Skepticum

Chicago Tribune published a list of “10 Things You Might Not Know About Famous Evangelists.”

Some of the ‘things’ are oddities, some of them are plain crazy and corrupted behavior, and some are well known, such as Tammy Faye’s tattooed-on eyebrows and lips (at least I could tell…).

Here are the three that paint a picture of no-common-sense evangelist power-mongery:

1. Zion, a city north of Chicago founded by Scottish evangelist John Alexander Dowie in 1902, at various times banned circuses, theaters, alcohol, gambling, tobacco, pork, politicians, doctors, drugstores, jazz, oysters, chop suey, tan-colored shoes, flirting, dancing, swearing, spitting and whistling on Sunday.

Ouch, imagine not owning a pair of tan-colored shoes. And what was this dude’s problem with doctors and drugstores?

5.  Georgia’s Rev. Creflo Dollar, whose ownership of a Rolls-Royce harks back to the quintessential “prosperity preacher” of the ’70s, Frederick Eikerenkoetter, better-known as Rev. Ike. The now-retired Ike owned a fleet of mink-appointed Rolls-Royces and said,”The best thing you can do for the poor is not to be one of them.”

Yeah, that’s one way of putting it….

8. Oral Roberts’ most famous fundraising effort came in 1987, when he said God would “take me home” if he didn’t raise $8 million for medical scholarships. Less well-known was another life-threatening experience he revealed the same year. Roberts said Satan had entered his bedroom and tried to strangle him, only to be chased away by Roberts’ wife, Evelyn.

I bet he was a feminist too.

Tags: evangelism, Religion

BlackSun commented yesterday on the news that Ga Governor would hold an open call for prayer on the steps of the capitol. The prayer was to be for rain.

“What Sonny Perdue is accomplishing with this (either uber-cynical or mind-bendingly stupid) stunt is the diversion of attention of citizens from their own accountability–for the dunce governor they elected, bad water infrastructure decisions over decades, and for the continued cheating and waste of now-scarce water by Georgians,” writes BlackSun.

In the irreverent anti-religious tradition of Skepticum, let me put a more entertaining spin on this. I’d prefer, instead of boring capitol prayers, that we do an old Eastern European ceremony, that involves skimpily dressed virgins, wet t-shirts and lots of dancing. I’ll admit that religious rituals are more fun than atheism in certain instances, especially when they involve dancing and naked people.

In the Romanian agrarian rite of Paparuda, young women are nude or dressed in rags covered in leaves, and are paraded dancing through the village, while older women throw water on them. This Summer-time rite is meant to function as a fertility ritual to bring about rain and help the crops grow.

What better way than to bring prayer and wet t-shirt contests into one? It would probably provide more entertainment than such a poor excuse for irresponsible entitlement as displayed by Perdue.

Tags: prayer, Religion, ritual

I’ve been following a few recent posts on the not-so recent topic raised by Dawkins in 2006 regarding religion teachings being mentally abusive to children. The Rational Fool writes a very thoughtful post with a focus specifically on the issue of inducing fear in children and Mahendra of An Unquiet Mind gives the perspective of one raised in a Hindu family.

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, however, the perspective that these two posts brought to me is worth exploring–it’s worth exploring the concept of fear in religious education, the implications of family, society and tradition.

Dawkin’s main example of mental abuse in children is the fear-inducing teachings of hell. He says, “the threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental abuse, just as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse.”

The Rational Fool tells a powerful story of his experience growing up under religious-induced fear:

Born into a religious Hindu family, I still remember how the adults used to scare me with dire consequences to deter me from committing minor transgressions. For example, if I attempted to steal a sweetmeat before it was consecrated to the gods, they’d admonish me with, “swami kannakkuthiduvar” [in Tamil]. Translated into English, it literally means, “god will drive a dagger into your eyes”. For major transgressions, there was the ubiquitous threat, “You will go to this horrible, horrible, place called hell”. Occasionally, I too have nightmares of being thrown into a vat full of boiling oil in a scorching desert, with emaciated men and women around me being roasted on the skewers! I shrug off these dreams when I wake up, but not everyone does.

