Perpetuating The Myth of Religious Intolerance

Denver Archbishop Charles_J._Chaput recently gave a 12 page address to the Canon Law Association of Slovakia titled "Living within the Truth - Religious liberty and Catholic mission in the new order of the world". Basically, Chaput tries to establish the idea that Christians in the US and Europe are victims of intolerance, but I'm still not seeing it. To me it seems like a lengthy whine about not having as much political power and influence as he would like, with his only real argument for why any religious group should be involved in politics at all in the US is that the US (and Europe and presumably anywhere else that's western, proper, predominantly white and Christian) is based on Christan values and indeed owes its very success and ability to flourish to Christianity.

Right. Well, I obviously disagree.

One part of the address specifically caught my attention:

Downplaying the West’s Christian past is sometimes done with the best intentions, from a desire to promote peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society. But more frequently it’s done to marginalize Christians and to neutralize the Church’s public witness.

The Church needs to name and fight this lie. To be a European or an American is to be heir to a profound Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy and art, Roman law, and biblical truth. This synthesis gave rise to the Christian humanism that undergirds all of Western civilization.

On this point, we might remember the German Lutheran scholar and pastor, Dietrich

Bonhoeffer. He wrote these words in the months leading up to his arrest by the Gestapo in 1943: “The unity of the West is not an idea but a historical reality, of which the sole foundation is Christ.”5

Our societies in the West are Christian by birth, and their survival depends on the

endurance of Christian values. Our core principles and political institutions are based, in large measure, on the morality of the Gospel and the Christian vision of man and

government. We are talking here not only about Christian theology or religious ideas. We are talking about the moorings of our societies -- representative government and the separation of powers; freedom of religion and conscience; and most importantly, the dignity of the human person.

This truth about the essential unity of the West has a corollary, as Bonhoeffer also

observed: Take away Christ and you remove the only reliable foundation for our values, institutions and way of life.

That means we cannot dispense with our history out of some superficial concern over

offending our non-Christian neighbors. Notwithstanding the chatter of the “new atheists,” there is no risk that Christianity will ever be forced upon people anywhere in the West. The only “confessional states” in the world today are those ruled by Islamist or atheist dictatorships -- regimes that have rejected the Christian West’s belief in individual rights and the balance of powers.

Just a few comments - though so much more can be said.

Claiming that there is no risk that Christianity will ever be forced on anyone in the West is not only a shockingly naive statement, it's blatantly untrue. The only way this statement might be valid is if you were to reduce what would be considered "forcing Christianity" enough to make any given example of Christianity being forced on people not count.

Even if you disregard the seemingly constant issues that are popping up all over the US with prayer in city council meetings and school board meetings and religious displays on government property - an obviously unconstitutional act that I personally would consider examples of low level government officials trying to force religion onto people in a subtle, non physical way - there are even more blatant examples of Christians forcing Christianity on people to be found. A recent situation that pops to mind is the Christian concert that was put on in Virginia where soldiers had the "choice" of either attending the concert or going back to their bunks and cleaning for hours. I'm curious as to how that might be considered not forcing Christianity on someone? Is it because there was technically a choice involved?

Also, are there really atheist dictators alive and kicking today, forcing godlessness on their people? Where are they? What are they doing in the name of atheism that is so terrible? Why have I not heard of this before from the literally hundreds of theists I've debated in the past few years? I'm not saying they don't exist, but it is suspicious to me that this is the first time I've heard of them and that no specific examples of these dictators were given.

Last, I find it interesting that the author feels comfortable claiming that both regions are based off of Christianity - or rather "profound Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy and art, Roman law, and biblical truth." He seems to be fine with admitting that our society is not a direct product of one influence, but rather a kind of synthesis of three different influences. Again, this seems short sighted to me. Why only go back that far? What about those influences that helped shape Rome and Greece? Seemingly the only reason that those influences are less important is because the time when Greece, Rome, and the rise of Christianity intercept one another is about how far back Chaput had to go in order to make his point, but if we're going to reach back to the ancient romans to establish what our modern societies are founded in, what's to stop anyone from going back even further than that? Can't I equally claim that US and Europe was built on a foundation that began with Hammurbi's code? Or the Code of Ur-Nammu? Citing the point in history where Christian and Roman ideologies began to intertwine as the foundation of western civilization seems more like convenient historical cherry picking in order to perpetuate an agenda than anything.

