Get in the Sack for Sept 6, 2009 - Pope Benny

Right now I would take homeopaths and I'd put them in a big sack with psychics, astrologers and priests. And I'd close the top of the sack with string, and I'd hit them all with sticks...And when someone asks the big questions - I don't know what happens after a I die, or what happens when my loved ones die, or how do I stop myself from dying - the big questions and they give you a nice bullshit answer and you say 'Well, do you have any evidence for that? and they say "There's more to life than evidence". Get in the fucking sack.

-Dara O'Brian

It's almost embarrassing to read the ongoing debate between atheists and theists sometimes these days. The extent of ridiculous hyperbole sometimes makes my brain hurt to the point where my ears nearly bleed. This is especially true of statements may by some theists, particularly those of the fundamentalist Christian variety, about what atheism is and what it means.

Take Eddie Snipes, a writer for the Examiner, whose four-part series of articles on evolution is maybe the staggeringly display of mind numbing stupidity I have read in a while. His description of Charles Darwin, the theory of evolution, genetics and atheists is so twisted that when I read it I thought I had slipped into a parallel reality where words had totally different meanings. Consider this gem from this series called "Natural Selection - Atheism Trojan Horse." (oh and please note he hasn't discussed natural selection that remotely reflects science and appears to not have any real clue what the Trojan Horse is or what it is a metaphor of.):

The evolutionary theory was born out of a desire to provide an explanation of the origin of life without a Creator. Since the goal is to distance themselves from God, disproving the argument will never change the mind of an atheist. Their primary goal is to remove God so when one argument fails, an alternative version is formed. Let me also clarify that many call themselves atheists because they have only been exposed to the crafty arguments of atheism and are not aware that the evidence contradicts the doctrines of atheism and agrees with the scriptures.

When I refer to atheism I am assuming that the reader understands that I am referring to those who are in rejection of the truth and will not be persuaded in the face of any evidence. Many will be open to the truth of scripture when they realize that they have been hoodwinked by the one-sided propaganda that is being passed off as reason and free thought.

To point out everything that is wrong with these two paragraphs would take an essay in and of itself. Just discussing how Darwin's studies that resulted in the theory of evolution by natural selection was a justification to prove "atheism" and reject "the truth" could fill an entire university paper. The fact is that, despite what Eddie and others might say, Darwin did not set out to disprove theism any more than astronomers set out to disprove Bigfoot. Darwin, like all good scientists worked within the scientific method that seeks natural explanations for natural phenomenon. And if you think "god did it" works as a scientific explanation, consider how happy would be if that was your doctor's explanation for why contracted a serious illness, gave you a prayer book and sent you on your way. Antibotics are for the heathens!

However painful it would be to read all of Eddie's postings and tear them down here to put him in the sack, there appeared a far worthy subject who makes Eddie's musings on atheism seem like the zenith of intellectual activity by comparison. The present Pope of the Catholic Church.

Now, truthfully, one expects more from a pope than the level of mental knuckle dragging found in some corners of the Examiner. After all, Pope Benedict is a well educated man, leading a church that is well over a thousand years old. But alas, that appears to be much to hope for.

One of the more pitiful theist arguments is what is sometimes called the moral argument for god. I have dealt with this a few times on the Handbook, so I won't get into a full discussion here. But the argument basically says that because there are morals, there must be a god. The low brow version of this argument says "if you don't believe in god, you are an unethical, evil schmuck." Essentially the idea here is that if you reject believe in a god (usually this means a specific god like Jesus.) then you are only left with your pitiful, evil, useless human mind and emotions to sort out what is right and wrong. So corrupt are we as a species that if we did not have a Bible or Koran we would simply run about killing and raping each other at will....and probably would not regard said killing or raping as particularly bad.

As Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens often point out, however, the person who says they would be a wanton killer without the 10 Commandants has revealed more about themselves than the content of a holy book. The fact of the matter is that religion or a belief in a god is not a requirement for moral or ethical action and, indeed, as I have pointed out before, theistic concepts of good and evil in the context of a all power god are, at best muddy.

