Miscellanea Agnostica

I’ve blogged before about Saudi Wahhabist clerics’ inability and unwillingness to face modernity or to accept the existence of women. Their immaturity and misogyny reached a new high recently when they demanded that women be removed from Saudi Arabia’s broadcast media, as Agence France-Presse reports:

Hardline Saudi clerics have called on the government to ban women from appearing on television and to prohibit their images in print media, which they called a sign of growing “deviant thought.” …

“There should be no Saudi woman on television, in any case,” they said.

“There is no doubt that this is religiously impermissible.”

Now, I understand Muslims find their religious principles from the Qur’an and the Hadith, but to my knowledge, they were written centuries ago … so I have no idea how they address radio and television … but these guys can apparently justify their position anyway:

The clerics, including justice officials and academics from a conservative Islamic university, cited several cabinet-endorsed orders and policies from years past which they said supported their argument.

So that’s how they did it; they elevated “several cabinet-endorsed orders and policies from years past” to the level of the Qur’an and the Hadith. That makes sense, I guess … to them, if no one else.

Perhaps they’d all be better off if they just grew up and accepted that about half the human population is made up of women and concede — finally! — that they exist.

Should a pro-choice president speak at what is perhaps America’s premier Catholic university, Notre Dame? That’s a point of contention recently among students and alumni. President Obama has been invited to speak at the May commencement — as a number of sitting presidents have done — but because he’s pro-choice, some of the Fighting Irish are fighting back, as MSNBC reports:

In today’s edition of the student newspaper, The Observer, letters to the editor, which are usually reserved for debates over the color of The Shirt or whether it’s proper to chant “Sucks” at sporting events — was expanded to cover a lively debate over whether Obama should be speaking.

“Obama choice unacceptable,” read one headline, and “Obama a disgrace” shouted another.

The point of contention? The president’s record on issues related to abortion, the majority of which clash with the strict anti-abortion stance of the Catholic Church. An online petition has sprung up urging people to voice their complaints to Father John Jenkins, president of the university.

Apparently many Notre Damers think that toeing the line of Catholic doctrine is a prerequisite for anyone to speak at their precious, godly school. Oddly enough, however, none of them objected (that I’ve been able to discover) to George W. Bush having spoken at the Joyce Center in 2005, despite his having orchestrated a war in Iraq — which the Roman Catholic Church has condemned! Where were these doctrinaire folks, back then? I think we’re seeing an example of “issue-picking” rather than a genuine effort to uphold Catholic values.

To his credit, Notre Dame’s president, Fr John Jenkins, is going ahead with the Obama appearance anyway, as US News & World Report tells us:

The University of Notre Dame’s president is defending his invitation to President Barack Obama to deliver this year’s commencement address in the face of mounting protests from antiabortion Roman Catholics.

Of course, there are ancillary groups latching on to this controversy for their own reasons. USN&WR goes on to report:

Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry has joined the opposition to Obama at Notre Dame, with a new website and vows to organize commencement day protests …

Yes, that’s the same Randall Terry who — with the cooperation of ardent religionazis in Congress — orchestrated the deplorable Terri Schiavo fiasco. He’s also the same “family-values” warrior, abortion opponent, anti-gay crusader and marriage defender who 1) divorced (yes!) his first wife; 2) had not one but two daughters get knocked up; 3) one of whom converted to Islam; 4) had a son who turned out to be gay; and 5) disowned him for coming out of the closet.

Yeah, that Randall Terry. Nice guy, huh?

At any rate, it’s astounding how people who love to declare that they stand on principles … e.g. Roman Catholic doctrines … will do so only in some cases, while in others they look the other way. It’s also astounding that there are people who truly believe that the mercenary-minded rabble-rouser and attention-whore Randall Terry actually believes any of the tripe he’s selling … !

The Oklahoma legislature has gone around the bend when it comes to the famous British evolutionary scientist — and more to the point, outspoken atheist — Richard Dawkins. On learning that Dawkins was planning to speak at the University of Oklahoma, Rep. Todd Thomsen sponsored legislation that would denounce Dawkins personally and condemn the teaching of evolution at UOK.

