Skepticum

The following excerpt from a job posting from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America sheds light on how organized religious groups secure investment funds, that they subsequently use for expanding their church infrastructure :

MIF provides investment opportunities for ELCA members, congregations, synods and related ministries to earn interest on their financial resources while helping to further the mission and ministry of the Lutheran church. With the invested funds, MIF makes loans to new mission congregations for purchases of land and construction of initial church buildings; established congregations for renovation, expansion and relocation projects; and ELCA-related ministries for capital projects.

Tags: investments, Religion

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

Recent poll calls in Iowa and New Hampshire that were allegedly  critical of Mitt Romney’s faith have resulted in press discussions on whether or not Romney should publicly discuss his allegiance to the Mormon church. The only recipients to have come forth about the calls though, were all on Romney’s payroll.

Controversy aside, the Romney campaign claimed it is unamerican to question a candidate about his religion.

Atheist Christopher Hitchens made the case on Fox News that Romney should not be surprised by questions about his allegiances, and that the least he could do is to discuss the intersection between his church’s authority and law, as well as questions related to the Mormon church’s racist and polygamist past. All of these can potentially have political consequences and Hitchens believes it would be unpatriotic to not touch upon these topics.

As a former resident of the state of Utah, I can say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is highly politically aware and involved. Utah policies are heavily influenced by the Mormon church. However, Utah does not stand alone when it comes to high religious influence in politics. Larger states that get a larger number of ballots, such as Texas are also heavily influenced by their majority religion.

Some have claimed that Romney looks like a leader, however, the emphasis on looks signals to Mormon culture as well. The Mormon church raises its men to look like leaders, as a proselytizing attraction tool. All men who serve missions are taught how to dress, groom, talk, act and behave in the most persuasive ways. Mormon return-missionaries make great sales-men and have a strong reputation in the corporate sales-world.

Looks aside, would Romney be a good leader? Can one who avoids reasonable conversations related to his controversial church be a good leader, in a country where difficult international conversations happen every day?

While I think Romney should answer questions related to how his religion may influence his policies, just as Carey had to answer questions about his take on abortion, I think there is a Christian double standard at play in America. The mainstream Christian candidates are not challenged based on their religion, yet they should be equally questioned, regardless of religious affiliation. By the same token, Romney should expect and answer questions about his religion.

No one should be fooled into thinking that religious organization don’t influence politics, or that religion can be completely eliminated from politics. But just saying my church is just as Christian as yours is not a valid reason to skirt religious questions.

When your church owns the downtown block of Main Street in Salt Lake City you should be expected to answer tough questions. And when your church decrees same-sex couples can’t hold hands on this same Main street block, you may really want to answer how many of your decisions your church may influence. And if you can’t give an answer you may not be a good enough leader.

Tags: atheism, christian, church, Hitchens, Mormon, Politics, Religion, Romney

“A secular country allows for religion to flourish, if it wants to. A secular country allows atheism to flourish if it wants to,” said Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, during a speech at University of Texas at Austin.

Barker is a former evangelical preacher who says he “de-converted” in 1984.

Recently I’ve noticed the term deconversion used to imply a shift away from religious belief to atheism, as well as the synonym expression, “conversion to atheism.”

Historically I’ve associated the term conversion with Christianity. Also, most dictionaries will list conversion in the religious context as, “an experience associated with the definite and decisive adoption of a religion.” (Merriam Webster, Your Dictionary, Wikipedia).

The concept of “decisive adoption” is very important when discussing religious conversion because most religions  have in place a test of faith, by which they identify true conversion. Usually the test of faith encompasses both conviction as well as obedience and practicing of rites (outward expression of faith). Baptism is an essential rite in Christian conversion, for example.

So can one convert to atheism being that it is not a religion, does not require a test of faith, and does not require absolute allegiance to a set of rites? And can one deconvert from atheism?

