Loonies, bigots, nutjobs, moral weaklings, and space aliens
Usually I post mainly on IT issues, generally with a Lotus software focus. This one is different.
Two 'religion'-related stories have hit the headlines this week, each of which is both funny and desperately sad at the same time.
Story # 1: Lambeth
Some people are gay. Some people are priests. Some priests are gay.
That seems pretty simple. Sure, there are some idiots stuck in the middle ages who think that being gay should be illegal, or is a disease to be cured, but they're the exceptions. The majority of people would rather accept the world the way it is, and find a way to make the best of it, rather than try to twist it to adapt their own prejudices, fears, insecurities and dogmatic beliefs. If there is one shining and long-lasting benefit from the Age of Enlightenment, the societal shift from religious absolutism to thoughtful pragmatism is surely it.
Then we come to the Church of England, and the once-a-decade 'Lambeth Conference'. This is an event where all the bishops from the 'Anglican Communion' get together and have a good chinwag and talk about, well, whatever it is that bishops talk about. Then they go back home and carry on as before. All fair enough, and roughly equivalent to most managerial meetings to be honest.
However, this time around, it's all gone pear-shaped. Why? Well, the anglican church in the US decided to promote an openly-gay priest and make him a bishop. Shock, horror. There are lots of gay priests; they're not hard to find. So all credit to this man for being honest, rather than trying to conceal the truth. And all credit to the people around him, for being brave and forward-thinking and accepting him for who he is, and not getting hung up on how he chooses to spend his bedroom time. His reward: NOT being invited to the Lambeth event. Why again? Because there's an ugly clique within the Anglicans, mainly consisting of African bishops, who are SO bigotted and intolerant that the Archbishop and his little helpers decided it would be better not to invite dear Gene in case it upset the homophobic bigot brigade. That could have been a politically astute if spineless idea ...except ... half the aforesaid homophobic bigots have decided to boycot the conference anyway (!) because other bishops who have supported Bishop Robinson are being invited.
So the whole placate-the-loonies-by-upsetting-the-liberals plan has, so to speak, gone to hell in a handcart, and now the loonies are organising their own conference (BigotExpo 2008? HomophobiaWorld?) in Jerusalem, and the poor ArchBish is rattling around in Lambeth palace with 25% of his club off elsewhere starting their own club. It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic. Actually, it is funny, but it's still pathetic.
And, speaking of pathetic, here comes ...
Story # 2 : The Magic Biscuit
A catholic student in the US, Webster Cook, decided that he would take his wafer back to his seat to show his non-catholic-but-interested friend, rather than consuming it there and then under the watchful gaze of the priest. This is what happened:
"I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."All very strange, but hardly a major incident one would think. But then, a US professor by the name of PZ Myers wrote a blog post on it, highlighting the ridiculous over-reaction of the local diocese and wider religious community:A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him.
"She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.
"We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."Loony reactions, one might think, but each to their own: free speech is sacred etc etc. And, actually, I really do believe that people should be able to subscribe to whatever set of beliefs they fancy. Except, of course, that some of those people who actually believe that the little biscuit/wafer/cracker thing really does become a part of the genuine body of Jesus when blessed by the priest (yeuch, frankly), then suddenly went all Spanish Inquisition.
("A hate crime"? Don't be bloody ridiculous.)We just expect the University to take this seriously," she added "To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated."
("Really complete sacrilege"? Hmm, as opposed to chewing it, swallowing, dissolving it in digestive acid, and pooing out what's left?)"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."
(Yes, but he didn't kidnap anybody did he. "Imagine" if he set fire to your house .. yes, that's right, he didn't do that either, but just "imagine"...)
And then the story really hit the headlines when poor PZ Myers, who was only commenting in a wry and entertaining way on what is, frankly, a ridiculous story, received a death threat. Yes, really: a genuine death threat for writing a story that was unsympathetic to a group of people who believe that a biscuit has special mystical properties. A biscuit. The guy (it was a guy, as it now seems) sent the threat from his wife's work email address. She has now been fired: whether for allowing unauthorised access to work IT systems, or for being stupid enough to marry such a wanker, we'll never know.
Both of these stories are fresh from the last couple of days, so will no doubt continue to develop/grow/fester over time. But what can they tell us? Well, here are some things they might tell us:
1. Religious belief is only a socially cohesive force if 100% of the society subscribes to it: in almost all cases, it's divisive and does more harm than good.
2. Don't placate fascists/bigots/nazis. Neville Chamberlain learned this lesson with his misguided 'Appeasement' policy, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is learning it now.
3. People with bizarre beliefs (e.g. magic biscuits) should stop taking themselves and their beliefs so bloody seriously, and just make a teeny-weeny effort to see things through other people's eyes occasionally.
4. Believe whatever you want, but keep it to yourself
5. Outrageous opinions are still outrageous opinions: religion is no excuse
6. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is from the bible and makes a really good rule#1: neither story above would have grown to its current proportions if people who claimed to be Christian actually followed this basic and common-sense instruction
7. Actually, there are no space aliens. Unless Jesus was one, of course




Comments
Being Captain Pedant though, I'm going to have to bring you up on this: "Some people are gay. Some people are priests. Therefore, some priests will be gay."
Now I know that you know that's a horrible logical fallacy. But for those playing along at home, in general you are saying: Some of X have property A. Some of X have property B. Therefore some of X have property A & property B. That's just a non sequitur. Properties A and B could be mutually exclusive.
For example: Some animals are humming birds. Some animals are whales. Therefore some humming birds are whales.
Of course the properties of being gay and being a priest aren't mutually exclusive, but that there are gay priests is not a logical consequence of some people being gay and some people being priests.
Posted by Kerr At 10:39:28 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
The offending sentence has been replaced. Happy?
