in is that we "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly"; that we "show compassion for the widow and orphan"; and in general demonstrates preferential treatment for the poor, the alien, and the despised?

What's up with that, anyway? Don't those people know what the Bible is *supposed* to be about?

[Spalanzani]

hapax: "I find it very odd that some atheists hold exactly the same view of the Bible that the fundamentalist literalists do, that it is a single static document dictated at one discrete moment, without internal contradiction or self-criticism, meant to be understood literally without reflection or reason."

Well, I think a large part of it is that for many people in America, atheists included, some variant of fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity is the type they are most familiar with. It can be hard to get away from that way of thinking when that's what you've been raised with, and what you've known all your life. And it's not necessarily wrong to keep attacking that position; it's sadly not a strawman. As many of Fred's posts show, LB Fridays especially, there are many Christians who view the Bible like that, and they're doing a lot of damage. I think it is useful to be very angry and vocal about how that kind of faith is really dumb.

It's just that it doesn't do much good here .

[MikeJ]

You know how sane christians are embarrassed by the loonie fundigelicals?

I'd like to apologize for J.

[Tonio]

I find it very odd that some atheists hold exactly the same view of the Bible that the fundamentalist literalists do, that it is a single static document dictated at one discrete moment, without internal contradiction or self-criticism, meant to be understood literally without reflection or reason.

Hapax, you seem to be misreading the bulk of atheist criticism. It's more accurate to say that atheists attack the fundamentalist view because that view causes much more harm than the moderate view. It's not the moderates who seek to turn public schools into Jesus Camps or who wish to govern from the Bible instead of the Constitution.

Your view of the Bible is very similar to mine. The chief difference is that I don't treat the book as revealing anything about supreme beings, since there is no evidence for such beings. Instead, it reveals much about what the authors believed about supreme beings.

But if one comes to the Bible almost completely raw, with little or no church experience, one is likely to assume that the book must be read literally. Part of the problem is that the vociferousness and influence of fundamentalism discourages would-be Christians from developing views like yours about the Bible.

[Victoria]

hapax,
That was a brilliant summation of OT scripture! As someone up to her eyeballs in OT exegetical methods right now (grad school), it's nice to see that it's possible to talk about the Bible without using the words redaction, JEDP source, hermeneutic, or any number of fancy terms.

[ako]

I know I couldn't intelligently explain how most of the Bible deviated from the standard fundamentalist interpretation; but that's mostly lack of interest and effort on my part. I've got no investment in the Bible really meaning or expressing good things, so I don't bother with the relatively complicated studies it would take to establish the deeper meaning. That could be part of it; it takes a fair amount of research and energy to learn anything other than a superficial literalist interpretation of the Bible, and a lot of atheists can't be bothered.

And most of the atheists I've seen who do take a profound interest in the Bible and theology do so with an anti-theism point of view, and are subject to the very human tendency to favor arguments that reinforce their views.

[scottbot]

Normally, Scottbot would wait until Scott arrives, but mention of Scott is a cheap excuse.

After straying just once from its comfortable launchpad, Scottbot is back where it belongs, quicker than you can say 'blast-off Bucky.'

And after experiencing quite the mini-storm in a tiny-teeny teacup, Scottbot's fumble fingered builder promises to never, ever again refer to the Original Programmer(TM) in any setting outside of here.

While the dream of transforming itself into a vast sociopathic hydra is the sort of career path a Scottbot could be tempted to follow, Scottbot humbly declines the honor of becoming a Dark Lord of the Internith.

Not that Scottbot has any influence on such things, nor seemingly anyone apart from the dogged Tamara R. Scottbot's advanced sensors had indicated she was a real person, though it probably didn't help her that Scottbot had referred to her, and posted soon after her. She didn't receive an apology for having her posts deleted, though she did receive the advice 'remember to spellcheck' from the Internet's Absolute Bestest Moderator(TM). She also received the comforting observation of a commenter saying she deserved to be deleted, since her opinions resembled those of someone else. However, Scottbot was touched to see that at least one commenter there respected Scottbot's robotic routine as being worthwhile in a world ruled by LIBERALS(TM).

Now, to the matter at hand, the destruction of Compassion(TM) everywhere. 'First, defend the fuel' - oops, wrong reference.