As many atheists I attribute the supernatural a probability of existing so small that it’s insignificant. Be it a deity or a magical mist the supernatural belongs to fiction books.  I don’t feel the need or pressure to prove my allegiance to atheism. I don’t have to deconvert or convert either. My atheism didn’t come about as a falling away from something else (though some may disagree with me, because they think I fell away from their “true church”). I don’t even have “strong feelings” about my experience that could be attributed to a conversion. If atheism came with mystical experiences it would indeed be a religion. To me being an atheist is about being practical, rational and skeptical.

So I’d say the term conversion to atheism or de-conversion from atheism would only apply as as a way of using familiar rhetoric of religious type to either be sarcastic or to create some commonality in terms when faced with a potentially religious audience. However as an atheist I would stay away from such rhetoric for fear of making my audience believe atheism is a religion. Had the term never been used with a religious connotation and truly mean what its Latin origins described, a move away from something, I would not oppose its accompanying the term atheism. As it is, there’s too much religious baggage behind it to allow it to taint discussion of atheism.

Fun fact, when asking google to define “religious conversion,” those at the Church of Google suggest that we look up “religious conversion and terrorism.”

Tags: atheism, conversion, Religion, rites

In Oct. I reported that Illinois Atheist Rob Sherman and his daughter Dawn filed suit in U.S. District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, that requires state schools to observe a moment of silence each day.

Nov. 14, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman ordered the superintendent of the Illinois State Board of Education not to enforce the act. According to Chicago Tribune:

“Gettleman issued the preliminary injunction Wednesday for District 214, finding that a new statute mandating the pause is too vague and may violate the 1st Amendment.”

The act was criticized as a way to establish prayer into public schools under the guise of “meditation.” Despite lawmakers’ claims the act was not introduced for religious reasons, the name of the act purposefully lists prayer as one of the activities thus legalized.

After yesterday’s judge order, Sherman wittily stated,

“It seems to me that the judge has indicated that this law doesn’t have a prayer.”

Tags: atheism, education, prayer, 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

Quizrocket.com features a religion test that promises to tell you which religion is best suited for you. The test surprised me by asking 3 very interesting questions:

• Gender
• Birth date
• Zip code

I find it very interesting the quiz asked for age but instead of allowing one to enter age it forces a field to fill in birth date. And how would the zip code be relevant outside of the US? I’d say the questions were asked for statistical reasons only, if they weren’t introduced with statements such as, “The search for the right religion can be a long one. How old are you?”

I got even more suspicious when I saw a paid ad on google for this quiz. So I decided to test it out and see if my suspicions were valid.

I didn’t get to see the prescribed religion, but I did get proof for my hypothesis that this quiz is a ploy to collect data for potential proselytizing purposes.

Why else would I be asked to provide name and home address to receive the results of the test?

It’s also very revealing of the subtle, yet aggressive campaigns organized religions employ to increase their tithe paying flock. And the more tithe payers the more money to buy google ads.

Tags: atheism, christian, church, proselytizing, Religion

Since my publishing of a series of “Irreverent Halloween” posts, which started with Take Halloween Back from Christians, my blog scored more pro-Christian comments than atheist comments. I’m not complaining, but the large volume prohibited me from properly answering some of the more interesting statements. So here are the top five jaw-dropping, did-she-just-say-that comments, that are too priceless to not discuss:

1. The demonic testimony:

“demons do exist; I was formerly demon-possessed (no my head didn’t spin around) so I know first hand. If you read the New Testament with an open mind, God will show you that it’s the truth.”

There is nothing more powerful to a Christian than testimony, in this case counter-testimony, as in, god must exist because demons exist, and I know because I was possessed by one.

The unanswered question remains, if god is great, why is he not protecting believers and those in faithful families from possession? All possession stories come out of believing circles. Doctors, scientists and non-believers do not appear to have ever been possessed. What ever could protect this latter group from possession by demons?

That was a rhetorical question…

2. The “atheism is religion” counter-attack:

“From what I read, you find your peace in science, which is your god as well, and your religion. If there was no faith in God, you couldn’t be called an atheist today. Why do you rely so much on science? Isn’t it the science that creates monsters? Isn’t it science that “finds” today a cure for a disease which tomorrow proves to be poison? Science….faith in a religion….it’s all the same to me, when it is brought to fanatism.”