I don't mean to downplay the influence Christianity has had in western civilization, it obviously has influenced our societies quite a bit. However, at least in countries where there is some kind of provision for church/state separation, that does not in any way stand as justification for allowing religious groups - Catholic or anyone else - to politicize their religion.

It would seem Chaput's main point is that we somehow owe Christianity for a lot of good things, therefore not allowing Christianity to have a position of political influence and power is tantamount to religious intolerance.

I just don't agree with that sentiment at all.

(thanks to Religion Clause for the link)

Sit Back and Watch Them Eat Each Other

This hardly seems fair, though it in no way surprises me. Christians in particular often express feelings of discrimination or persecution, which in some cases is valid, but it seems that often they're discriminating and persecuting one another.

Differences in religious belief and biblical interpretation have led a Corona Christian school to dismiss four teachers and seven other employees.

The move spurred some parents to pull their children out of the school and others to defend what they see as a move to protect their kids from spiritually harmful influences.

Most of the fired employees belong to the Catholic Church, which has key teachings that conflict with those of the conservative evangelical Crossroads Christian Schools and the adjacent Crossroads Christian Church, which with about 8,000 members is among the Inland area's largest churches.

Last year, the preschool-through-ninth-grade school -- the school is adding 10th grade this year -- came under the umbrella of the church after about a decade of autonomy. That spurred a closer evaluation of the religious beliefs of the now-dismissed employees, who had been with the school for as long as 22 years, said Beth Frobisher, superintendent of the 583-pupil school.

"How can the school be a ministry of the church if what is spoken and taught into the hearts of the children isn't consistent with what is taught in the church?" Frobisher asked.

It's clear that this guy is alluding to some issue where the kids are being taught things that go against the beliefs of the church. So, how many complaints to that end have their been?

Long [executive pastor of the church] said he had never heard of any complaints of Catholic or other non-evangelical beliefs being introduced into the classroom.

Well, if that's true, it begs the question - is this apparent religious discrimination legal? It would seem that isn't too clear either.

Experts disagree on whether the dismissals were legal. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine's law school, said federal and state law prohibit religious-belief requirements in schools, even if, as at Crossroads, religion is infused throughout the entire curricula. The only exception is religious-education classes.

"They can specify they have to teach the subjects in a certain way," Chemerinsky said. "But they cannot discriminate in employment based upon religion. But Thomas Cathey, director of legal/legislative issues for the Colorado-based Association of Christian Schools International, to which Crossroads belongs, said the school falls under a religious-institution exemption in federal law and has a right to hire and fire employees whose religious beliefs aren't in sync with its own.

So I guess my next question is, why did they hire Catholics in the first place? Why is this coming up now?

When hired, employees signed a "statement of faith" that summarizes Crossroads' beliefs. Several fired employees said they saw nothing in the statement they disagreed with. But Crossroads believes that the employees "weren't living out" the statement, Booher said.

The church opened the school in 1979. About 10 years ago, the school became independent of the church. The school did not strictly enforce its rules on employees' religious beliefs and practices until the 2009-10 academic year, after it became a ministry of the church.

"We decided, 'Let's get back to what we always said we believed in,' " said the Rev. Mike Long, executive pastor of the church.

Admittedly, religious groups opting to go backwards seems to be a pretty typical theme.

Booher and Long arrived at Crossroads in 2007. Frobisher became superintendent a year later.

In summer 2009, 12 of about 140 employees were deemed to not be aligned with the statement of faith and Crossroads' teachings. Four were teachers. Others held positions such as teacher aide, after-school playground supervisor and accounting employee.

Employees were first told in August 2009 of the school's closer relationship with the church and a requirement that they attend a "Bible-believing church."