In closing, Scottbot will now perform a ritual dsmvwllng. N IP lws wr vltd thrgh Scttbt's dcsn. Scottbot hopes that no lawsuits arise from a site that publicly speaks out against misusing filters or IP laws - that's how LIBERALS(TM) always act - while denying the existence of Scottbot.

>+< !!POP!! >+<

PS - one of Scottbot's basic social interface problems is its love for saying 'told you so' - but Scottbot promises not to mention this again - even if it does get Left Behind(TM) in the bright Web(TM) 2.0(TM) world. Have you heard about peak oil? - another of Scottbot's 'told you so' obsessions. Scottbot may be a figment of imagination, but you can't escape the real world by denying it exists. Scottbot understands at least part of the motivation behind the world's worst books, after all.

[1982_Cygni]

So all Sodomites go to camps??? What exactly defines a Sodomite in Blumenthal's book? A woman on top, as the medieval Catholic church thought? A gay couple? Someone who has sex with a horse? Someone who has sex with a human, who for some reason, is dressed up as a horse? A hetero couple, in which, after sex, the guy dons hubby's Wonderbra and Hello Kitty thong and the girl wraps herself up in Johnny's oxford shirt? S&M? Bondage? Incest? Threesomes? Foursomes? Conjugal bliss, Mormon-style? The happily married hetero couple who buys a book on Oriental erotica and tries out the poses pictured for kicks? The stupid college frat boys looking at the Kama Sutra for fun and giggles? Captain Kirk having sex with a green-skinned alien woman who might be very different on the biochemical level from him????

And if all these said sodomites were to go to camps, would they be death camps, old-fashioned Maoist style re-education camps, or people being strapped to chairs and forced to watch subliminal movies to the tune of "Ode to Joy" a la A Clockwork Orange?

The sin of Sodom is inhospitality.

If it was about rape, then Lot offering his daughters to the crowd should have brought condemnation. The fact that it is implicitly OK to rape the women and not the men either should be taken as a gay issue, OR as a hospitality issue (with real consequences for the immigration debate currently taking place in the USA).

If fundamentalists were to take this as the REAL mean of Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't that mean that they should denounce rape and domestic violence from the pulpit, tell women (and some men, and unfortunately some children) that it's not they're fault, and offer help?

[hapax]

I think it is useful to be very angry and vocal about how that kind of faith is really dumb.

But anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the Dark Side...

No, you're absolutely right. And I'm glad that "J" got me to go back and actually count pages. It is good to be reminded every so often that so much of what I consider Scripture must be grappled and wrestled with, not merely mined for comfort and inpiration.

I just get so frustrated with this kind of blanket vitriol. I try and remind myself that a lot of people have been abused by religionists, that they have a right to their bitterness and anger, but...

I keep going back to my first Integrity meeting in New York City. (Integrity is an organization in the Episcopalian Church for GLBTQ and their friends and family) I had been very active in several Southern states, and I was looking forward to see what it would be like in the more "tolerant, progressive" North.

Well, my very first evening, a young Black lesbian walked up to me and said forcefully, without preamble, "I am Black and Queer. You are White and Straight. YOUR kind has been oppressing MY people for centuries. Therefore I have the right to hate YOU."

Being a normal human being, my immediate thought was. "Well, fuck you." I managed not to say anything other than "I'm sorry that you feel that way," and waited for some anyone else to say hello. It didn't happen.

Did I give up on Integrity, or activism for inclusiveness in my Church? No, and no. But I sure did find other, more productive things to do with my Thursday nights in Manhattan.

Short version of a long and boring story: there is some benefit to all parties in letting people vent their issues on you. But not enough that I'm willing to sit and be spat on.

[MikeJ]

1982_Cygni, don't blame Blumenthal for the sending sodomites to camps line. I believe he was quoting Star Parker. At 3:45 left in the video, there's a super with a quote from Parker, but I don't think we ever see her say it on camera.

[Bugmaster]

Aha! You say you're opposed to authoritarianism, but that just means you're trying to tell the authoritarians what they can and can't do!

In the interests of fairness, I'd like to point out that if a religion wants to instill authoritarian values within their church, it's their privilege to do so. By analogy, if some consenting adults like to play out master/slave relationships for thrills, it's their privilege to do so, even though slavery is illegal in the US.

Religious authoritarianism itself is not the problem (despite being creepy and self-destructive); the problem occurs when these religious rituals spill over from the church into the secular life, including political life.