There’s nothing more entertaining than playing a game of get-to-know-you. But unless we’re playing charades I think it’s wise to stay away from telling people that because they find peace in something, it would make that something their god. Lately I’ve been finding peace in playing Wii, does that make Wii my god?

Science is not my god, science is no one’s god. It may be someone’s major preoccupation, but chances are those who respect and understand science don’t attribute supernatural properties to science. Also, I can’t think of any monsters that science created, but I can think of a few created by people. Or rather, people turn their own selves into monsters, and many of these monsters came about as an aftermath of religious fanaticism. It is sad that many hide their choices, good or bad, underneath the umbrela of entities outside of themselves. With a few exceptions most humans are personally responsible for the consequences of their actions, and blaming mom, or dad, or a religion, or lack of a religion does not excuse humans from being accountable.

Also I’m pretty sure Marx said “religion is the opiate of the masses” not science, so science creating poison is a new thing to me. Cures that were cures but then stop working were never cures at all, and whoever claimed they were cures, was either lying or delusional, neither being a commandment of the ‘church of science.’ However, people do lie and suffer from delusions.

3. The “God has a plan” spin:

“It really isn’t like the cartoons- a little devil on one shoulder and God on the other- the Big Guy is all-powerful, He could/will/does take Satan down. He also hardens some hearts so that His purposes might be filled. In the end, I don’t know what His ultimate plan is, I don’t know who “will come to the Father through Christ”, but He has called me to share my story and my beliefs.”

If all other arguments fail, just say, “I don’t know what god’s plan is, but I know he has one.” This statement is usually accompanied by a visual like the cartoon one above. As in, let me explain this to you in a way you’ll get–ah, I know! I’ll use a cartoon metaphor, because an atheist such as you can’t possible get anything more complex than that.

Let me break this news to you, atheists know that the cartoon metaphor presenting the dualism between the devil and the angel is nothing but an illustration for the struggle between good versus evil. We don’t actually take that literally.

4. The pseudo-science argument

“Well the DNA is made of molecules, and evolution says random mutations and natural selection is what put us here. Mutation is nothing more than movement of molecules isnt it not? Random DNA mutation means the DNA encoded itself, now thats akin to accidentally generating a 128 bit encryption algorithm, and simultaneously randomly generating the decryption algorthm. Nobody would believe that can ever happen, yet this is what evolutionsts wants us to believe that DNA encoding and decoding procedures (algorithms) were randomly created.”

This comment was so wickedly bad, I did reply to it the following way:

“When you talk about molecules moving I instantly think of Chris Rock talking about pimped-up rims–”they’re spinnin’, they’re spinnin’…”

I’m also seeing the potential that you’re just making fun of creationists here by impersonating all the inane arguments I’ve ever seen brought against science and evolution. I can’t honestly believe you are serious when you say, “Mutation is nothing more than movement of molecules isnt it not?”

Bad grammar aside, and in case I am wrong, and you are serious, the answer is NO. Genetic mutation is not movement of molecules. It’s not about the rims “spinnin’ and spinnin’.”

“Mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene. Gene mutations occur in two ways: they can be inherited from a parent or acquired during a person’s lifetime. Mutations that are passed from parent to child are called hereditary mutations or germline mutations (because they are present in the egg and sperm cells, which are also called germ cells). This type of mutation is present throughout a person’s life in virtually every cell in the body.”

5. The apocalypse prediction:

“See what evolution is doing to us, this stupid evolution crap is going to be the cause of the end of this world. ONLY GOD KNOWS how people can believe that we came into existence by random movements of molecules.”

Yep, only god knows how some believe mutation comes from random movement of molecules, or how that’s going to lead to the end of the world.

Tags: atheism, creationism, evolution, hell, monsters, Religion, science

The Golden Compass has been a best seller book in the ten years since it was first published, but with the upcoming release of the movie the Golden Compass the Catholic League released a statement to call the book, “atheism for children.” They also claim, “the trilogy, His Dark Materials, [of which Golden Compass is the first book] was written to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism.”