He goes on though to wonder if watching horror movies may have the same effect on children, and if a parent lets a child watch a horror movie, will it be just as scaring as threatening children with hell.

To answer this I would look at the emotion itself. Fear, is a useful feeling, that allowed humans and other creatures the ability to discern danger and flee, fight, hide, or invoke another protective behavior. This emotion has been essential to our evolution.

Emotions though do not function on their own, require a certain behavioral output, or else there would be no channel for the emotion, and the emotion would not be recognized. We recognize fear by its manifestations, most of them physiological, such as cold sweating, heavy breathing, panic, etc.

Scary movies are designed to make people jump out of their skin, and appeal to the large population of thrill-seeking, adrenaline junkies. Children can be easily impressed by these movies but they can also be taught how to behave in situations of fear. So if by some chance your child gets to see a scary movie, I would take it as an opportunity to teach the child about fear. Everyone feels fear but how we react to it is what makes the difference in the long term.

In the religious context the behavior that’s taught in response to fear is religion specific. Thus it’s the behavior that’s the end-goal and fear is a means to that end. Parents don’t only have the ability to instill fear in their children but they also teach the ensuing behavioral rules. For example, a deer will teach its fawn to run when sensing danger. A fawn raised in captivity without learning how to positively employ fear will most probably not survive amongst predators.

So fear in itself has served us good, but as humans we’ve also learned how to employ it to serve less rational and less noble purposes. Despite having the luxury of reason (and ever- increasing science knowledge) to explain certain phenomena to us, we still teach our children to obey through fear. As a kid I was told that if I didn’t behave the boogeyman would get me. When at a very young age I said there was no boogeyman (my folk were laughing too hard during their boogeyman threat so it wasn’t believable to me), I was told the gypsies would take me away. In the religious household the threat takes on religious connotations and it continues to be religious even at an age where the child can understand reason, facts, science.

What’s paradoxical about the attempt of religious folk to control their kids through religious threats is that, “you have to work hard to get kids to believe nonsense. If you’re not desperately selling lies, the work is a lot easier” (Penn Jillette, Parenting Beyond Belief). Jillette’s advice is to “tell your kids the truth as you see it and let the marketplace of ideas work as they grow up.”

That sounds too simple to be that simple. So what do you tell your kid when his friend asked, “Did your grandpa go to heaven when he died?” Julia Sweeney’s answer is, “No we don’t believe in that.”

Before I express my disagreement with Sweeney’s answer, let me tie in another point about culture and its implications in the context of religious fearmongery. Religion, families and cultures are closely connected. From questions of how do I continue belonging to my family after I leave their faith behind, to how will we function as a family if husband and wife have different belief systems, to how the next generation should be educated, all depend on navigating the outside teachings vs. internal reason divide. How do I balance what I’m taught versus what I should believe as an independent rational being?

Some of us want to stick with what we’re taught, regardless of what the world teaches. It is very comforting to think grandpa went to heaven, and it might seem the best way to soothe a child who just lost grandpa. Sweeney chose to give the blunt answer, ” we don’t believe in that.”

Here is where I disagree. Culture is a beautiful thing that keeps us human and connected. There is nothing wrong with telling the child, “some people believe grandpa went to heaven because he was a good man, I do not think he did because there is no heaven. But how you remember grandpa is more important than where he went.” And that’s because I believe family is about the history we share, the experiences we share and the love we share, all that is real between people, not some fabricated fantasy. Saying “we don’t believe in heaven” is assuming the child knows what he believes in, and it’s the same as saying “we believe in heaven” and assuming the child believes.