However, the usual "whats to stop you from raping people if you don't believe in god" got an original, if just as stupid, spin recently thanks to the Pope.

During a recent speech, the Pope declared that environmental damage caused by humans is the fault of - wait for it - ATHEISM!!!!

Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? If the human creature's relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the ‘final authority,’ and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.

That's right folks - unless you believe in the Christian god and the Catholic church you are unable to figure out that running about and torching rain forests or making gorrila vests is a bad thing.

The hilarious part of this is that Christian environmentalism - that is environmentalism that uses the Bible as its principle justification - is a relatively new thing and is largely found not in Catholic circles but in emerging evangelical moments in the United States (which has caused an rift within the American evangelical communities). The first line of that paragraph is more reflective of the changing moral zeitgeist than it is of what a sky god apparently wants or the moral failings of non-theists.

For most of the history of the Christian faith, proper treatment of the environment was simply not a question. Well, why would it? It wasn't really a question for anyone was it? The environmental movement, as we have it today, doesn't get going until the 1970s.

So what does the bible say about the environment and how humans should use it? Well, since the bible contains zero scientific information (you know, because its authors knew nothing about science and, in any case, their purpose was to write a book of religion, not science) the answer is not much. However, in the Old Testament were are told god gives humans - or more particularly men - dominion over the Earth. For centuries the usual interpretation of this was not the present day spin the pope is using of environmental stewardship. That is a modern concept driven not by religion but by environmental and political activism. No, the most common view of the bible in this regard, and one that you still find in more right wing circles is that god gave the planet to us and said "Do whatever the hell you want!"

More seriously, the Bible does not really provide any basis for the protection of the environment at all. The texts do not urge us to protect animals from extinction or preserve our water quality. They make it clear that we are here for a good time, not a long time. This planet and everything on it is a mere test, the appetizer before the main course. This entire world will vanish in a bloody Apocalypse in which Jesus will return the earth will burn and a new world will be put in the old one's place. Powerful mythological stuff, but if one takes it seriously protecting the environment would seem daft. I mean, why protect this lot if its all going to be wiped out in war and fire anyway? What's the point? Jesus is on his way back to open up the can on everyone isn't he?

On the other hand, if one understands that human beings are merely one species among countless others, and that despite our powerful technology the worse we can do is destroy ourselves not the planet; and if we realize that our fate, as a species, depends entirely on the survival of our ecosystem, then protecting the environment becomes a critical matter of self preservation. Contrary to what the pope claims from his palace in Rome, a world view without a god makes protecting the environment and the other creatures we share the world with all the more important.

So Pope - get in the damn sack.

Pope Benedict and the twlight of the Catholic Church

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
-Voltaire


Let's just come right out and say it. No beating around the bush. No politically correct hand wringing to protect the delicate sensibilities of those with porcelain constitutions. Let us not fret about the tin plated outrage of those who believe that the word "faith" is a cosmic get out of jail free card that lets them say or do anything.

Pope Benedict, head of the Roman Catholic Church, believed by his followers to be the vicar of Christ who speaks with ultimate authority on all things, is wrong. In fact, "wrong" is not strong enough a term. The man is wicked, deluded and completely out of touch with reality. He apparently has no concept of human suffering and no true desire to put the enormous wealth of his church, which he oversees from his palace in Rome, to work to truly help those in need.

Pope Benedict has nothing relevant to say in the 21st century. Nothing profound. Nothing meaningful or useful. He has shown the that last remnant of the Roman Empire has long since lost whatever vigor it might have had. He guides his lumbering church into a long twilight he refuses to recognize. Where a world with increasingly complex problems needs leadership, Benedict continues to try and fight the Reformation. He is a walking, talking anachronism that appears to have been dropped in the 21st century from the dark ages.

I cannot, nay, I will not be kind about this. There are parts of the world where his word is still the law, where concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty do not yet hold the position they do in the west. Places like Africa. And there the pope has condemned people to a horrible death.