Some employees were unclear about what the new rules meant, and early this year, church and school leaders held meetings that discussed the requirements more explicitly, including a definition of a Bible-believing church as a born-again, Protestant evangelical church. Most employees were allowed to finish the school year.

Former kindergarten teacher Sue Fitzgerald, 55, said she suspected in August that church and school officials were planning to dismiss her and other Catholic employees but she hoped they would eventually change their minds because of her 14 years there. She realized at a January meeting that she would lose her job, she said.

Fitzgerald and other fired employees say they're having a tough time finding new positions. Fitzgerald said she had planned to work at Crossroads until she retired.

"I just loved the sense of family, or what I thought was family," she said.

But Ms. Fitzgerald, it looks like you might be able to get your job back yet -

One teacher who had been raised Lutheran was rehired for the new school year after she underwent a full-immersion baptism, Long said. She now attends Crossroads.

The message this school is sending seems clear - we no longer want diversity of thought. We want our brand of Christan. Considering their brand of Christan seems to be the kind that can rationalize firing a 14 years employed, 55 year old employee at a time when unemployment in incredibly high, I'd be interested to see exactly what Christ these people have decided to worship and emulate.

I'd love to ask the people who run this school how they feel being a minority religious belief. I guarantee, in that case, suddenly those Catholics would be perfectly Christian enough to count.

You Gotta Fight - For Your Right - To Maaaaaaaarry Children. What?

I know, I know, I live in the Seattle area, typically vote Democrat or even *gasp* third party, I was a vegetarian for a while, I'm a proponent for gay rights AND I'm against child marriage. I'm a walking progressive stereotype. Well one man is fighting the good fight so that skeevy old Muslims everywhere can marry kids in the name of their religion. Thank Mighty Atheismo there's someone out there willing to speak up for traditional religious values and traditional religious marriage.

Nigerian group slams trial of senator over child marriage

ABUJA — A Nigerian Islamic group on Tuesday challenged a suit filed by a government agency against a senator, Ahmed Sani Yerima, under fire over his marriage to a 13-year-old Egyptian girl.

The Registered Trustees of Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria is seeking an order of the Federal High Court to restrain any government agency from interfering with the rights of the senator.

Defendants in the suit are the government-backed National Human Rights Commission, National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons (NAPTIP), and senate president and the speaker of the lower house of parliament.

Investigators of NAPTIP last May questioned Yerima, ex-governor of Muslim-dominated northwest Zamfara State, over the marriage.

Yerima, 49, who provided investigators with an affidavit of marriage from the Sharia Court of Appeal in Abuja, slammed the Nigerian Child Rights Act of 2003 which he said "must have been enacted in error".

The lawmaker said that he and his government had rejected the law -- which forbids marriage to anyone under 18 -- when he was governor between 1999 and 2007.

The Islamic body is seeking court declaration that Yerima's rights to privacy and practise his religion have been violated.

"We are saying that the honourable senator, as a Nigerian, fundamentally as a muslim, (that) the constitution guarantees him the right to practise his religion... the way and manner it is prescribed," the body's lawyer, Etigwe Uwa, told journalists after a court session on Tuesday.

"His religion allows him to marry four wives without restriction on age," he said.

Uwa said the section of the Child Rights Act which forbids marriage of a girl under the age of 18 contravenes the country's constitution which guarantees citizen's rights to practise his religion.

Uwa said a Muslim has the liberty to "even marry a child in the womb of her mother."

Judge Adamu Bello adjourned the case till October 21.

The Nigerian Senate has ordered a probe after the national rights watchdog.

Media reports have alleged Yerima paid a 100,000-dollar dowry before marrying the girl.

He faces 500,000 naira (3,270 dollars, 2,680 euros) fine or five years jail term, or both on conviction, NAPTIP officials said.