I'd also like to point out that monotheistic religions seem to have authoritarianism built in, despite what Fred says. God is so much wiser and stronger than you, that you must obey him. Obedience to God is pretty much the central tenet of mainstream Christianity and Islam, as well as possibly Judaism (though it depends on which Jew you ask).

[JessicaR]

All of this you could be struck by gay reminds me of Jon Stewart's remarks on Ted Haggard "See that? That's gay. Gay works out. So you can't catch gay. But Gay sure as hell can catch you."

[hapax]

Bugmaster: God is so much wiser and stronger than you, that you must obey him.

Beg to differ. One of the central tenets of monotheism is that "God is so much wiser and stronger [and nicer] than you, that you'd be stupid NOT to obey him. But nonetheless, you probably won't. How's that working out for you?"

The amazing thing to me is that people of all religions and no religion seem to agree on on the main diagnoses of the Human Condition:
a) People can do amazing, creative, kind, and wondrous things
b) For some reason, an awful lot of people choose to be assholes instead.

Most people even agree on the prescription to cure this Condition:
"Hey, guys, let's stop being assholes and be amazing, creative, kind, and wondrous instead!"

Now they may differ on the precise details of the proper ingredients, and how they are to be administered, but I think you could get pretty broad agreement on these points.

But then -- perhaps because people DO have a tendency to be assholes -- they choose to divide up into camps, and put all their energy into screaming about how those the other side are BIGGER, WORSE, and SMELLIER assholes, and I can see how my analogy is going into seriously bad territory, but the point is, if we can't even focus on getting the main task right, you know, being NICE to each other, why on earth do we think we have the competence to judge minute gradations on LESS NICE to REALLY REALLY LESS NICE?

[Ember Keelty]

In the interests of fairness, I'd like to point out that if a religion wants to instill authoritarian values within their church, it's their privilege to do so. By analogy, if some consenting adults like to play out master/slave relationships for thrills, it's their privilege to do so, even though slavery is illegal in the US.

Except for the part where not everyone who goes to church is a consenting adult.

[hapax]

Except for the part where not everyone who goes to church is a consenting adult.

Nor is everyone who doesn't go to church. Your point is?

[Ember Keelty]

Nor is everyone who doesn't go to church. Your point is?

My point is that Bugmaster's analogy doesn't work. The masochist in his scenario consented to being dominated. Any children brought by their parents to an "authoritarian" church (his word, not mine) would have no such say.

In case you're confused, please note that I'm not saying that parents should not take their children to church. I'm saying that churches don't have the right to treat their members however they choose just because participation in one is voluntary – it often isn't.

[movablenu]

hapax: "The amazing thing to me is that people of all religions and no religion seem to agree on on the main diagnoses of the Human Condition:
a) People can do amazing, creative, kind, and wondrous things
b) For some reason, an awful lot of people choose to be assholes instead.

Most people even agree on the prescription to cure this Condition:
"Hey, guys, let's stop being assholes and be amazing, creative, kind, and wondrous instead!"

Now they may differ on the precise details of the proper ingredients, and how they are to be administered, but I think you could get pretty broad agreement on these points.

But then -- perhaps because people DO have a tendency to be assholes -- they choose to divide up into camps, and put all their energy into screaming about how those the other side are BIGGER, WORSE, and SMELLIER assholes, and I can see how my analogy is going into seriously bad territory, but the point is, if we can't even focus on getting the main task right, you know, being NICE to each other, why on earth do we think we have the competence to judge minute gradations on LESS NICE to REALLY REALLY LESS NICE?"

Thanks hapax, that is as a perfect summary of the human condition (and internet messageboards!) that you could hope to find. Or, as Paul said more succinctly, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23).

[Toby]

ako: I know I couldn't intelligently explain how most of the Bible deviated from the standard fundamentalist interpretation; but that's mostly lack of interest and effort on my part. I've got no investment in the Bible really meaning or expressing good things, so I don't bother with the relatively complicated studies it would take to establish the deeper meaning. That could be part of it; it takes a fair amount of research and energy to learn anything other than a superficial literalist interpretation of the Bible, and a lot of atheists can't be bothered.

First, fundamentalist biblical interpretation is a modern, relatively recent phenomenon. If you're going to talk about deviation from a standard, fundamentalism is the deviation from what was standard.