In a Nov. 2 Today interview, Pullman responded,

“I always mistrust people who tell us how we should understand something. They know better than we do what the book means, or what this means, and how we should read it and whether we should read it or not. I don’t think that’s democratic, I prefer to trust the reader.”

What is the main concern of the Catholic League, in Bill Donohue’s words?

If unsuspecting Christian parents take their children to see the movie, they may very well find it engaging and then buy Pullman’s books for Christmas. That’s the problem.

Clearly the problem is with the book, but to stop sales of the book (for Christmas in particular) Donohue wants the movie boycotted. As if censoring one thing would eliminate the existence of the other.

The difference between the two men’s statements is that Donohue wants censorship and Pullman believes in the freedom to read and interpret information as one wishes. Donohue implies parents aren’t able to discern, that boycotting the movies is the right way to stop parents from buying their children the book. Pullman on the other hand trusts that the readers will draw from the book their own learnings. And that’s the difference between censorship and freedom–the former assumes a one-size-fits-all impact of information, plus inability of the audience to self-discern and prescribes formulaic elimination of such information, whereas the latter allows the ability for all to discern on their own accord how, when and why they consume the information.

As for the claims the book is anti-Catholic, Donohue broadcasts his paranoid interpretations once more. The Golden Compass describes a world lead by a a highly politicized church, that has accrued enormous power, which is being used to less than positive ends. Which makes one wonder why “big bad church” rings a bell with Donohue.

However, Pullman distances his book from religious debate and touches on the core ideas in his writing, such as democracy and freedom, as opposed to tyranny.

The qualities that the books celebrate are those such as kindness, love, courage and courtesy too. And intellectual curiosity. All these good things. And the qualities that the books attack are cold-heartedness, tyranny, close-mindedness, cruelty, the things that we all agree are bad things. (…) It doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression.

Tags: atheism, catholic league, catholicism, censhorship, christianity, freedom, Golden Compass, Pullman, Religion

In searching for topics for a Holiday edition of “What Would the Atheist Say?” I happened upon an “atheist Christmas story” from last year. Being that the story has gotten most of the commentary it was going to get, now it makes for a good topic to summarize, especially with the upcoming Winter Holidays knocking on our door.

Possummomma wrote back in January about her daughter’s reaction to a pop-quiz assignment requiring the kids to write an essay on what they wanted for Christmas:

What do I want for Christmas, I want a less assuming teacher. I want a teacher who thinks past the standard “What I want for Christmas…” assignment when she’s aware that three out of her twenty students probably don’t celebrate Christmas. I want a world where my friends will be asked to write essays about how they might use their winter vacay’ to help other people. I want my mom to be healthy again. I want my grandmother to quit smoking. I want my grandfather to quite bugging her about it. But most of all, I want to not get an “F” on this assignment because you get angry with me for saying all of the above. Merry Christmas, Mrs. “X”

Apparently, the teacher gave an A+ to this essay and asked to talk to the student (named here possum#1) after class.

After class, possum#1 said that her teacher told her she couldn’t be an atheist because her “ability to care for others’ feelings isn’t an atheist trait.” and that her “attitude was very Christian.”

As you can imagine the comments poured in on possummomma’s website, and the story was picked up by about.com as well.

Austin Cline at about.com turned the story in an article titled “Caring for Others’ Feelings Not an Atheist Trait?”

Anti-atheist bigotry isn’t just widespread, it’s also very fundamental to how bigots view the world around them. By this I mean that when someone is bigoted against atheists, they are unable to grant any real sympathy or consideration to atheists: they refuse to accept that atheists can be kind, moral, decent, civil human beings. Atheists are barely even human from such perspectives and it really drives home just how destructive religious theism can be.

Of course, more discussion ensued after the publication of the above-mentioned article and Cline got a response from Michael William (”master of none,” who also says, “when you’re Michael Williams every day is a good hair day”), who claimed Cline, “denounces stereotypes of atheists by leaning on stereotypes of Christians in the very first paragraph.”