This freedom of religion bullshit is getting out of control. No. Your freedom of religion does not make it OK for you to marry children. Not in the womb, not when they're 13, not ever. Freedom of religion does not trump basic human rights, and I think the right for a kid to grow up before being bought and made to be some gross old man's wife is pretty fundamental. Now, before all you Jesus lovers start in on how terrible Muslims are and how this very behavior discredits their religion (but not yours) - how is this any different than the Catholic church trying to avoid legal responsibility for the child abuse scandal? I would say moving those priests around and pressuring the kids not to say anything and, oh yeah, trying to seek immunity from being held legally responsible for the abuse in the US is pretty similar to a guy wanting the religious freedom to marry a child. In fact, I'd say the Muslim has more balls because at least he's being open about it.

And that seems to be the Christians main issue with the Muslims. Their tenacity. Their transparency. They have no shame in the archaic and socially reprehensible demands of their religion. Christians are sneaky and two faced about their desire for special treatment. The fundamental ones, like the Phelps, seem to come the closest to real faith and belief and adherence to Christianity as it's written in the supposedly holy book and everyone else dislikes it because it's ugly and cruel. That's what religion is. Religion is the good and the worthless, the saved and the damned, the chosen and the cast offs. It's not hugathons and canned food drives and feeling all high on Jesus at Christmas and Easter, it's segregation, slavery, rape, torture, and simplistic caste system of the ones who are righteous and everyone else, who is essentially kindling for the endless fires of hell.

That's why we need to stop regarding freedom of religion as some greater or more sacred freedom than everything else. Freedom of religion does not mean that Christians have the right to discriminate against gays. Freedom of religion does not give adults the right to be child molesters. Religious rights do not trump other rights and it's time we rational, logical, socially responsible people stopped being afraid of the inevitable social backlash and started making some real noise in saying so.

Louis CK Calls The Pope A Pedophile

I love me some Louis CK, and his comments about the pope are hilarious and pretty spot on. I love how he slips the comments in at the end of the interview, just got get a bit more exposure on the show.

Link to the clip.

Here's another hilarious video with Louis CK learning more about the Catholic church. Not safe for work.



Cue Bill Donohue's indignant outraged in 3...2...1...

Correlation, Causation, Tap Water, and the Power of Folklore

If I am brushing my teeth and my stomach begins to ache, would it be logical for me to assume that brushing one's teeth causes stomach aches? Of course not. Logically, it's important to remember that correlation does not imply causation.

Sometimes it's easy to spot when someone is confusing these two concepts, but it seems like when it comes to religion, suddenly correlation proves causation and if you don't believe it then you're just too closed-minded to see it.

This story - let's just cut to the chase and say that I'm too closed-minded to see it. :)

Hundreds of people have flocked to a remote Territory community in search of healing after news a woman had been cured by "holy" water from a miracle tap.

Hermannsburg precinct manager Heidi Williams said people had come from up to 500km away to access the tap, often loading up 44 gallon drums with water.

The water has even been taken to people who are being treated in Adelaide hospitals.

"Everyone's talking about the holy water," Ms Williams said. "The local people have just been coming here in droves, filling up bottles, all from one lady's claim of it healing her."

Healed her how you ask? They never really say, they just say she claimed to be healed after she drank from the tap on the side of a Lutheran church. The reason people believe her, or rather care very little about her personal story but are still making a big fuss about the event, all started with a Virgin Mary sighting in the area almost 29 years ago. That evidently primed the locals for the big magic spring to-do of '95, and almost a predictably 15 years later we have lady drinking off the tap and getting better from some illness no one cares to specify.

Locals believe the tap could create the same hysteria as a "holy spring" that emerged in the Catholic community of Santa Teresa about 15 years ago.

The spring appeared after an art teacher, a white woman of very strong faith, took Aboriginal women on a pilgrimage to the small village of Medjugorje, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the Virgin Mary supposedly appeared in 1981.

The Aboriginal women returned to Santa Teresa filled with powerful belief.

Soon after, the son of one Aboriginal pilgrim was walking outside his Territory town when he saw a spring gushing from a hillside. The women declared the spring holy and a crosswas erected.

Yep. She drank some water, felt better, therefore the water made her feel better and it's a miracle.

Miracles sure seem like a bit of a dollar store item these days.