No joke, it really happened.

The intrepid and irrepressible Dawkins appeared anyway, in defiance of Oklahoma’s legislative maneuverings. One would think the matter is now closed …

… but the reactionary Bible-thumpers in the Oklahoma legislature are not done with it. They’ve launched an investigation into the invitation and the expenses surrounding his lecture there:

Well, it’s official: Oklahoma’s state legislature is investigating the University of Oklahoma for hosting a speech by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. …

Despite their efforts, the legislature failed to prevent Dawkins from speaking on March 6 to an audience of thousands at the University of Oklahoma.

Last week, however, I received multiple reports that the legislature was now investigating the speech, and I wrote the University of Oklahoma President David Boren directly asking to know if this was true.

Sure enough, I just received confirmation today in a letter from the Open Records Office at the University of Oklahoma. The letter confirms that on the day of Dawkins’ speech, Oklahoma State Representative Rebecca Hamilton requested substantial information relating to the speech from Vice President for Governmental Relations Danny Hilliard.

Although Dawkins was not paid for his appearance, it seems the reactionaries are still incensed that Oklahoma taxpayer money was spent helping this vile, spawn-of-Satan evolution-teacher present his (GASP!) unabashedly atheistic views.

You may also remember that about one year ago, another Oklahoma legislator, Rep. Sally Kern, launched a ridiculous diatribe against gays, which included just about every anti-gay cliche statement you can name (listen to it at ABC News). Among the factually-incorrect statements she made was that homosexuality-accepting societies never lasted more than “a few decades.” This contradicts known history — e.g. the Greek civilization accepted certain practices, but they lasted for centuries as a distinct entity; and Greek civilization didn’t even die off, it morphed into the larger Greco-Roman world, which has in turn become the occidental culture we now enjoy.

Maybe it’s just me, but I wonder if these ferocious religionazis in Oklahoma shouldn’t just grow up already and find better things to do with their state’s time?

One of the claims theists often make is that ethics and morality are the reason why religion and a belief in God are necessary to humanity. Without it, they insist, there can be no morality. They moreover often accuse atheists and other freethinkers of having rejected religion and/or belief in God specifically because they want to behave in immoral or unethical ways, and do so freely.

This is, of course, complete bullshit. There have been and are many moral people — and many systems of morality — which are not theistic in nature.

Not only that, theists’ assertions that a belief in God is necessary to make people morally upright, are ironic in light of the things that theists actually do. A recent example of this was revealed on the Unreasonable Faith blog; a pastor, of all people, had misrepresented himself as an atheist and then posted incendiary comments in that guise:

The other day this comment was posted by an atheist:

What’s wrong with killing babies? I see no problem with it. I have enough mouths to feed. I don’t get the argument and I am an atheist. Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in anything characterized as good, bad / right, wrong. So, what’s the big deal?

At first I was shocked that anyone could say that. Then I realized that it must be a fundie in disguise, a sheep in wolves clothing. …

Who would do such a stupid thing?

It turns out, a pastor would. After some more digging, I was able to figure out the commenter’s identity: Pastor Chris Fox of Kendalls Baptist Church in New London, NC.

It goes without saying that the guy never admitted that what he’d done was wrong. Of course it’s not, because he did it for Jesus, and that makes everything right, no?

Now, I know you believers out there are going to say that Pastor Fox is just a human being and that human beings do lie, cheat, etc. from time to time. This is, of course, very true. But it also demonstrates the problem conclusively: If believing in Jesus isn’t enough to make someone a morally-upstanding person who doesn’t lie or misrepresent him- or herself, then what value is there in being a Christian? Seriously … if Christians’ behavior isn’t visibly improved by their Christianity, then how are they any different from non-Christians?

But in addition to this we have the problem that Fox is a pastor. His behavior should be better than that of the average Christian since he’s supposed to be an example to his flock. If he’s going to behave like anybody else, he may as well step down from the lectern.

Final note: Further down the page, commenter “shamelesslyatheist” posted Fox’s response to criticism he must have received. He claims not to be a fundie or extremist, and claims he did not intend to deceive anyone. He also doesn’t want people to judge his character based on his misrepresentation. Woops, Pastor Fox, too late — I’ve already done that! You lose.