Posted by Julian Woodward At 10:55:14 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
Nice article and really a sad , sad story. In relation to this subject a good combination of books to read would be the Bible and then "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. A fantastic book for open minded people that respect the ones around them.
Richard Dawkings { Link }
Regards from Spain!
Posted by Alejandro Ahumada At 10:58:26 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
Sorry if it's annoyed you, but the kinds of arguments put forward by the woo-mungers are littered with logical fallacies, so it's good to be able to spot them and counter them. Those of us on the side of reason need to make sure we're not doing the same for our arguments to hold water.
Posted by Kerr At 11:38:28 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
@4 - Annoyed me? Not a jot! And you're dead right, thanks.
Posted by Julian Woodward At 11:49:45 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
Personally I sit in the agnostic camp and am bemused by all parties
Posted by Matt White At 12:39:32 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Mick Moignard At 13:25:59 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
Those two are exactly on par with each other. Looking at the world and deciding that you need to learn about it is exactly the same as looking at the world and assuming that what someone else told you was correct.
Yep.
Posted by Nathan T. Freeman At 13:55:57 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
I'm also an agnostic, but I'll choose atheism any day rather that religious ideas like the ones mentioned in Julian's post.
Posted by Alejandro Ahumada At 14:03:28 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
He has said in many interviews that all that is required for him to believe in a super natural deity is some proof; that if some proof came to light, he would believe. His continued lack of belief just shows a lack of evidence for any gods, rather than his closed mindedness.
I think you also need to look at the purpose of a book like The God Delusion. It's not intended to be a discussion of Dawkins' beliefs balancing all the possibilities that he has weighed up, rather it is distillation of the conclusions and consequences of that process intended to argue for his point of view.
You do Dawkins a disservice by accusing him of closed mindedness.
Posted by Kerr At 14:16:12 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
I'm occasionally tempted to post about faith matters, make a start and then give up just before losing the will to live
First a declaration: I'm agnostic. I make no apologies to anyone for that. My view is that our science and senses are imperfect. Maybe one day we'll perfect a means of spotting the fairies at the end of the garden but in the interim I'm erring on the side of caution
I'm of the view that the existence of God cannot be proved by our current science. It can be inferred by religious texts, by anecdotal evidence but not actually proved as yet. Show me the proof and I might convert on the spot.
In the absence of proof there is faith or delusion. Faith ought to come with humility: in the absence of proof a belief is just that, an interpretation of some data. With humility comes tolerance: ideas and interpretations, though different from my own, could be right but I like mine best for now.
There are a group of people who regard certain sacred texts and the historical interpretations of them as fact. For them deviation from the texts calls their absolute correctness into question. I think that is the nub of the problem and it makes sense to me. If you absolutely believe black is black any other interpretation is just wrong.
Speaking for myself alone, I cannot see the evidence for believing in a creator that has proscribed the right way for us to live. It's more likely based on current evidence that we are temporary, passing this way only once and from there into nothing. I can see the sense in trying to order society for the common good, religion has been good for that but we've grown up a bit now and I'm not sure we need to stick rigidly, unquestioningly to an ancient book of rules.
Secular law can govern societies quite effectively and as a benefit can be adapted to what works in the here and now without invalidating all of the law that went before it. The civil law as practised in the UK allows for tolerance but guards against our worst excesses. Unfortunately too often legislators afford religion a kind of special status that gives it a parity with civil law, that's a pity.
As a final thought the science on our humanity is quite persuasive. We are physical beings and our personality and behaviour cannot be divorced from brain chemistry, it's physical construction and the effects of age, disease or injury. The founders of our societies couldn't have known that 2000 years ago but we can prove it today and that for me points to a couple of things. Firstly there are no absolutes in terms of belief, what I believe today could be utterly different tomorrow and just as sincerely. Secondly the phrase 'lifestyle choice' is a red herring it's not always about choice.
So I'd advocate tolerance and humility, you are having a human experience. It's personal to you and you are sharing it with your fellows. It's not an easy experience but it's made easier but offering people your understanding and support not judgement.
Hope that doesn't come across as patronising.
Posted by Jason Hook At 16:04:31 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
I bought the God Delusion right after hearing him on Radio 4 telling Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor it was OK for him to have an imaginary friend. I haven't finished it yet but I'm in no rush I've got a lifetime.
Posted by Jason Hook At 16:11:20 On 18/07/2008 | - Website - |
Generally it is the lack of objectiveness that annoys me about both sides of the religious debate. I really can't see why people can't take a more "live and let live" attitude about these incredibly personal points of view.
In the end everyone should be free to believe what they choose as long as they do not try and force that belief onto anyone else. Not as many good arguments arise out of that approach but I think everyone would be a little happier as a result, and that surely is that point of life, no?
Posted by Matt White At 15:10:50 On 19/07/2008 | - Website - |
One of the wonders of mankind is the capability for rational thought. Science, and the scientific thought process, are the pinnacle of that.
On the one hand we have a rational and logical progression using testing and observation and open-minded questioning at every step towards a theory that while it can't definitely be said to be true and final is still nevertheless the best possible explanation that we as a species can currently derive.
And on the other hand, we have the "making stuff up and pretending it's true" approach, which is generally shortened to "faith" for convenience.
I don't really mind what the deep underlying truth of our existence etc turns out to be, and I certainly don't claim to know what it is. But I do know that actually trying to discover that truth is a sensible thing to do, and it's not going to be found in the pages of any 'religious' texts.
All of which gets away from my original point: dear religious people, whatever the voices in your head say, just try to be nice to each other, okay?
Posted by Julian Woodward At 13:58:16 On 21/07/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Kerr At 14:05:24 On 21/07/2008 | - Website - |