Aside the fact that I’m thinking Williams is trying to say something else than what he’s saying, and Cline’s first paragraph being the one above, the reader can see that Cline doesn’t mention Christianity specifically in that paragraph. Secondly, Cline notices how subtly Williams implies being an atheist negatively changes behavior:

If it strikes you as bizarre that Michael Williams would assume that the first paragraph is about Christians generally (which suggests that he’s the one with stereotypes about Christians), it gets better. He quickly insists that being an atheist isn’t like being Jewish or black because skin color has no inherent effect on behavior. Well, that’s true, but what Williams misses is that atheism isn’t a philosophy or a religion either and, like skin color, has no inherent effect on behavior. It’s precisely the assumption that atheism prevents people from being moral which drives so much anti-atheist prejudice, but for some reason Williams passes over this.

I’m guessing I’ll be spending a quiet Christmas watching TV and having lots of irreverent thoughts. The most Christian gesture I will do on Christmas will be to try and stay off the roads to not increase the Christmas-induced rates of drunk-driving.

Why Don’t You Blog listed Skepticum on their “10 best blogs on WDYB’s Blogroll.” I truly appreciate the mention, especially because WDYB is on my list of 10 Best Blogs.

I mostly read blogs that challenge me, not only those that I agree with, and the blogs I consistently read make it on my RSS list, which is absolutely the only way to keep up with all of them.

Here’s a list of ten that appear on my RSS list in addition to WDYB, and that I read on a regular basis (I have more than 10 that I subscribe to) :

Atheist Revolution–vjack, doesn’t miss a beat when it comes to atheist topics.

Middle Aged Vampiress Atheist–Vamp DiVerL addresses atheist topics with wit and humor.

Figleaf’s Real Adult Sex– Figleaf discusses sexuality in an educated manner, with a sprinkling of naughty thoughts (or more than a sprinkling sometimes).

The Atheocracy–Jeffrey W Hawks has some of the catchiest headlines in the atheist blogosphere.

Black Sun Journal–BlackSun writes (very well I might add) highly educated and well supported arguments against religious myths without appearing belligerent.

The Jesus Myth–Deals with agnostic and atheist topics not just Christian mythology.

The Jewish Atheist–Alan writes very well thought-through posts on sophisticated religious topics.

Tikkun Olam in Nicaragua–Maddy’s travel log shows us how we can make the world a better place one person at a time.

Five Public Opinions– Arthur shows us that people across the world may think the same, and that all is “best viewed with a brain.”

Dictionopolis in Digitopolis–Ben keeps me smiling with his entertainment news and smart-ass comments (smart-ass in this context is a compliment).

There are many more blogs that grace my rss reader, marketing/seo blogs, international blogs, financial sites, news sites, etc that I subscribe to, but I will keep this list to blogs that feel like they have a person (or more) behind them, rather than a news organization. One more mention, for the “deceased” aesahaettr.com. We miss Mel’s contribution to the blogosphere.

Illinois Atheist Rob Sherman and his daughter Dawn filed suit today in U.S. District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, that requires state schools to observe a moment of silence each day. The act goes into effect next Tuesday as follows:

(105 ILCS 20/1) (from Ch. 122, par. 771)
7 Sec. 1. In each public school classroom the teacher in
8 charge shall may observe a brief period of silence with the
9 participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the
10 opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted
11 as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent
12 prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities
13 of the day.

What I find very interesting in this act is the contradiction between “shall not be conducted as a religious exercise” and in the same sentence “but the opportunity for silent prayer.” If the purpose was indeed to give “silent reflection” the act would state “silent reflection” without references to prayer. Silent reflection could be prayer or daydreaming, or meditation, or sleep… Instead, the Illinois state legislators have chosen to mention prayer both in the title of the act and in the description.

Sherman’s says, “the obvious purpose of the law is to get more prayer into the public school classroom, in clear violation of all three prongs of the “Lemon Test” three-part Supreme Court standard for state/church separation. ” He also claims the sponsors of the act are Senator James Meeks, pastor of Salem Baptist Church, Senator Jacqueline Collins, a minister at Saint Sabina Catholic Church, and Representative LaShawn Ford, member of the Saint Martin de Porris Catholic Church Parish Council and Finance Committee.