Second, it takes time and energy to read the bible well. But you make it sound like an intellectual exercise, which is sort of beside the point. What helps more than anything else is a desire to know God.

Third, keeping to a "superficial literalist interpretation" strikes me as something that requires quite a lot of energy, too. Or so it seems to me. Personally, I have a lot of trouble seeing how people manage to maintain a thorough-going literalism. I feel it must be exhausting.

[Ryan Ferneau]

Ruth. A later introduced story, indicating that perhaps things would work better if we tried to be nicer to other people, even furriners.

Is that like a furry foreigner?

[Ecks]

Beg to differ. One of the central tenets of monotheism is that "God is so much wiser and stronger [and nicer] than you, that you'd be stupid NOT to obey him. But nonetheless, you probably won't. How's that working out for you?"

Y'know, rants like J's make me cringe and want to apologize (as someone already beat me to) on behalf of us atheists everywhere. But one of the silver linings of these ranters is when they motivate Hapax to describe such a human and beautiful mindspace of religion. I read them, and I'm often left with a feeling of far greater empathy and understanding for the world that a lot of my fellow humans live in. It's like getting a tour of your neighbours house, not in the sense of "here's our impressive stuff. Look shiny car," but more in the sense of "here's the living room. We hang out here a lot of evenings. There's the kitchen, but we order out way too much, ha ha." The sort of tour where you see not just a different world, but a different one you can finally really identify with the people living and thriving in. And that makes me (at least) feel like (at least somewhat) of a better person.

I don't know if that seemed ranty or creepy or weird, but I just wanted to say thanks Hapax. It's clear you think a lot about what you write, and at least some of us really appreciate it. Hopefully this doesn't embarrass you into writing any less!

[ako]

If you're going to talk about deviation from a standard, fundamentalism is the deviation from what was standard.

From a historic perspective, yes. From a pop-culture perspective, I'm not sure. I'm not trying to suggest that the fundamentalist perspective is better; just that it's relatively easy to pick up as cultural background noise, if you don't actively dig into any particular perspective.

Second, it takes time and energy to read the bible well. But you make it sound like an intellectual exercise, which is sort of beside the point. What helps more than anything else is a desire to know God.

I'm an atheist, trying to explain why fundamentalists saying "This is what Christianity is!" can make more sense to atheists than some other Christians would expect. I have no desire to know God, and that's a big factor in my lack of motivation to put in the time and effort. I tried to acknowledge that, but evidently I wasn't entirely clear.

In terms of arguing what the Bible means, or what the important bits are, fundamentalists generally have a good technique of presenting a persuasive case to the uniformed. Proof-texting doesn't hold up to in-depth examination, but it makes a good initial impact. And it's not always easy to spot where it goes wrong just by looking at the portion of the Bible in question (particularly if you don't know much about the history of the translations). What little I've picked up on other biblical interpretations tends to depend on things like a decent knowledge of the history of first-century Palestine, how words got translated from the Aramaic, political biases of King James, and other stuff that doesn't stick out when looking at the Bible itself. So, while the intellectual and academic may not be the heart of the matter (if Christianity is true, I've clearly missed something), they're the bits I've noticed. And I know they make a difference; I don't know what the desire to know God would be like, or how exactly it would affect a person.

Third, keeping to a "superficial literalist interpretation" strikes me as something that requires quite a lot of energy, too.

Again, it depends. I'm guessing that what the Bible says is important to you, and you really want to understand it? Because not thinking about stuff I really want to know or understand would be an effort on my part. As is, if the flaws in an interpretations don't smack me in the face (a few of the flaws have struck me as smack-you-in-the-face obvious), I'm not really motivated to examine it further. Lack of interest means lack of digging into the matter.

[Bugmaster]

@hapax:
Yes, it would be nice if we humans learned to truly love each other and get along and be nice etc., etc. I don't think anyone would dispute this -- not even the fundamentalists. The problem is that this is not likely to happen anytime soon, unfortunately. We humans are too different.

One of the differences between us is that some of us desire to wield authority more than others (whether due to personal ambition or out of pure altruism); and some desire to be subject to authority more than others. These values come into conflict when authoritarians run across some people who have no desire to submit to their authority.

