Jihad

Still settling into new duties. Those bastards are actually making me work!

However, I'm still sneaking onto the tubes to keep an eye on the "conservatives" and jeebnuts, and also to get my daily dose of godlessness. Fortunately, my coworkers are heathens, too, so I'm occasionally able to make fun of god in the course of my daily activities. When I do it at home (as I did the other night), I broke my wife's heart. Again, we were on the brink of divorce. It was because we were talking about wafergate.

PZ Myers almost destroyed my marriage. I'll bet you thought you'd never read that sentence. In fact, I can't imagine that you ever actually thought about it.

So today, rather than try to corral some volunteers to cover our front desk, I decided to see what my favourite jeebnuts at Christian Worldview Network were freaking out about today. It's jihad.

If I understand correctly, jihad means struggle. It specifically applies to the individual Muslim and his or her struggle to stay right with god (and their god is kinda bitchy, so you wanna stay on his sunshiney side). But it is often applied more broadly, to mean the struggle of Islam in the greater world: a holy war, if you will. In my opinion, Islam means submission, so Islam ought to just submit.

But nobody asked me.

But back to the jeebnuts. Here's the crisis, in all its panty-twisting details:

When my husband and I moved to the Memphis area a few years ago, one of the first things on my lengthy “to-do” list was to subscribe to the local daily newspaper, The Commercial Appeal (CA). As an avid reader, I appreciate this quiet, “unplugged” method of staying current on a wide variety of issues and events.

A few weeks ago, I was reading the editorial page; as usual, I looked down for the Bible verse that always appeared in the lower left corner. To my amazement, the Bible verse had been replaced by a verse from the Qu’ran. The following day, a Saturday, a verse from the Talmud was inserted. On Sunday, I was relieved to see the Bible quoted, but I had a suspicion that has proved correct: On Fridays, a Muslim holy day, our local paper now features a verse from the Qu’ran, and on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath (Shabbat), they print a verse from the Talmud.

The horror! What the hell happened? (And what the hell kind of name is that for a newspaper? Kinda puts the focus right out front, without any pretense.)

Although I suspect this is a case of Political Correctness (PC) run amok, I can offer no evidence; multiple emails to the CA Editor, Chris Peck, have remained unanswered. I asked that the CA discontinue printing verses from the Qu’ran. I suggested more careful editing; at least one verse from the Bible and one from the Qu’ran were taken out of context, twisting their meanings beyond recognition. I provided a short list of Qu’aranic verses that reveal awareness of and respect for God’s previous revelations – the Law, the Gospel, and Jesus. Whether these verses that support Judaism and
Christianity will be printed remains to be seen.

Oh, well, if that's all then. I can get back to the Jumble.

Muslims and their PC defenders will tell you there is no cause for concern. They will insist that Allah and the God of the Bible are the same. Numerous verses in the Qu’ran refute that idea, for they describe characteristics of Allah that are opposed to those claimed by God. Although many verses refer to Jesus, Muslims do not believe He was crucified for our sins or that He rose again; neither do they accept that He is our Savior and our God.

Oh. My. God. People from another religion have different beliefs! How the fuck did this get past me? Who's in charge here?

...Perhaps you think that Jihad refers to the internal struggles that Muslims experience as they mature in their faith. However, Jihad also refers to the struggles Muslims are asked to participate in and promote within a much wider arena. According to Mawlana Sayid Abul Ala Mawdudi, an Indian who is regarded as one of Islam’s great scholars:

Islam is not a normal religion like the other religions in the world, and Muslim nations are not like normal nations. Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world. Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is Jihad.

'Cause Christians have always peacefully coexisted with their neoighbours, and would never resort to violence or forcible conversions. Ever. Nor would they ever call for god's law to usurp the laws of man. Hey, kettle? The pot is on line one.