According to Sherman his daughter says, “she will not tolerate her education being damaged by having the public school cause her first-period biology class to have ‘more religion, less science.’”

This battle is going to be a hard one for Sherman particularly because of the disclosure stating the reflection period will not be conducted as a religious exercise.

According to Chicago Tribune, “The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois did not sign onto the lawsuit. Spokesman Ed Yohnka declined to explain the reasoning beyond noting the statute’s dual focus on meditation or prayer. A moment of silence during the school day is not legally objectionable, Yohnka said. A moment of prayer is. The legal distinction, however thin, is significant.”

So it appears that the Illinois legislators found a very subtle way to get prayer into public schools, under the umbrella of “reflection.” We can’t object to it because it’s not just prayer, it’s reflection. But what I can’t understand is why isn’t the act called “silent reflection act,” why does it have to specifically name prayer as one of the activities to be done during this reflection period? And what does prayer have to do with the “anticipated activities of the day”? Oh, and here’s another one, why do we need a law to get kids to reflect?

Here is a Sherman interview on the matter:

Dinesh D’Souza wrote today that a “great benefit of Christianity is that it helps us to cope well with suffering and death. ”

Time magazine reported on the case of a woman who suffered a series of tragedies. Her husband was laid off. She had a miscarriage. A month later her first cousin was diagnosed with cancer. Then two hurricanes struck her home town in Florida. Finally, one of her best friends died from a brain tumor. Here is the woman’s reaction: “We’re putting our lives in God’s hands and trusting He has our best interests at heart. I’ve clung to my faith more than ever this year. As a consequence, I haven’t lost my joy.”

Joy under these conditions simply isn’t natural, and that is this woman’s point — only the supernatural can produce enduring joy in the face of life’s tragedies. When we are in pain and feeling hopeless, Christianity raises our spirits. We don’t know why we are in this situation, but we have faith that there is a reason, even if only God knows what it is. Perhaps God is trying to teach us something, or to draw us closer to Him. Christianity also gives us the hope that when someone dies, we will see that person again.

It is heart-breaking to hear one has gone through so much in a short period of time. As D’Souza didn’t link to the Time article he paraphrased I could not verify the story but I will choose to assume it is a true story.

D’Souza uses this story to support the idea that Christianity is great because it helps us [humans?] cope with suffering and death. I will argue below that Christian manifestations of faith are just an expression of human coping mechanisms, and do not prove Christianity as the end all of human need.

So let’s assume the worst happened within a year, and the woman says she hasn’t lost her joy. In this report we don’t have any behavioral indication that she is happy, however D’Souza takes her statement as fact. And because he sees this as fact he adds that “when we are in pain and feeling hopeless, Christianity raises our spirit.”It is myopic though to claim this story as proof for how Christianity may raise one’s spirit. However, a recent study on depression and anxiety showed that people who attended church with a certain frequency and prayed a few times a week suffered less than others from depression and anxiety. BUT:

This benefit disappeared with the most religious patients, the ones who prayed at least once a day and attended church with the most frequency. They actually suffered the highest levels of depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic symptoms, along with kinesiophobia, the fear of movement and reinjury. “In essence, prayer appears to be a very effective pain-coping skill until it is used exclusively and to the exclusion of other active coping strategies,” Edwards says. “There is a time for prayer and there is a time for action.” Duke Magazine, Oct-Nov. 2006

The researchers involved in the study mentioned above also found that meditation and yoga had similar effects as prayer, so it’s not the religion that helps with depression but activities that relieve psychological stressors.

Our body exibits a number of other coping mechanisms in the face of pain and trauma. In cases of stress-related pain or trauma, the body responds with stress-induced analgesia. For example, our brains produce endocannabinoids, a chemical similar to cannabis that doesn’t only have analgesic properties but also helps us forget.