European Christian Stock Index Launched - Jesus Annoyed

Well, this is pretty interesting...

The STOXX Europe Christian Index, which comprises 533 European companies dovetailing Christian values, was launched Monday, echoing surging demand for ethical stocks, the Financial Times reported Monday.

Available in price and net return versions, and calculated in euros and US dollars, the STOXX Europe Christian Index is a new benchmark among all stocks in the STOXX Europe 600 Index set up by STOXX, a global index provider.

"With the launch of the STOXX Europe Christian Index, STOXX acknowledges the growing number of Christian market participants who wish to invest in accordance with their religious beliefs," said Hartmut Graf, chief executive officer of STOXX Ltd, while expressing the motive behind the move.

Evidently, companies are excluded if they profit from porn, weapons, tobacco, birth control or gambling. The companies who are allowed to participate are screened by a committee that includes Vatican reps.

I guess it just seems weird to me that businesses are banding together because of their common belief in Christianity - needles and camels and all that.

In fact, wouldn't the Christian thing to do be to convince those business owners to give their wealth to the poor and disenfranchised? I'd like to know when Christians decided that Jesus may have walked among the lepers in his lifetime, but were he alive today he would certainly afford himself a big house, nice cars, an ipod, etc. etc. etc.

Though I am assuming quite a bit - if I'm wrong and all of the approved companies are run the way Jesus would run them, I'd love to know.

Bruise-Gate 2010!

Ash Wednesday is serious business.

On Wednesday, VP Biden was seen on TV with some shit sacred Jesus ash on his forehead. The newscaster, Kay Burley (I have no idea who this lady is, but now I know a lot of people in the UK seem to hate her), mistook the mark for a bruise and commented on it as such. As soon as it was pointed out to her that it was Ash Wednesday, she laughed and apologized, saying 'I've said three Hail Marys, everything is going to be fine.'

Haha, case closed right?

Nooooooooo way in hell. It would seem some religious people can't pass up a pearl clutching moment of righteous indignation. I wanted to share a few comments I found while reading about this story online:

***

What rock did she crawl out from under? She obviously does not practice any type of religion. She sounds like an idiot that did not do her research. I find it amazing she is a presenter. She needs to back to school and learn a few things.

***

If this deeply insulting ignorance had involved more sensitive religions this presenter would have been in far more trouble. Dismissing religion as a bit of a joke ('I've said my Hail Marys'!) is unacceptable.....

***

Why should Christians have to put up with this constant belittling of our faith? You know if it had been a Muslim there would have been an outcry.

***

I Don't Biden should even get the ashes. HE IS PRO ABORTION makes Him A Two Face XXXXXXguxxkxlcdccvkclgc

***

This insensitive and ignorant so called news media person, should be fired on the spot. Her ignorance and contempt for Mr Bidens religion, is indicative of a person with limited knowledge and ability to be a news media person.

Is this the kind of individual "Sky New" wants on their payroll?

***

Let's not forget that the "catholic" Mr. Biden believes in killing innocent babies and allowing homosexuals to marry. It's an embarassment to good catholics to have him and other "cafetera catholics" lumped together in the public's mind. Yes, all men are sinners but those who publicly disavow strict teachings of their church should not be shown any sympathy.

***

It is sad to hear someone who calls herself a Catholic, said such disrespectful comment, made a joke about someone's accidental death. Anyhow, we are sinners ourselves; we can not judge her, only God can.

***

Ahhh yes. I believe the smudging ashes on the face practice is way more common in the US than in the UK, so it makes sense the newscaster wouldn't see a mark on a guy's face and think - That looks like a bruise, but I wonder if that's actually some kind of religious symbolism?

Pope: Bigotry is a Form of Religious Freedom!

So, again, the pope is an asshole.

He's now urging clergy in the UK and Wales to oppose an equality bill currently making it's way through Parliament. No, not just oppose - fight with "missionary zeal".

The Pope told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: "Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society.

"Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

That's right, kids! The pope is all for equality, as long as the rights of religious institutions are made paramount. Essentially, everyone IS equal...equally less important than the church and the religiously motivated bigotry the church stands for.

Senior parliamentary officer Jonathan Finney had it right when he said:

"People should not be denied access to services and employment purely because they are gay. We've got to guard against sweeping exemptions seeming to protect one person's freedom, which actually really impact on other people's. What you can't start doing is saying that religious people have hard-won freedoms, we'll now restrict those, we won't give them to gay people, we won't give them to women."

My question is this - does the pope really want to draw parallels between bigotry and religion? Personally, I don't think the bible requires any help in proving that religion promotes bigotry but I have to wonder what the hell the pope is thinking trying to thinly mask his opposition to this equality bill as some kind of crusade for religious rights.

No, guys, you can't force your religious beliefs on others by demanding that rules ought not to apply to you because you interpret your book to say that they shouldn't. Your archaic religious beliefs - masqueraded as 'rights' in this instance because it suits your purpose - do not trump the rights of everyone else.

The Folly Of Perception Equaling Reality

I used to work for a terrible shoe company that made terrible shoes. It was one of those trust fund companies that the current owner, a soft handed spoiled kid turned hapless old man, had inherited from his hard working father. He ran the company with the help of his useless hag of a wife who was more interested in looking up to date than doing any work and they tried to make their way by making knock off shoes which they failed to market as cutting edge and trendy. The theme of this horrible company was "perception is reality."

"Perception is reality" is a statement which attempts to assert that reality only exists in the perceptions of one's self and others. In the shoe making business this meant that we were to sell an inferior product that was a knock off of something else as if it were the best shoe ever made in the history of mankind, because if we could affect the perception of people regarding the shoe, the reality of the shoe would be altered.

The problem with this idea is that only the willfully stupid, truly stupid, or painfully stupid are actually impressed by this notion. I think some religious people fall into each category, but it's painfully stupid people that I feel are the most destructive. The painfully stupid are people who are vain to a fault. People who are easily manipulated into following something, buying something, or believing in something because they want the positive image that's associated with it. Painfully stupid people buy crappy knock off boots because Perez Hilton mentioned them in passing once. Painfully stupid people believe in religions because they want to be rich, powerful, and/or respected - it can be one or all three of those or something else, but the main motivation for painfully stupid people to be religious and especially overtly religious boils down to perception.

These people act in ways that hold true to their perception of how a good person should act instead of just...being a good person. That's the difference between reality and perception. 'He seemed like a good guy' is the positive perception of countless neighbors living next to rapists and murderers across the country, you read about that in the news all the time. Being a good person is different that being perceived as a good person because when you are good, that's reality. When you seem good, that's perception. If we allow reality to be confused with perception, bad things often happen. For instance, perception is reality has ruled the Catholic church for a very long time and now we have thousands of cases of molestation, abuse, and misconduct coming to light because people who were perceived as being pious and good were in actuality creepy old drunk uncle types.

Perception is not reality. In simplest terms - if perception were reality, then reality wouldn't be called reality, it would be referred to as perception. Perception is our own personal take on reality - it's what you get when you have to deal with reality plus human emotions plus complex cognitive ability. Just like I shake my head in pity when I see an over-tanned, under-fed party girl wearing knock off shoes like they're Hollywood itself, I feel terrible for people who are religious for the sake of perception.

Scalia, Catholic, Contradicts Fellow Justice To Protect His Own

Last year in May, the Connecticut Supreme Court granted the request of four newspapers for the release of over 12,000 pages pertaining to a group of 23 cases which alleged sexual abuse by the Roman Catholic clergy which were settled out of court in 2001. The Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocese requested a stay with the intention of asking for an extended stay from the US supreme court, which was granted.

Initially the Diocese petitioned Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and she declined the request for an extended stay. So what did the Diocese do next? They asked another judge, a judge who also happens to be a conservative and devout Catholic, Justice Antonin Scalia and he decided the entire court should consider the case, effectively granting them a short reprieve from releasing the records until the court case is considered at the end of September.