I'm happy to hear that your religion teaches independence of thought and universal love; we need more of that in the world. Sadly, many, if not most, versions of the Abrahamic faith do not teach this. Instead, they place a strong emphasis on not love, but obedience. You must obey the LORD, not because it's a good idea, but because he'll smite you good if you don't (assuming your neighbours don't get there first). Many people interpret the story of Abraham as a moral lesson on the topic: obedience for the LORD is more important than protecting your own son.

You could argue that this is not what Christianity teaches, but a). it's your word against the fundamentalists', and b). there are also Judaism and Islam to worry about, not to mention more modern branches such as Mormonism.

[Bugmaster]

My point is that Bugmaster's analogy doesn't work. The masochist in his scenario consented to being dominated. Any children brought by their parents to an "authoritarian" church (his word, not mine) would have no such say.

Well, I think this is an argument about a larger topic: to what extent do parents have the right to impose their views on their kids ? I think the real answer is somewhere between "none at all" and "anything they want"; either extreme seems disastrous.

[not_scottbot]

Sometimes, athiests are the best proof that a god gene must exist - such passionate concern regarding something which is non-existent.

In a way, you can only have sympathy for someone like Dawkins, who seems to be obsessed with proving that something which can not be proved to exist really doesn't exist. (Dawkins is also an anti-cleric, however, and in that regard, his passion is completely justified.)

What a strange thought - maybe the 'gay' gene and the 'god' gene only appear in a minority of the population, explaining why most people seem indifferent.

[Dahne]

I just love that the guy who disapproves of Romney's three marriages is identified in the ticker as Old Man.

[Bugmaster]

In a way, you can only have sympathy for someone like Dawkins, who seems to be obsessed with proving that something which can not be proved to exist really doesn't exist.

As far as I can tell, Dawkins doesn't spend much time proving the non-existence of god (or gods, or whatever). He is more concerned with religion as an institution (I assume this is what you mean by "anti-cleric"). You don't see Dawkins spending much effort to undermine Wicca or Buddhism -- probably because these particular religions don't seem to have a strong built-in imperative to convert everyone else by any means necessary.

I personally enjoy arguing against the existence of gods from time to time, for the same reason I enjoy playing fighting games and RTSs from time to time. It's nice to face off against an intelligent and capable opponent, especially when the outcome of the contest doesn't ultimately matter.

[not_scottbot]

Dawkins is quite dismissive of god(s), and only slightly less dismissive of 'superstition.'

And since neither Buddhists or Wiccans are likely to attack science, he just waste any time.

Admittedly, most of what I read of Dawkins (apart from his own writing, of course) comes through an American filter, which frames much of this in religious terms - a belief in evolution compared to a belief in god, a fight to the death between all that is good and right, and all that is foul and flawed. Notice that both Dawkins and his opponents can believe in that framing equally.

Sort of like 'one China' - the fact that both Taiwan and the People's Republic claimed to that one China preserved a fragile balance, since at least the final point was not being disputed. However, as Taiwan started to politically change from 'one China' to one China and one fairly democratic Taiwan, that balance began to fray, for a number of reasons. Much the same has occurred in the U.S. over a generation between biologists and various fundamentalist Bible believers. It started in the early 1980s, and has never let up since.

[Dahne]

I'm kinda with J on the whole religion and authoritarianism thing, but you don't need the Spanish Inquisition to prove it.

Sure you don't, but everybody expects it.

[Fred]

More than eight hours between the first mention of the Spanish Inquisition and the first Monty Python reference. We're really off our game.

[not_scottbot]

That's because all the lumberjacks have been crossthreading.

[Tonio]

Religious authoritarianism itself is not the problem (despite being creepy and self-destructive); the problem occurs when these religious rituals spill over from the church into the secular life, including political life.

I strongly suspect that religious authoritarianism is incapable of staying within such boundaries. If a theology presupposes a God with universal authority, then it would be illogical not to include every aspect of human endeavor, including politics.

[Tonio]

Bugmaster's points about authority are the ones I've been making, especially about the story of Abraham. Hapax's version of about Christianity might be admirable, but both Hapax and the fundamentalists claim to have the "true" version of the religion, and there is no way to prove the correctness of one and the incorrectness of the other. One can certainly conclude that Hapax's is better, but that contradicts the concept of divine command.