In conclusion, I believe fearmongery for religious goals is unacceptable, particularly when teaching the impressive minds of children. It’s not fear itself that’s the cause of concern but its psychological and behavioral aftermath can be damaging. There is nothing wrong with navigating fear through cultural conversations but it is very important to not lie to our children, and to give them rational information that they can put to use on their own.

I don’t believe my grandpa is in heaven or hell or anywhere, but he is with me, because he is part of my family, my culture and he made sure I learned science. I don’t think my parents were abusive for letting me watch Michael Jackson’s Thriller, the short movie, which to this day haunts me (mostly because of what Michael Jackson became later in life). I stopped being scared at night by memories of scary movies since that first 1989 night when machine guns were roaring outside our apartment during the Romanian revolution (coup d’etat, or whatever is called today). I learned to fear abuse of power then, and scaring children through purposefully developed religious hell-tales meant to inflict obedience to religious entities is one of those examples of abuse of power.

TechTags Plugin [ religion | atheism | hell | society ]

In the past few years an increasingly vocal group of activists and soldiers have spoken out to dispel the myth that “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Meant to imply that non-belief disappears in the face of adversity to be replaced with religiosity, the concept was used this past summer by Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, who said, Agnostics, atheists and bigots suddenly lose all that when their life is on the line.” The National Guard later clarified Blum’s statement to say the statement was meant to emphasize camaraderie between soldiers of different belief.

During the modern day’s debate which heavily started with a 2005 Good Morning America segment (in which Bill Weih use the expression), atheist military personal came out to say their superiors had made it clear they would not tolerate atheism amidst their ranks. However, officially, atheist, agnostic or no religious preference are all belief options for new recruits for their dog-tag identifications.

Regardless of the inclusiveness of the US Military, does the expression, “there are no atheists in foxholes” stand?

According to professor Ken Pargament (Bowling Green State University), a professor specializing in the psychology of religion and coping, says (as quoted by Newsweek): “If someone is a committed atheist, they’re likely to stay a committed atheist.”

In the days following my post on the United States government’s preference for war rhetoric in public speeches I noticed increased press coverage of the upcoming GI Joe movie. It could not be more appropriate to expand on the war rhetoric discussion than to attempt a look at GI Joe as an icon of what Tom Egelhardt calls the Victory Culture.

In 1945 the film The Story of G.I. Joe was released describing World War II U.S. Infantry experiences. In 1962 the movie inspired the name for the G.I. Joe action figure whose creator, Hasbro creative director Don Levine, originally called a “movable soldier.” “In February 1964, at the American International Toy Fair in New York,
America was introduced to G.I. JOE: ’AMERICA’S MOVABLE FIGHTING MAN.’” (Hasbro.com).

The success of the action figure was probably just a reflection of the American preoccupation with the nation’s military role in the world, the perceived victory in World War II as well as the new found position as a super-power at one end of the axis of the Cold War.

Egelhardt argues that the rise of the U.S. from colony to superpower is due to the culture left over by the colonial triumph over native Americans. Justifying slaughter by revealing the cruelty of the natives, the settlers claimed their triumph and expanded west, or at least that’s the mythology of the Western story. During World War II the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the justification needed for the United States to wipe out Japanese cities. To Egelhardt these two mythologies, the Western story and the World War II story of triumph against outside perpetrators were repeated incessantly within the post World War II years resulting into a very specific concept of American patriotism that permeates American society to this day.

The G.I. Joe example would serve as supporting evidence to this argument. The G.I. Joe rhetoric of war was highly convincing in the context of the “fighting man’s” tales of victory against foreign enemies, which insured the popularity of a series of military action figures. When Hasbro attempted to expand the lines of action figures to include the G.I. NURSE the action girl nurse failed miserably.

During the Vietnam war the popularity of the military action figures decreased at the same pace with the increase in anti-war sentiments. G.I. Joe retired from military services and became an adventurer. “Capturing tigers and gorillas and recovering mummies and golden idols became the order of the day,” according to Hasbro.