The reaction to this obviously biased action was not shocking:

"The appeal to the court's most stridently Catholic member, whose son is a priest, smacks of desperation and favoritism," said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

So why does the church want to fight so hard to keep the records from being released? Any reason beyond the obvious embarrassment of having their already well-known (and evidently accepted among the Catholic community) actions being made glaringly public? Well, the Catholic church protects their own.

The records have been under seal since the diocese settled the cases in 2001. They could provide details on how retired New York Cardinal Edward Egan handled the allegations when he was bishop in Bridgeport from 1988 to 2000.

It shouldn't be upsetting or even surprising to see religious figures in positions of power helping out their fellow sect-specific theists, regardless of the integrity of the position they hold, but I still find this disappointing. The Catholic church is guilty of willfully protecting pedophile priests for years, they've made no real apologies for this, and they're still only interested in covering their own asses. Disgusting.

Pope: Atheists Are Greedy! (Pay No Attention To That Fortune Behind The Curtain)

The pope has laid it out on the line - environmental irresponsibility is inevitable when people stop believing in god:

Experiencing the shared responsibility for creation (Cf. 51), the Church is not only committed to the promotion of the defense of the earth, of water and of air, given by the Creator to everyone, but above all is committed to protect man from the destruction of himself. In fact, "when 'human ecology' is respected in society, environmental ecology also benefits" (ibid). Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where is existence is denied? If the human creature's relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the "final authority," and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.

The funny thing is, anti-environmentalism as far as I've known has largely been a religiously motivated pursuit. Not to mention - the pope is complaining about 'egoistic possession'?

When looking up information about the wealth of the Vatican, there is a very popular quote which pops up over and over which seems to have originated from this article:

The myth of Vatican wealth. “At the Vatican, everything is for sale, in the popular mind,” Allen said. In reality, the Vatican’s annual operating budget is about $260 million. Allen contrasted that to Harvard University, which has an annual operating budget of $1.3 billion.

“ (Harvard) could run five Vaticans every year and still have pocket change left over for an endowed chair,” Allen said, equating the Vatican’s patrimony - all the assets it could sell - to that of a medium-sized Catholic university. Its total patrimony is $770 million. The University of Notre Dame’s endowment is four and a half times greater, he said.

Allen noted that while people often assume a significant monetary value attached to the artwork the Vatican holds, it is not for sale.

Which is to say that the Vatican doesn't have a lot of money because the annual operating budget for Harvard is greater than the annual operating budget for the Vatican. OK, that's interesting, but that doesn't seem to address the actual question which is in regard to the wealth of the Vatican. The last sentence in the quote seems to be the most telling - A large percentage of the Vatican's wealth is found in non-liquid assets. And those don't count, according to Catholic apologists. Well of course you guys don't think that should count, if it did there is no way you could argue that the Catholic church is not worth a staggering amount of money!

Catholics like to say that the wealth of their church is a myth, but it's hard to swallow that story when it's so obviously not the case. A financial statement of the Holy See for fiscal year 2000 states:

For the eighth consecutive year, the operating statement for fiscal year 2000 for the Holy See closes with a net gain of 17.720 billion, equal to $8,516,000 US at the exchange rate at the end of the year of 2,080.89 lire per dollar. The total expenses were 404.378 billion and the total income was 422.098 billion. Compared with the previous fiscal year, the income was more substantial, having increased by 64 billion. As is easily imaginable, the increase in expenses is strictly related to the celebration of the Jubilee Year, which brought with it greater activity, and therefore a greater need for personnel, within the various offices of the Roman Curia and also of the media organs connected with the Holy See.

As the article states, this is less of a gain than what is normally seen because in 2000 the church had a lot more expenditures with their celebrations of the new millennium. That's the church itself - greedy, for-profit, catholic church. The pope as an individual is no better. The pope is allowed the best medical coverage, the poshest of transportation choices, a spectacular living quarters (see right) and everything he may want free of charge. The pope's only argument in defense of his irresponsible comments regarding greed and atheists is that he himself has no concept of greed since he gets everything he wants without having to even consider a paycheck - all the pope has to do is ask and it is there.