As Americans, we have an obligation and a desire to accept the foreigners in our midst, to demonstrate our values, including freedom, education for all, respect for women, equal treatment under the law, and a clear line between government and religion. Whether Muslims absorb or even appreciate these demonstrations is
unclear. It has been my observance that they prefer to remain apart. In the Memphis area, according to an article in the CA, Muslims are laying the
groundwork for a large complex that will include a mosque, recreational
facilities, and a community center.

Can't even begin to address the hypocrisy here. It's too fucking rich. But at the end, that last sentence? It's too fucking sweet. "In the Memphis area, according to an article in the CA, Muslims are laying the groundwork for a large complex that will include a mosque, recreational facilities, and a community center." Are you kidding me? The fact that they want to build a mosque and community centre is cause for alarm? You know what the C stands for in YMCA?

Thought so. Shut the fuck up, you bigoted bitch.

But the best is yet to come. How does she suggest you defend against the infidels?

More importantly, pray about these issues. We know that only God will be able to change the hearts of those who oppose Him. Nevertheless, we are to be His instruments. Loving our neighbors means doing what is best for them in a gracious manner. If we have Muslim neighbors, let’s do what we can to become acquainted, to help them learn about our values, and to show them Christ in our lives.

Right... Right... Right...

Christian Jihad.

Parenting

Just a quickie on yet another helpful article from Christian Worldview Network:

Apparently, in some cases, you can be the source of your child's anger, for the apostle Paul said: Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4) (emphasis added)

Oh. So long as the apostles say it.

Hello, Captain Obvious? Unnecesary Bible Verse is on line 1.

Hate Speech

I've dealt with this subject before, but it bears another visit, simply because it's so complicated (wonderful turn of phrase, that), and because I have an impetus. Once again, it's the jeebnuts at Christian Worldview Network who provide my blog fodder. From Bill Muehlenberg:

If nothing else, the steady stream of madness and moral decrepitude one encounters on a daily basis at least keeps life interesting. It is hard to stay bored in such an environment. Consider as an example this quite recent news item...

I agree. It's a common thread in my writing. Oh, but you meant liberals. My bad.

...“A Michigan man is seeking millions in compensation from two Christian publishers for emotional distress and mental instability he received from Bible's referring to homosexuality as a sin. Bradley LaShawn Fowler says his constitutional rights were infringed by both Zondervan Publishing Co. and Thomas Nelson Publishing who he claims deliberately caused homosexuals to suffer by misinterpretation of the Bible. Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson. Zondervan has stated that he's suing the wrong party whether his claims are credible or not because the publishing house does not translate the Bible nor do they own the copyright for the translations.”...

Well, he can't very well sue god, can he? I'm conflicted here, because he has a point, as stupid as it is. I've said before that I'm not a fan of censoring anybody, and I'm increasingly uncomfortable with human rights cases, and I've never liked frivolous lawsuits. There's no fucking way this guy should win, even if he does have a small point. And here's that point.

Here's a working definition of hate speech from Canada's criminal code:

Canada's Human Rights Act defines hate speech as speech "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

By this definition, the Old Testament is clearly hate speech. Not just for gays, but for women, a laundry list of other religions and ethnicities (fortunately largely wiped out by the Canaanites, and therefore not around to make complaints to human rights tribunals), for violators of the ten (or so) commandments, and for those who disregard The Law (which, the more you read it, looks more and more like a cosmic game of Simon Says). The New Testament is marginally better, but still not compassionate or understanding, and though Jesus was more sunshine and puppy dogs than Old Testament god, he still says some pretty mean-spirited shit.

The thing about hate speech is that it is a call to action, a means to punish people for differences. It's one thing to say that gay people are breaking god's law. Feel free to say it. The problem is that violating god's law comes with a) a prescripted penalty, usually involving crowds with stones, and b) eternal torment, which c) might cause mental anguish if you actually take that shit seriously.

The Bible clearly exposes people to hatred, contempt and even violence. It's dangerous shit, and anyone who tells you otherwise isn't reading the best parts. And so, the Bible is hate speech.