Other studies have shown that in situations of trauma our body also kicks in endorphis, which results in a reduced amount of information the brain stores (also known as memory loss).

“If you’re hit by a car,” Edwards asks, “how productive is it to remember the first sound of crushing or the feeling of a rear wheel breaking an arm and a leg?” Likewise, he says, there’s an evolutionary advantage for women to forget the agony of childbirth: It makes them more willing to endure another pregnancy and pass on their genes. Duke Magazine, Oct-Nov. 2006

D’Souza’s claims on Christianity’s usefulness at diffusing suffering are unsupported and faulty. Christian prayer is just a coping mechanism, one of numerous possible coping mechanisms, and certainly one that may not simply work on its own. Any other religion’s prayers may work just as well, or just as little. Medical intervention may help even more. So by D’Souza’s logic should we call medicine god?

There is one last question I’d like to raise, why did the woman choose the word “joy” to express her emotions? Does not feeling joy imply lack of faith? At the end of reading D’Souza’s post it was this question that preoccupied me most. The response to the tragedy was not, “we are saddened but we’re putting our lives in god’s hands.” I could see that as a potential expression of faith. But no, the answer was “I haven’t lost my joy.” Who was she trying to convince?

When someone sneezes in my vicinity, there is usually a “bless you!” shouted at the same time as my “Gesundheit.”English-speakers may be more used to hearing the sneezing benediction yet wishes of health such as the German “Gesundheit,” are common in European cultures, where the Spanish respond with “salud,” the Finnish with “terveydeksi” and the Romanians with “sanatate.” In Hebrew, Russian and Bulgarian the responses are also health related.

Some Romanians also joke about more than 2 sneezes. They’ll say, “to your health,” to the first 2 sneezes and if a 3rd is released they’ll laugh and say, “the hell with it, you’ve caught a cold!” What’s the point of wishing you health when clearly you’ve caught a cold?

It is unclear how “bless you” came about, but some claim the source is indirectly disease related, yet spread through papal history. According to straightdope.com, the sneezing benediction came about with the ascent of Pope Gregory the Great to papacy:

Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 AD) ascended to the Papacy just in time for the start of the plague (his successor succumbed to it). Gregory (who also invented the ever-popular Gregorian chant) called for litanies, processions and unceasing prayer for God’s help and intercession. Columns marched through the streets chanting, “Kyrie Eleison” (Greek for “Lord have mercy”). When someone sneezed, they were immediately blessed (”God bless you!”) in the hope that they would not subsequently develop the plague. All that prayer apparently worked, judging by how quickly the plague of 590 AD diminished.

Religious associations with sneezing date back to ancient Greece:

Odysseus returns home disguised as a beggar and talks with his waiting wife Penelope. She says to Odysseus, not knowing to whom she speaks, that he will return safely to challenge her suitors. At that moment their son sneezes loudly and Penelope laughs with joy, reassured that it is a sign from the gods. (wikipedia)

The only direct connection between a religious figure and a sneeze benediction can be found in the Islamic Prophetic Traditions, where Muhammad gives guidance:

When one of you sneezes, let him say, ‘Al-hamdu-Lillaah (Praise be to Allaah),’ and let his brother or companion say to him. ‘Yarhamuk Allaah (May Allaah have mercy on you).’ If he says, ‘Yarhamuk-Allaah,’ then let (the sneezer) say, ‘Yahdeekum Allaah wa yuslihu baalakum (May Allaah guide you and rectify your condition).

The atheist most certainly will stay with the secular tradition and wish the sneezer health. I may also recommend the French tradition where for the first sneeze one would say “to your desires,” and for the second, “to your loves.” Who says atheists have to be dry?

This is post 3 in the What Would the Atheist Say (WWAS) series.
Read part 1 and part 2

TechTags Plugin [ religion | Christianity | blessings | gesundheit | islam | atheism ]

Salient has a great post on serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer’s claim that the theory of evolution cheapens life, and how he learn the concept of accountability only through his post-arrest conversion to Christianity:

If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep within acceptable ranges. That’s how I thought, and I have since come to believe that the Lord Jesus is truly God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they’re the only true God.