I know it's easy to blame us baby eating atheists for all that's wrong with the world and I know it's tempting - we don't have many righteously indignant platforms to hide behind and so we are easy targets when it comes to flinging ridicule. However, Mr. Pope, it would be nice if next time your attack of us was a little less simplistically easy to refute and reject on the basis of bias and projection. Thanks Nazi buddy!

Give Up Yer Aul Sins - Irish Children Explain the Death of Jesus, etc.

From YouTube:

This series, including the original Oscar-nominated short, from Brown Bag Films is based upon the 1960s recordings of young children telling Bible stories in a classroom to their schoolteacher. When a film crew arrives at an inner city Dublin National School to record the children, the result is a warm, funny and spontaneous animated documentary...

These videos are a strange combination of adorable and deplorable. Something about listening to innocent little kids talk about Jesus dying horribly as depicted by charming cartoons is hypnotizing. I like these videos because I feel like a lot of the bible is comprised of content which only a very impressionable and innocent mind could possibly believe in their heart of hearts to be true. It's of little interest to me whether these cartoons were produced with an intention to promote religion in any way, I appreciate the combination of imagery, audio and content regardless.

Perseids, Galileo, Religion, and Torture

Tacoma Atheists recently twittered about the upcoming Perseid meteor shower which in turn got me thinking more about Galileo, science, and atheism.

It was Galileo's curiosity about the heavens that inspired him to refine the telescope and start studying the stars and planets of the night sky. It was in 1610 that he first saw Jupiter and noticed four moons which were orbiting around the planet, which was proof that the Catholic church was wrong about the universe revolving around the Earth.

Galileo wasn't trying to prove anyone wrong, he was simply curious and his curiosity at that time in history was a dangerous thing. Previous to this discovery there had already been several church killings as a response to scientific discovery, including some of Galileo's closest friends. These killings often included barbaric tortures such as driving nails through victim's tongues and burning people alive.

One of the things that saved Galileo's bacon was the fact that he was friends with the pope at that time and was even given permission to write a book with the stipulation that his ideas and the church's ideas be given equal weight. Once the book was published it was decided he failed to maintain equality and in 1632 he was called to Rome by the Catholic Inquisition.

At age 70 he recanted his scientific research and discoveries - undoubtedly out of fear of being horribly tortured - and was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life.

It was only in 1992 - that's 23 years after the moon landing - that the Catholic church admitted that Galileo was right about his (and by extension Copernicus') heliocentric universe. How did they address the torture and anguish their institution was responsible for during the time when Galileo lived? They didn't. In fact there are plenty of other scientists from that era who are still considered wicked and whose writings are still condemned. Did they praise Galileo for being the brilliant scientist that he was, as one of the first men to incorporate empirical research into his work and someone who helped define and understand the universe as it is? No. They attributed his successes to their god, of course.

It would be nice if this negative reaction to scientific discovery were a thing of the past but it's not. Now we don't have people ignorantly rallying against heliocentric ideas, now we have people foaming at the mouth over evolution. Back then it was an affront to the Catholic religion to admit that the earth was not the center of everything. Now, it seems the fact that everything changes on this world - plants, people, the planet itself - and that nothing that you see today is the same as it was and always will be is an affront to religious people across the board. You can cite animal husbandry, aviary speciation, co-evolution of flowers and the unique animals which pollinate them, but it's a waste of breath.

Just recently there was a study where the change of a single gene within two closely related populations of birds has evidently started the process of speciation. This is stuff we can see, we can witness in our lifetime - proof that evolution is the process by which life as we know it came to be yet there are still people who reject it without even trying to understand what it is. Why? A guy in a robe, a lady behind a podium, a smiling soothsayer on TV told them to reject it. That is the power of religion right there.

I often wonder, if given the opportunity, how many of these evolution naysayers would drive nails through our tongues and burn us at the stake if given the oppertunity. It seems like that really is the only way to keep logic from reaching people - make logic punishable by torture and death.