The problem is that I'm not a big fan of censorship, and while this lawsuit raises some valid concerns and points out that religious texts are texts, and therefore subject to the law (no matter what the jeebnuts might say, and I know what they'd say), the law has very little to say about what you can say. Or at least, it ought to.

But while I agree that the lawsuit is frivolous, wasteful and wrong, I've little else in common with the besieged Christians over at CWN.

There are many responses that come to mind here about this bizarre scenario. Let me mention just a few.

Firstly, this is yet another example of the fact that we live in an overwhelmingly litigious society. We now live in age in which everybody is suing somebody for something. We have gone mad with lawsuits, court cases, tort laws, and all sorts of often unnecessary litigation. The motto seems to be, “Don’t just get angry, get even, and sue the living daylights out of the guy”.

Quite right. You don't have the right to remain unoffended. Suck it up, princess (gay joke intended).

This case is also an example of a world in which rights-talk has gone mad. Everyone everywhere seems to be insisting on this right or that right. There are now rights for everything it seems. And these rights are simply being pulled out of the hat. They never existed before, but people are just making them up as they go along.

Actually, as I've said before, the question has never been what rights are, but who gets them. Clearly the gays don't, we wish women and inferior races didn't, and the damn Papists only get theirs because they were here first. Oh, and though the Jews killed Christ, they're still God's Chosen People, so I guess, maybe, we'll let them have some too.

Perhaps one of the most strange and nefarious rights to come on the scene lately is the right not to be offended. I am not sure where this idea came from. It certainly is not found in any major human rights declarations or national constitutions. But it has become all the rage to expect not be offended by anything or anyone.

You know what they say about a stopped clock? But don't worry, it doesn't last:

But I would have thought that daily life in a fallen world will mean offences will arise all the time. If you are in a hurry, a red light will seem offensive. So should we sue the government for red lights? A Coke lover may be offended by a Pepsi. A Manchester United supporter may be offended by any rival soccer club. A nudist may be offended at clothes. A Hindu may well be offended by the exclusive nature of Christian truth claims.

Or by the exclusive truth claims of any religion, numbnuts. What makes your god so special? And what the hell is this thing about the fallen world. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were indirectly blaming god for letting things go to hell...

The list is endless. But surely turning every offence and grievance into a lawsuit or a court case is not the way to go in a democratic society. Lawyers may love it, but it will soon bankrupt any open society.

And in the past, rights never stood on their own. They were always bundled together with duties, obligations and responsibilities. Any society that demands various rights without corresponding responsibilities is asking for, and getting, trouble.

Again, the jeebnut nails it (though the comment is unrelated to the thesis). But he's about to go off the rails:

This case also illustrates the never-ending set of demands of the radical homosexual lobby. Their agenda is never satisfied, and their grievances are endless. Indeed, this is but another example of how militant homosexuals seek to shut down all public debate about the issue. Instead of allowing for the free flow of ideas and values, they want to shut down any and all opposing viewpoints.

Those damned homos. Why can't they be ashamed of themselves, like all good fags (and every sexually active person, but straight fornicators are a lesser evil. It's the sodomites you've got to watch out for. Let's get those homos back in the closet where they belong, and then we'll get the nasty-fuckers.) I also like the idea of a "radical homosexual lobby". I demand you treat me like a real person! How radical.

They may talk all they like about tolerance and acceptance, but this is all just
one-way traffic. They show very little understanding, acceptance, tolerance or
openness to those who happen to disapprove of the homosexual agenda.

I've always wondered about this homosexual agenda. None of the gay people I've asked (and I've asked a lot) have seen the agenda. My brother thinks he might have missed that meeting.

Finally, this case shows the folly of the various types of legislation which have sprung up around the Western world. I refer to various sorts of equal opportunity laws, discrimination legislation, and the like. These bits of legislation are really designed to stifle debate in general and silence Christians in particular. Hate crime laws are the main example of this, and presumably this is what Mr Fowler from Michigan has in mind.