I blogged a little while ago about legislators here in Connecticut having been threatened because they dared consider potential legislation (RB 1098) that would have affected Catholic parish finances within the state.

Well, the Capitol Police have a suspect and made an arrest, as WTIC-TV in Hartford reports:

The State Capitol Police Department charged a New Britain man with harassment after he allegedly sent a threatening email to two state legislators. …

An investigation determined Kane sent the email which “made reference to the residences of the two legislators insinuating retaliation for their position on Senate Bill 1098 pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church, along with other derogatory statements.”

I’m mildly surprised by this news, because prosecutors and police in Connecticut have historically been reluctant to investigate or arrest anyone connected with the Catholic Church. For instance, in 1993 state police had been informed of allegations that the Rev Stephen Foley, a priest in Glastonbury, had molested children. The archdiocese of Hartford took these allegations seriously enough to summarily remove him as a pastor; but they left him as chaplain to the state police and fire departments (assuming, I guess, that he represented no danger to adults). The state police and the chief state’s attorney refused to investigate or prosecute him, however, and in fact the police allowed him to drive a siren- and light-bar equipped cruiser that he was not normally entitled to have as a chaplain.

Later it was revealed that Foley had used his tricked-out pseudo-cruiser (that state police had to give him special permission to drive) to lure children to him at crime or fire scenes, and the archdiocese — after having shuffled him to Virginia and actively shielding him from lawsuits — finally settled with several plaintiffs over Foley’s misconduct.

At no time in this whole sordid and sad affair, however, did anyone in the state police lift so much as a pinky to stop the Rev Foley. Quite the opposite, they served instead as his enablers and apologists.

That the Connecticut state police would arrest someone for the threats that had been reported, is quite out of character for these unabashed boosters of Catholicism. Maybe this threat has finally given the state police and the state’s attorneys offices the courage to actually do something, this time.

Pope Benedict XVI recently weighed in on the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and made an astonishing claim, as the AP reported:

Pope Benedict XVI said condoms are not the answer to the AIDS epidemic in Africa and can make the problem worse, setting off criticism Tuesday as he began a weeklong trip to the continent where some 22 million people are living with HIV. …

In his four years as pope, Benedict had never directly addressed condom use, although his position is not new. His predecessor, Pope John Paul II, often said that sexual abstinence — not condoms — was the best way to prevent the spread of the disease.

Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.

“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”

The pope said a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease, as he answered questions submitted in advance by reporters traveling on the plane. His response was presumably also prepared in advance.

In the most technical sense only, the Pope has a point. Having less sex means less AIDS transmission. However, his position — that the only way to solve the AIDS epidemic in Africa, is for the entire continent to collectively stop having sex — is unrealistic to the point of being asinine.

It’s just not going to happen!

Not only that, the Pope is not an epidemiologist and has no expertise to rely on, in making this claim. He is looking at it in a purely idealistic or philosophical fashion. Few problems have ever been solved by idealistic means, however.

The Pope has, naturally, taken some heat over his claim, but continues to defend his indefensible claim, as Reuters reports:

The Vatican on Wednesday defended Pope Benedict’s opposition to the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS as activists, doctors and politicians criticised it as unrealistic, unscientific and dangerous. …

Asked about the criticism, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the pope was “maintaining the position of his predecessors”.

The Vatican also says condoms can also lead to risky behaviour but many contest that view.

Kevin De Cock, director of the World Health Organisation’s HIV/AIDS department, said there is no scientific evidence showing that condom use spurs people to take more sexual risks.

The Vatican’s claim that widely-available condoms increase irresponsible behavior, is akin to slippery-slope thinking, and for that reason, is fallacious. It might intuitively appear to be the case, but intuitive suppositions are not facts. The Reuters article quotes someone who actually is an expert in the field, who summarizes how stupid the Vatican is being on this matter:

“The pope saying they are not good is like someone saying travelling by air is not 100 percent safe, so we should not fly,” said Pat Matemilola, national co-ordinator for the Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS in Nigeria (NEPWHAN), a medical doctor who has been living with HIV/AIDS for more than a decade.