If this all sounds a tad melodramatic, well, consider the facts. In Africa some 22 million people are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. More than 25 million have already died because of the virus. Countless others suffer from the ravaging effects of the virus on their bodies. Poverty and education levels are poor and petty tyrants lord over much of the continent and would rather use what resources they have fighting each other or their own people than invest in proper public health education.

Into this humanitarian disaster comes the pope to pronounce that condoms not only will not help stem the rates of HIV infection, but in fact will exacerbate the problem. Only an uneducated fool, a villain, or an insane person could utter such a thing. Medical science has proven beyond any doubt that condoms play a major role in preventing HIV infections.

One cannot underestimate the impact this will have in a part of the world where the pope's orders are taken very seriously. In fact, the impact of religious meddling into things they know nothing about has already been felt in Africa. In Uganda, home to some of the highest HIV infection rates in the world, once was getting a grip on the problem. It adopted what is called the ABC approach to public sexual health - abstinence, monogamy and condom use. The results were impressive having a massive impact on HIV infections rates. Then Uganda's first lady become a born-again Christian and using the agenda of American evangelicals, brought about the end of the ABC approach in favor the theological driven naivete of "abstinence only". Studies in the United States, a country with greater wealth and much higher education levels, have show abstinence only programs will, at best, delay sexual activity for about a year. Children "educated" in those program are also more likely to engage in unprotected anal sex, not practice safe sex when they to have it and as a result are more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy or STD.

So predictably, when Uganda fell under the sway of evangelical "sex-ed" the results were tragic. HIV infection rates doubled in the first two years of the abinstance only approach, which also actively discourages the use of condoms.

Real people suffer. Real people die. Real people are left trying to pick up the pieces. Not that this appears to really worry the Catholic church, which in recent years has turned its attention to the pressing issues of whether or not limbo actually exists, resurrecting the medieval con-job known as indulgences, and ensuring that everyone knows the only real Christian church happens to be the one Herr Ratzinger presently presently presides over. News to those non-Catholic churches I'm sure.

Meanwhile, despite all the talk about social justice, the church continues to display the kind of behavior that makes one wonder if they grasp meaning the term. Consider the case recently in Brazil where a nine year old was raped by her step father and made pregnant - with TWINS. In Brazil, abortion is illegal without a court order, which is normally issued only if the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life. In this case it was a no brainer. The child was nine. The doctors determined the pregancy had a pretty good chance of killing her and the court order was issued.

Now the church stamped its feet, apparently unconcerned with the suffering of a pre-teen rape victim, and insisted the child carry the twins to term and deliver by cesarean section. That carrying the babies and birth could kill the child was no never mind to the church who, when their protests failed, excommunicated the girl's mother and her doctors after threatening to move to have them both charged with murder.

Who did the church not excommunicate or otherwise threaten? The rapist stepfather. Why? Because apparently the abortion that saved the girl's life was a more serious crime than raping her in the first place.

Consider that carefully. The victim of a rape, her mother and her doctors all threatened by the church. For the atheist, excommunication is meaningless. For a believer, it is serious business. But, the church has nothing to say or do about the rapist who had been attack that girl since she was six.

This is justice?

The church is simply blind to suffering. This is because, in part, of the Vatican's muddled view of suffering and evil. Like Mother Teresa, who held that suffering was good and the poor, the sick and the dying should just accept their woeful lot in life. Her reputation of her as a friend of the poor is a myth. She was a friend of poverty whose cult of suffering kept people sick and poor rather than help improve the lives of those who needed help. It is only through a complete disregard for what people suffer can someone say, as Mother Teresa did: " I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

So the Pope, who lives in the lap of luxury, can travel to Africa and pronouce that condom use makes the spread of AIDS worse only because his view of the world is hopeless bent, twisted by a theology that had no regard for plight of the poor and suffering and sick. And given the problems of the world today and the need to marshal people to cope with them, the church has become little more than a road block and an enemy of those who suffer the most.