What little I've picked up on other biblical interpretations tends to depend on things like a decent knowledge of the history of first-century Palestine, how words got translated from the Aramaic, political biases of King James, and other stuff that doesn't stick out when looking at the Bible itself.

True. To my knowledge, almost none of that is taught in public schools or even in churches.

Sometimes, athiests are the best proof that a god gene must exist - such passionate concern regarding something which is non-existent.

There are white people who have a passionate concern about fighting black racism. That doesn't mean they unconsciously believe the racists are correct.

Speaking for myself, my passionate concern about the god issue is for my freedom of conscience. I take the eternal damnation doctrine personally, and I don't apologize for that. I take fundamentalism's horrid ideas about patriarchy personally in an indirect way, since I have daughters. I take fundamentalism's horrid ideas about theocracy personally, because I would be one of the ones who would perish in the theocrats' death camps.

[Stupid Brigadier]

Fred makes it clear he won't be listening to anyone else but himself* on these matters, but since comments are still open others might read them.

Firstly we have this word, "sodomite" which is a perfectly good English word, which apparently Fred would like to see redefined in line with his personal theology. But no-one listening (or reading) misunderstands it. This isn't even an attempt at prescriptive linguistics, Fred's invocation of the Humpty Dumpty rule is just him being a jerk for no reason. Indeed that seems to be the theme of the entire post.

Next up Fred makes a series of remarkable claims for which he not only refuses to offer evidence, let alone proof, but also insists that anyone who disagrees is "Stupid" and their arguments don't require any rebuttal. If that's the new standard of argument to expect from Slacktivist I foresee a lot of the future LB posts consisting of "This whole book is shit. Anyone who reads it is an idiot". Which would sort of defy the point of the exercise.

Sure, I get it, people who Fred disagrees with vehemently get to influence US politics. But half the problem is that those people are jerks. If Fred joins in, he makes himself no better than they are.

* Fred obviously also thinks he's listening to God. Probably the fastest way to make Fred lose his religion would be if his God said "Hey, stop being a jerk".

[mmack]

More than eight hours between the first mention of the Spanish Inquisition and the first Monty Python reference. We're really off our game.

Sorry Fred, I couldn't find my nice red uniform.

[balt]

Star via Fred: "We want Sodomites quarantined."
Fred: The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has to do with gang rape.

You know, actually, I'm okay with the quarantining of gang rapists. Hell, I say we should go a step further and just downright imprison them. Score one for Star. Inadvertant as it might be.

[God]

Stupid Brigadier: Firstly we have this word, "sodomite" which is a perfectly good English word, which apparently Fred would like to see redefined in line with his personal theology. But no-one listening (or reading) misunderstands it. This isn't even an attempt at prescriptive linguistics, Fred's invocation of the Humpty Dumpty rule is just him being a jerk for no reason. Indeed that seems to be the theme of the entire post.

Hey, stop being a jerk.

[twig]

We humans are too different.

That's a total crap reason for why people are assholes. I was on the subway this morning with like, 200 different people and we didn't argue, fight or try to kill each other.

It's more than just 'difference'. I blame that guy. Like in the movies. Sudden horrific change, sudden problem in the spaceship, sudden need for someone to stand up and act as the best representative of human nature - but no, it's that guy ready to proclaim himself a god or start being a bastard for no good reason or start shooting at the aliens.

Maybe we can find the that guy gene.

[Geds]

Stupid Brigadier: Firstly we have this word, "sodomite" which is a perfectly good English word, which apparently Fred would like to see redefined in line with his personal theology.

"Sodomite" is a "perfectly good English word" that was created in the 14th Century as the title for a person who commits "sodomy," a word also created in the 14th Century (probably at the same exact time. Gasp!) to be used as an insult against anybody who doesn't have sexual relations in the proper Christian way. The word and concept themselves were created in absentia from the actual situation in Sodom (quick history lesson: Medieval Christians didn't like Jews, so wouldn't have bothered to listen to Jewish interpretations of the events that happened in their own holy book).

We have in-text interpretation in Ezekial, as quoted by Fred, indicating that the sin of the Sodomites was inhospitality. We also have centuries of Jewish midrash (that's the Jewish word for textual interpretation) preserved in at least the Mishnah and I believe the Talmud to preserve the idea. Both of those books were put together between 700 and 1000 years before the "perfectly good English word" to describe the horrible sins of Sodom was invented.