The moral of this story: Being a religious or spiritual figure — even one as revered as the Pope — does not make one an expert in fields one has never studied. Credentials matter; idealism, or worse, religionism, doesn’t.

Yet another scholar has weighed in with a new theory about the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first mass-media article on this “revelation” that I’ve seen — in Time magazine — offers this new information without explaining that a lot which has been said about the Dead Sea Scrolls is either wrong, or exaggerated. For instance, it’s often said that they reveal a good deal about early Christianity; but the truth is they do not, since they were not written by early Christians, but by traditional practicing Jews. The Time article has a smashing lede, as one might expect:

Biblical scholars have long argued that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the work of an ascetic and celibate Jewish community known as the Essenes, which flourished in the 1st century A.D. in the scorching desert canyons near the Dead Sea. Now a prominent Israeli scholar, Rachel Elior, disputes that the Essenes ever existed at all — a claim that has shaken the bedrock of biblical scholarship.

Wow. Sounds earthshaking, doesn’t it? An entire field of scholarship, completely destroyed by a lone scholar! Unfortunately it doesn’t take long before one begins to see there’s less to it than the Time lede admits, and there are gaping holes in Elior’s assessment. For example:

Elior, who teaches Jewish mysticism at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, claims that the Essenes were a fabrication by the 1st century A.D. Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus and that his faulty reporting was passed on as fact throughout the centuries.

Later in the article, however, we have this:

Elior claims says these ancient historians, namely Philo and Pliny the Elder, either borrowed from each other or retailed second-hand stories as fact.

This is chronologically inconsistent, however, with the claim that Josephus has “invented” the Essenes. The Elder Pliny died in 79 CE, whereas Josephus wrote his account of Jewish history in the 90s CE, over 10 years later. Thus, Pliny could not have been parroting Josephus! Similarly, Philo of Alexandria, who died c. 50 CE, also could not have been copying Josephus.

What’s more, Ms Elior also makes a claim contrary to known history:

Elior contends that Josephus, a former Jewish priest who wrote his history while being held captive in Rome …

Josephus was no “captive” of the Romans. He was, instead, a turncoat, who went over to the Roman side during the Jewish Revolt and became a functionary of Emperor Vespasian. Josephus in fact became so enamored of Romans — and Vespasian in particular — that he Romanized his own name to reflect his regard for the Emperor (whose full name was Titus Flavius Vespasianus). “Captive”? No way!

While a lot remains to be learned about the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the last thing we need is fact-deprived speculations plastered in the pages of major media outlets like Time.

If there’s anything worse than a recession, it’s the idiotic and irrational things people do in order to deal with it. Example: People are turning to psychics in large numbers in order to find out how to navigate difficult times, as USA Today reports (WebCite cached article):

Valerie Morrison has less time for love these days. The Philadelphia psychic says clients who once obsessed about romantic prospects are too worried about their economic future.

Executives inquire about layoffs. Restaurateurs ask if people will still go out to eat. Homeowners want real estate tips.

Way to go people. When in doubt, turn to phonies to find the truth. That will help … not! The story continues:

“Men and women are calling psychics who never thought they would call a psychic,” says Maryanne Fiedler, marketing director of Psychic Source, an online network of 165 clairvoyants who consult by phone. Many have lost jobs or retirement savings. Fiedler says her psychics don’t give investment advice. “We’re trying to ease their anxieties,” she says, by offering “reassurance.”

Another less ethical — and less “reassurance”-oriented — psychic is dispensing investment advice:

Nina Melrose, 42, a Dallas soothsayer who reads palms and Tarot cards, advises clients on which stocks to buy, basing her picks “solely on my psychic ability.” She declined to say how prescient she had been.

Gee, I wonder why she won’t say how well her investment advice works? Could it be that her advice is no better than blind chance?

Note to financial-oversight agencies in Texas: You might want to consider investigating whether or not Ms Melrose is acting as an unlicensed financial advisor.

Other stories on this disturbing irrational trend:

Hopefully Americans will eventually catch on to the scam that “psychics” are involved in and become mature enough to face their problems on their own, using rational information from bona fide advisors.