Yes, we do want to shut the Christians up. We've been outed, guys. Cheese it! The cops! I expect Mr. Fowler just wants Christians to stop telling him he's dirty, an abomination, and going to hell.

Indeed, it is becoming quite commonplace now for homosexual activists to claim the Bible is one big exercise in “hate speech”. Because the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, homosexuals and their supporters are seeking to argue that the Bible should be banned, because it engages in hatred toward homosexuals.

It is. It does. Should it be banned? No.

These trends, taken together, nicely dovetail in what we now see happening, as exemplified by this Michigan case. A world which is losing its moral bearings, forgetting about common sense, and resorting to neo-paganism, becomes a very nice breeding ground for this sort of insanity. The soil has been nicely prepared for these sorts of nutto cases.

Right, because the gays and the Wiccans are in cahoots. Satan is dancing. I wouldn't bandy the word "nutto" about, you nutto.

Indeed, we can only expect to see many more such cases, as long as these
destructive trends are allowed to continue. It really is only a matter of time
before most Western nations fully outlaw the Bible, all in the name of acceptance, tolerance and homosexual rights. Whether that day comes sooner or later really depends on what we do about it. And can I suggest that silence will only hasten that day.

I can't stress this enough: give me a fucking break. You got all of that one, Billy. Hit that paranoia right out of the park.

Is the idea of Christian persecution maybe just projection?

Jesus Hates Fags

I caught this on a clickthrough from Canadian Cynic:

The Search For The Pederast Brain
Scientists are desperate to establish a scientific justification for homosexuality. Public money is being spent. The belief is that if it can be demonstrated that homosexuality is in some way intrinsic rather than chosen, this will normalize and justify it. Proponents of homosexuality are hoping that this will provide a knock-out blow against Christian objections to homosexuality.

It will, of course, do no such thing. Christians understand that, since the Fall, man inherits a corrupt, that is, sinful, nature through Adam. We are born into the world with defective, disordered natures. Put it this way: we are not sinners just because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. Homosexuality will continue to be seen, in this
light, as objectively disordered against the objective standard of male and female which can be seen in nature, and, if you can't see it there, in Scripture. The remedy is not the normalization of sin; it is Christ.

I love the breathtaking arrogance of that last sentence. It is just fucking awesome, in the sense that it fills me with awe.

Of course. Jesus can fix all the gays. All they have to do is accept Jesus into their hearts, and they will no longer be gay. At least their hearts won't be. The naughty bits, as we've seen, remain gay.

This is sustained, and cloaked in a wonderful filmy gauze of compassion. You see, Ball himself loves gays. It's Jesus, you see. The devil has corrupted us all (especially gays), and it's just not natural. Want proof? Check the scripture. The thrust of it is this, unless I misunderstand. We have allowed gay people actual status as people, but that was misguided, and ultimately discriminatory, because we don't allow pedophiles to be people:

Personhood - Gay vs. Pederast
This discriminatory bias of secular society is also seen in the concept of personhood. Clearly, in our society, the terms gay and person have been twinned, to the point where gay is considered the definition of a person, as opposed to simply a descriptive trait associated with a person. (The media never talk about the rights of "men engaging in homosexual activities", it is always about the rights of "gay persons" -- the "gay" identity being stronger than the "male" identity.) The importance of this fact cannot be overstated. It is the foundation of all arguments in favour of homosexuality. And it is the foundation of all that is wrong with these arguments. Christians who understand that God has made us male and female understand that homosexual and gay are, ultimately, false identities. It may be what a person feels, it may define a person's urges, but it is not who a person is. (And that is why, ultimately, catering to these false identities is neither helpful nor kind -- gays are, like us, first and foremost, males; and lesbians, are, like us, first and foremost females. Rather than viewing homosexuals as some class of "other" with rights, we view them as being "ourselves", welcome them and embrace them as such, while holding them to the same moral standards as we hold ourselves.)