In the 1980s Joe changed bylines again and became GI JOE A REAL AMERICAN HERO. This change in narrative coincided with the rhetorical prominence of the Cold War public discourse. For example, NATO references become common in filecard information during this decade. Most of the action figures’ filecard information listed familiarity with “with all NATO and Warsaw Pact light and heavy machine guns” (Complete Guide to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero). Also, in order to recover on the unexpected failure of the victory culture during the Vietnam War, the “mobile strike force” were recruited mostly from Vietnam veterans.

G.I. Joe mythology became effective at willingly indoctrinating its puerile audience who later became today’s adult generation:

Everything I needed to know about geography, world affairs, and US foreign policy was all included in this formulaic show…or so I was led to believe. I learned that the US Special Forces were prepared to intervene across the globe in every terrain and environment imaginable, violence was the preferred (and enjoyable) method to solve problems, and no other fighting force could ever match the strength and wit of the seemingly invincible US military. Watching the show as an adolescent, I had been willingly indoctrinated with all of these jingoistic values. (Christopher Norlund, Imagining Terrorists before Sept. 11: Marvel’s GI Joe Comic Books, 1982-1994).

The belligerent nature of the G.I. Joe culture does appear to have become more prominent in the past 20 years, but not through an increase of military symbolism but rather through a more aggressive rhetoric emphasizing the duty of the American citizen. Just as G.I. Joe is not the movable soldier any more, the U.S. is not waging war against people but rather the message is that of “intervention” or more specifically, “protecting the American people,” and “promoting peace”:

My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people. And that’s your calling, as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful, and so is your Commander-in-Chief. (George W. Bush, Presidential Address, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, June 28, 2005).

Norlund also argues the point of a rhetoric of war based on an instilled “sense of patriotism and duty.” “By portraying Cobra as disingenuous, disloyal, cowardly, and inauthentic, the reader is then predisposed to identify more with the authentic and establishment-tied GI Joe.” Thus the sense of duty is not to wage war but to react in an precoded pattern when faced with a portrayal of good versus evil.

Whether it is a victory culture or indoctrination through belligerent values, the war rhetoric permeates all isles of the great American marketplace, including toy sections, book shelves and Saturday morning cartoons.

Originally posted May 7, 2007 with update on May 12, 2007.

Mel posted on the violence of niceness a few days ago, as a reaction to the PBS documentary “The Mormons.”

What Mel is talking about is the most powerful quote of the documentary, coming from Margaret Toscano:

“That niceness, there’s something, there’s something vicious about niceness that struck me in this [excommunication]. That the niceness covered over the violence of what was being done. Because in fact excommunication is a violent action.”

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmdZTJSFdJY"]

Update, May 12, 2007

There is another section of the documentary that talks about “perfect obedience,” as Judith Freeman says. I tie the concept of perfect obedience and violence of niceness together–the violence comes as a response to perceived un-acted obedience, and then it’s covered with niceness. Anyone who had to visit the bishop’s office for a disobedient act knows what I’m talking about. You are humiliated and then told you are a great person. It is exactly what Toscano talks about. Disobedience is being sought after. Questions about disobedience are asked, even when there is no need for such inquiry.

Freeman exemplifies in the documentary this concept with a polygamy story, where a first wife has to learn to accept taking on a second wife:

“They really did try and make [polygamy] work, because, again, the idea of perfect obedience. You simply can’t say ‘I won’t do this.’ You can’t say that and be a good Mormon.”

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH4Jj0YLt0A"]

For the full documentary, please visit PBS.org.

I happened upon a collection of pictures of Romanian items from Ceausescu’s time and the first years of post-communism in Romania. You can see here everything from communist pins, grade report books, milk bottles and caps, a picture of people standing in line to buy bread and images of TV shows we used to watch. It’s an amazing collection of images.