In 1989 Dahmer was first arrested for sexually assaulting a 13-year old boy, after luring him with the promise of paying for a photo session. During this arrest three psychologists examined Dahmer and agreed he displayed traits of anti-social personality disorder (aka he was a sociopath), he was manipulative, resistant and evasive, and his only remorse was that he should have picked an older victim. They recommended hospitalization and intensive treatment , yet after Dahmer and his lawyer made a persuasive argument that he wanted to “tread the straight and narrow” (notice the religious narrative), and turn his life around he got one-year work release and five years probation, and was released after 10 months. This is where he began his killing, necrophilia and cannibalism in earnest (he had killed before his 1989, and his early victims were yet to be discovered). He was finally brought to trial in 1992 after one of his victims managed to escape. He was convicted to 15 life-terms in prison. In 1994 he was murdered by two of his prison mates.

During this short time between his arrest and death, Dahmer claimed to have found God in prison. All who came in contact with Dahmer agree he was well-spoken and persuasive, common traits in sociopaths, and he does appeared very calm and persuasive during an MSNBC interview.  So did Dahmer convert in earnest, or was it just part of a manipulative ploy? And would his conversion even be relevant to behavioral change?

As I mentioned earlier Dahmer claimed that only through God did he come to a realization of his accountability, and without God there was no accountability. One would be lead to conclude from this statement that before his conversion in prison, he was unaware of God’s saving grace. A quote I presented earlier from his 1989 pedophilia trial shows he was familiar with and did not shy away from employing religious rhetoric. His 1992 trial statements also show he was perfectly aware of the social expectations of God’s grace in time to make one last rhetorical attempt at appearing humbled before his trial ended:

The doctors have told me about my sickness, and now I have some peace. I know how much harm I have caused… Thank God there will be no more harm that I can do. I believe that only the Lord Jesus Christ can save me from my sins…

If we analyze this statement we can see traces of another anti-social trait, focus on self, or the need to feel important by drawing attention to oneself. Despite trying to show he understands he harmed people he makes no specific mention of those he had harmed. He doesn’t even mention his victims through generic terms. He says “I have caused harm,” but to whom he does not say. He shows an inwards focus as he points to his sickness, and he wants to be saved from his sins.

During the MSNBC interview that Salient uses as the centerpiece of the post, Dahmer is once again very centered on his own experience. A Crime Librabry article reviewing the book on Dahmer’s conversion (by Roy Ratcliff who was Dahmer’s spiritual guide) mentions two other instances that show Dahmer preoccupation with drawing attention to himself. Ratcliff mentions Dahmer was upset his lawyer was channeling his meager prison wages to his victims’ families, and also because his prison-mates made it difficult for him to live his faith. So despite his claims he understood he hurt people, and that he had found accountability through God, his actions showed he continued to display anti-social behavior.

Ultimately, whether he believed in evolution or in creation Dahmer was still a sociopath. In fact, that’s the paradox of prison conversion stories–those who do the converting appear to be exclusively concerned with the acceptance of god or Jesus as a path to salvation (just as Dahmer is fixated on one concept and one concept only–accountability to God), not necessarily with remorse, or more importantly, with behavioral change. Christian spiritual guides are focused on the salvation of the soul, which to them has a very short requirements list–sincere acceptance of Jesus as the savior.

It was not the theory of evolution that made Dahmer a sociopath and it was not his conversion to Christianity that stopped him from being one. He stopped killing because he was caught, imprisoned and murdered. And nothing in his public statements between his arrest and death pointed to his comprehension of the value of human life. He talked of his personal salvation, he talked about accountability to God, he talked about taking his urges to torture, rape, kill and rape again too far (as if taking them not-too-far was acceptable). The only believable thing he ever said was that his parents were not to blame. It is irrelevant whether or not he was sincere during his conversion when it comes to his being a dangerous murderer. His conversion just made him a very dangerous Christian.

TechTags Plugin [ religion | Christianity | serial killers | sociopath | evolution | creationism | God | Jesus ]