He's clear to separate the gay activities from the person, I assume because he's supposed to love the person, but it just makes him sound all weaselly, in my opinion. The phrase "men engaging in homosexual activities" seems all accusatory and discriminatory, even more so than "fag" (IMO). The implication is that a man can deny his homosexual attraction even while accomodating another man's penis. If you are enjoying another man's (or woman's) gear, I'm not saying you're gay, but you're not exactly straight and narrow.

And the phrasing of that last bit is eerie, too, about moral standards. In fact, I do hold gay people to the same moral standards as I hold myself. Where they stick their junk has very little to do with it, so long as everyone consents.

And that's where the argument falls down, Dear Reader, though he does try to accomodate it:

Both Christians and secularists have an understanding of normal, and, from this, right-and-wrong. Secularists find theirs in the amoral idea of adult permissiveness; if two adults are predisposed to do it, and want to do it, how can we say it's wrong? (Especially when we've paid for science that backs us up!) On this basic, they judge homosexuality to be OK, but pederasty not so; Christians, with minds rooted in reason and revelation, have a higher view of humankind, and, because of this, a narrower view of what constitutes a baseline of normal or moral behaviour.

Here's my baseline: consensual acts between adults. I don't care who fucks whom, unless it is me being fucked.

But I'll go one further, and this is where things get sticky, friends and neighbours. I agree that "pederasts" (what an icky word) do not choose their sexuality. And furthermore, I suggest that they warrant pity rather than revulsion. There's no fucking way they chose to be attracted to children, but because we view that "orientation" with such horror, they repress it until they succumb, rather than seeking support. Natasha at Homo Academicus does a much more thorough job of explaining this point, and I am in complete agreement. And his final declaration, that I am the bigoted one, is just fucking gross.

This is a good example of how religion can screw a person up. He sounds all kind and concerned, but he ultimately equates homosexuality with "pederasty", and uses that to validate his bigotry.

His bigotry comes from the Bible, not the science.

I just don't get it.

I don't know where I got this, though I understand it's available through richarddawkins.net:

Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

By Yomin Postelnik Monday, June 9, 2008

One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven on both the simplest and the most complex of levels. By contrast, to make an argument for what is in fact an illogical fallacy, one must use plenty of skill, sophistry and remain beholden to a dogmatic protection of what is really an illogical position.

Yet even after a detailed case is made for the illogical side of the argument, it can instantly be deflated like a balloon with the simplest poke of clear logic. It can also be attacked piece by piece with even greater skill and logic, stemming from a steadfast pursuit of the truth.

Nowhere does the above hold more true than with regard to the existence of a Divine Creator. Proof of a conscious Creator is readily available. The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn’t write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.

The atheist, on the other hand, needs to build a plausible case for this irrational scenario. But first, let’s examine how irrational it is:

No one in their right mind would claim that 10,000 hundred story buildings built themselves from randomness, even over time. Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about.

The rest is very, very long, very, very silly, and very, very wrong.

I was going to heap a little scorn upon it, but my philosophy and theology aren't quite up to snuff, and besides, Martin Wagner took it apart quite neatly over at The Atheist Experience. It's worth a read, if only so you can see what debate about the existence of god is supposed to look like. Further, the original author, Yomin Postelnik, swoops through with a cut and paste from some discussion thread somewhere that I have no desire to read. Knock yourselves out, though. There's another post on Postelnik's drive-by (on which he drives by yet again), and he's taken down a peg again. And then there's some libel. Enjoy.

I want to talk about the basic premise of Postelnik's article, and I'm only going to use it as an example. I've copied his text, but given him credit, and provided a link to the original, so I think I'm safe from plagiarism charges.

But the idea of "irrefutable proof" is what has me gobsmacked.

Why do apologists feel the need to provide proof? Why do they resort to the tools of the "enemy"? What's the matter with them?