This is all stuff I grew up with–books I read, cartoons I watched, chocolate I ate, games I played with.  And I doubt any of this stuff got recalled due to safety reasons.  The only recall we experienced was the removal of Ceausescu himself.

CNN reported today one of the victims of yesterday’s Virginia Tech massacre was professor Liviu Librescu. Professor Librescu, a survivor of the Holocaust and professor of Engineering, blocked the door to his classroom in an attempt to allow his students to flee the shooter. He never made it out of that classroom alive. Ironically, April 16, 2007 was Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day).

The engineering department website was displaying an”In Memoriam” today.

The history of Romanian professors being murdered on the grounds of a US University is not new. In 1991, Romanian Historian of Religion Ioan P Culianu (desciple of Mircea Eliade) was shot dead in the University of Chicago Divinity School bathroom.

Thanks to the Wordpress Blog Stats I get to see what searches send me readers. The winning search term of today was:

“We shouldn’t let legal immigrants vote”

If the search had said “voting rights of legal immigrants” or ” legal immigrants vote” I would have believed someone wants to know what voting rights legal immigrants have. But the fact that the search said “we shouldn’t let” makes it pretty clear what the intention of the writer was.

Aside from this asinine searcher, I get quite a few hits on my Ceausescu posts, via “Ceausescu trial” searches. I’m glad to see there are people out there interested in European history (I can’t believe it’s been 18 years since Ceausescu’s execution).

The next most popular search is for my favorite comedian Frank Caliendo impersonating Madden, Bush and others.

For those interested in the Saddam/Ceausescu parallel and if you can read Romanian, you can see video from and about the trial here and read an interesting post here.

The writer of the post, Dragos Tuta says (my free English translations),

The two true believers in stalinism, with similar childhoods and similar roads to power, were judged in similar ways and with the support of similar arguments. They both died violent deaths to the hands of judicial errors [falterings].

Tuta, links to an incomplete transcript of the Ceausescu trial, in Romanian and English translation.

At the end of the Romanian transcript we have a summary of charges (which are missing from the English transcript):

La scurt timp dupa executie, pe postul national de televiziune s-a dat citire urmatorului comunicat:

Luni, 25 decembrie 1989 a avut loc procesul lui Nicolae Ceausescu si al Elenei Ceausescu, in fata Tribunalului Militar Exceptional.

Capete de acuzare:

1. Genocid — peste 60.000 de victime;
2. Subminarea puterii de stat prin organizare de actiuni armate impotriva poporului si a puterii de stat;
3. Infractiunea de distrugere a bunurilor obstesti prin distrugerea si avarierea unor cladiri, explozii in oras etc;
4. Subminarea economiei nationale;
5. Incercarea de a fugi din tara pe baza unor fonduri de peste un miliard de dolari, depuse in banci straine;

Pentru aceste crime grave impotriva poporului roman si a Romaniei, inculpatii Nicolae Ceausescu si Elena Ceausescu au fost condamnati la moarte si confiscarea averii. Sentinta a ramas definitiva si a fost executata.

My free English translation:

Shortly after the execution, the national Romanian TV station broadcast the following statement:

Monday, Dec. 25, 1989 Nicolae Ceausescu and Elena Ceausescu, were judged by an ad hoc Military Tribunal.

They were charged with the following:

1. Genocide—over 60,000 victims
2. Undermining state government by organizing military activities against the people and against state government.
3. Destruction of government buildings by explosions and demolition of city buildings
4. Undermining national economy
5. Attempt to flee the country and tap into funds exceeding 1 billion dollars deposited into foreign banks.

For these serious crimes against the Romanian people and the Romanian Republic, the defendants Nicolae Ceausescu and Elena Ceausescu were sentenced to death, and their estate was confiscated. The sentence is final and was executed.

Parts of the transcript are confirmed by the following video in Romanian with French dubbing and Romanian subtitles.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_NzxCWmjk4]

Feel free to respond in English or Romania… or any other language (I’ll take the liberty to reply in English ).