This isn't even an attempt at prescriptive linguistics

You might want to learn a thing or two about linguistics before you attempt to knock anyone else's abilities in the field...

[Chuck]

Stupid Brigadier: Fred obviously also thinks he's listening to God. Probably the fastest way to make Fred lose his religion would be if his God said "Hey, stop being a jerk".

Dude, I consider myself fairly agnostic, but if God spoke to me, even just to tell me I was being a jerk, I'd totally find some religion. (Well, okay, after a complete psychological screening to make sure I wasn't schizophrenic.)

One could also argue, of course, that Jesus (Fred's God) has already told him, and every other Christian, via the bible, to stop being a jerk.

[Jesurgislac]

Chuck: Dude, I consider myself fairly agnostic, but if God spoke to me, even just to tell me I was being a jerk, I'd totally find some religion.

True.

But if Fred's God spoke to Fred to tell him to stop mocking Left Behind and stop attacking the Stupid Brigade, I think Fred ought to change Gods. ;-)

Reading (and writing) Right Behind fanfiction brought me to the absolute certainty that if there was a God who is the way the authors of Left Behind thinks God is, I want to be on the opposite side from Him, whatever that is.

These, in the day when heaven was falling The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay. A. E. Housman

[MikhailBorg]

More than eight hours between the first mention of the Spanish Inquisition and the first Monty Python reference. We're really off our game.

Okay, I'll come in again.

[ako]

Sometimes, athiests are the best proof that a god gene must exist - such passionate concern regarding something which is non-existent.

First, the perceived degree of atheist concern about religion always looks bigger than it is. Because atheists who aren't concerned about religion don't talk about it. And atheists with little or moderate concern about religion, talk about it relatively little. Which means you're unlikely to notice that you're talking to an atheist. A person's far less likely to cite their atheism in casual conversation than their religious beliefs, as there's not usually much to discuss about the non-existent. So the "Oh look, an atheist," moments tend to come up when discussing or debating religion.

Second, there are reasons to be concerned about the non-existent; the very existent believers who try to force you into their beliefs. If I meet a nice young lady at any point in the foreseeable future, fall in love, and reach the point of wishing to make a lifelong commitment, I am legally prevented from marrying her. Because a bunch of people say it would be against their religion for me to do so. If they'd stuck with 'It's against my religion, so I won't marry you," I'd care substantially less.

I could list a string of other examples of people attempting to enforce their religion, but most people have heard of a good chunk of them. My point is, saying "I don't believe, so it doesn't matter," doesn't work when someone's demanding you adhere to rules purely because they think the rules were established by the thing you don't believe in.

[Tonio]

Quiz for the hardcore Python fans - explain how David Frost and George Harrison are connected to Python.

[Fraser]

Brigadier, I've seen multiple examples of James Dobson, Kathleen Parker and other conservatives arguing that tolerance is just another form of intolerance, so Fred's spot-on on that point.
I agree we should stay away from sodomite: Green sodomite will kill you by turning you into a pillar of salt, red sodomite turns you gay and I guess gold sodomite will render you permanently impotent.

[MikhailBorg]

No, the "bulk" seems evenly divided between the various, pointless Holy Land Wars and God saying, repeatedly, "Obey, OBEY, OBEY!!!"

Wow, another Davros / Daleks flashback.

Seriously; the Holy Land Wars are a perfect example of the element that prevents my faith in a compassionate, activist God. (By "activist", I mean a God who takes a hand in the daily activities of the human race as opposed to sitting back and watching his Creation.)

That element is human cruelty. I can grasp the idea that humans have an innate desire to take each other's stuff, on a personal or national basis. I can grasp the idea that humans sometimes feel the need to kill each other in passion or perceived self-defense. I cannot understand why God would create a species (in his image, mind you) that takes such joy in inflicting protracted, needless suffering on each other. The Bible even encourages members of God's Creation to inflict such on other members of God's Creation, because Group A happened to live in the right part of the world at the right time and Group B, well, didn't.

When confronted with Dante's Inferno, a character in the Niven / Pournelle book of the same name declares, "We're in the hands of infinite power and infinite sadism."

This, more than anything else, causes me to suspect that we're not so much the Ultimate Expression of God's Love but a bunch of monkeys' cousins who got uppity a few million years ago.