The whole point of god is faith. Faith. That means to believe something without evidence. Without proof. And, for modern theists, to believe something despite mounting evidence that you're wrong.

The basic strength, if you wish to call it that, is faith. Proof never once enters into the picture, and god says once or twice in the NT that he will not provide evidence. If you need proof, you're screwed. God's not in the miracle game anymore. (Relevant passages can be found here, at Debunking Christianity.)

So why do they keep smacking their head against the proverbial wall, trying to find evidence for the proverbs so near and dear to their deluded little hearts? As Wagner clearly showed at The Atheist Experience, there's no there there, no whiz in the cheeze, and no sound reason for believing in god. The strength of a secular worldview is the reliance on evidence, on reason, and on verifiable experience. Apologists are whining, because the evidence is on our side, but arguing over evidence denies one of the fundamental characteristics of religious faith.

Why can't they see that? Somebody tell me.

A Letter to Uncle Sam

Canadians have a funny relationship with the US. It's complicated, to say the least. The US is our single largest trading partner, we share the longest undefended border in the world, and American movies and television keep bleeding into our airwaves. As a result, the CRTC enforces rules on the amount of Canadian content our broadcasters must use.

It's not all sunshine and ass-kissing, though. We are critical, very critical, of American foreign policy (some of us not so critical, but most Americans would agree those guys are idiots), and a good deal of your domestic policy. The whole "right to bear arms" thing is baffling to most of us, and the "church and state" thing gets some of us angry. We don't have any such policy, but oddly, we don't have any problems with it, either (except Catholic education, but don't get me started).

We are attracted and repelled at the same time, annoyed and affectionate, comfortable and frightened. The sheer volume of the States is deafening, and we're too close to hear anything else too clearly, so our historical ties to Britain and France mean less than our proximity to the Great Elephant (to borrow an image from Trudeau).

On the whole, though, I want to see the US succeed, flourish and prosper, and I'd like to see my neighbour become a force for good in the world. Unfortunately, though, that train has sailed, and I think the American Empire has met its Endor.

There are several reasons for this, of course, including your soaring debt, your oil dependant culture (ours is no better), your idiotic wars that can't be won, the essential unsustainability of your economic model, the fact that you've consumed most of your resources without regard to the future, the essential fraud of the democratic system (ours, too) and the bitterness of the other 190-odd nations on the planet. The last thing the US needs is another fatal flaw.

But you've found one: biblical inerrancy.

The idea that a single religious text, especially one so riddled with contradictions, is flawless, is a uniquely American idea, and it is eating away at everything from your relations with Middle Eastern countries, to your presidential campaign, to your Constitution. In fact, it is irrevocably tied into all the crises that face your nation, and it's making it worse:

• Climate change looks a lot like the End Times.


• Israel must be protected at all costs.


• Russia is evil.


• China is evil.


• God chooses your president.


• God will provide, so conservation is blasphemous.

It all looks scary up here from the north, and I wish you'd do something about it.

One phenomenon that doesn't affect anyone but you guys, but still strikes me as spectacularly dumb, is the emergence of Creationism (under any guise) in your science classrooms. Why anyone would want to take as truth something that is so clearly allegorical (at best), and handicap your children with nonsense is beyond me. It's another nail in the American coffin, my friends, and you really ought to rethink it. Things are bad enough for your republic, my friends.

There's nothing to be gained from letting god into your science class. Even if he does exist, god's not particularly helpful in predicting the behaviour of the universe. In fact, god makes a habit of fucking up the natural order of things. It's what makes him special, right? That he can change natural law? Not helpful, whether you're plotting the course of a planet or projectile, predicting the behaviour of organisms, or studying why volcanoes blow up.

There are voices of reason, like the New York Times:

The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.

...and you'd do best to listen to them. There are no quick fixes to the Middle East, climate change or peak oil, but you can do something about your children's education with very little pain or effort at all.

The Bible is a religious book. It is not a science text. Just try to remember that.