Miscellanea Agnostica

An article a couple weeks ago by the New York Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, deals with an earlier Times Magazine article I blogged about in February (WebCite cached article).

A recent New York Times Magazine article about the Texas State Board of Education said it was driven by a bloc determined to ”advance a Christian agenda.”

The board’s ”Christian faction,” the article said, was dominated by Don McLeroy, a creationist convinced that separation of church and state is a myth perpetrated by secular liberals. He and his allies believe the founding fathers meant for the United States to be a ”Christian nation,” though many historians, including conservatives, dispute that.

Benjamin Campbell, an Episcopal priest from Richmond, Va., wrote to say that The Times was helping ”a politicized minority of American Christians” hijack the generic name of the religion. ”A Christian agenda? Whose Christian agenda?” he asked. ”Christianity, like the other major world religions, is so old and so diverse that these various political and theological positions cannot properly be attributed to the religion itself.” He thought the McLeroy crowd should be called ”Christianists,” a term that has come to connote extremism on the religious right.

Hoyt’s correspondents bring up a salient question — one that Hoyt weighs carefully in the article. But I think the question is much less subtle than Hoyt makes it seem. He’s doing what he ought to as a public editor, conducting a “on the one hand, but on the other hand” analysis, but there’s a crucial point that essentially settles the matter more quickly than one might expect.

At the outset I admit that it’s very hard to say there is any such thing as a single distinctly “‘Christian’ agenda.” There are numerous Christian sects, cults, and denominations, and it can safely be said that they have very different “agendas.” Otherwise they would not be such markedly different organizations; there would, instead, be just one “Christian” church.

On the other hand, it’s clear that McLeroy and his cohorts in Texas — and their fierce religionist agenda — have a single motivation for what they are doing: Christianity. Their religion drives them. Their version of Christianity may not be the same as everyone else’s, but it is, nevertheless, a form of Christianity. A form of Christianity no more or less “Christian” than any other. It can safely be said that, if Christianity had not existed, they would not be doing what they’re doing (which is to rewrite American history so as to use it as a proselytization tool for their own vicious form of Protestant Christian fundamentalism).

So … does McLeroy have a clearly “‘Christian’ agenda”? Absolutely he does. His agenda is as “Christian” as the agendas of any other Christian on the planet.

Again, the agendas may not be the same … but they are no less “Christian” in their derivation.

I suspect what’s happening is that people like Hoyt’s correspondents are doing is to try to separate themselves from people like McLeroy. They are, no doubt, embarrassed that such people claim to espouse their religion, and don’t like that McLeroy-style religionists are making other Christians look like buffoons.

Unfortunately, an agenda driven by belief in Christianity is, by definition, a “‘Christian’ agenda.” That’s just the way it is. If Campbell and other Christians don’t like that that fierce religionist-Christians like McLeroy make them look bad, there’s something they can do … which is to stop McLeroy and his colleagues.

Sadly, though, it’s rare for more rational Christians to take on their irrational co-religionists. They appear not to want to “rock the boat,” as it were, and by their inaction, allow them to speak for them. So long as they do that, then in reality, McLeroy and his pals are — in fact — speaking for other Christians.

I will say one thing, however, and that is that I like the term “Christianist.” It vaguely reflects the term “Islamist” which is used to speak of certain extreme factions of Islam. This same resemblance is why I use the somewhat-wider term “religionist,” which as I define it, is someone who worships the religion to which s/he belongs, itself, in addition to worshipping whatever its deity may be. So I’m all for using “Christianist” to speak of McLeroy. Perhaps it’s time to give this term wider usage, even if Hoyt seems to think it’s too pejorative.

Photo credit: Thomas Hawk.

Tags: christian, christianism, christianist, christianists, Christianity, christians, clark hoyt, denomination, don mcleroy, new york times, new york times magazine, public editor, religionism, religionist, religionists, sect, texas board of education

The failure of the Roman Catholic Church — at every level — to deal with abusive clergy within its ranks, is slowly becoming more and more evident, as increasing amounts of information come to light about how it dealt with them. One such case is that of Fr Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at St John’s School for the Deaf in Wisconsin, which the New York Times describes in detail (WebCite cached article):

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

It took a long time for Ratzinger, then in charge of this case, to act on it. But after they began to act, they suddenly aborted the process, at Fr Murphy’s own request:

In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.

But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.

“I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” Father Murphy wrote near the end of his life to Cardinal Ratzinger. “I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” The files contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Of course, the CDF office at the Vatican — which then was under the command of the current Pope — was not the only part of the hierarchy which dropped the ball, in the case of Fr Murphy. Despite what they knew about him, Wisconsin bishops continued to grant him sanctuary and refused to report him to authorities:

Father Murphy not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims. Three successive archbishops in Wisconsin were told that Father Murphy was sexually abusing children, the documents show, but never reported it to criminal or civil authorities.

Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center. He died in 1998, still a priest.

Among those in authority within the Church who moved Fr Murphy around, instead of holding him accountable for his actions, was Milwaukee archbishop Rembert Weakland, who — as I’ve blogged previously — admitted, after retiring, that he’d been unaware that child abuse was a criminal matter. It took many years for him to realize it, but eventually, even this amoral and reprehensible creature realized Fr Murphy shouldn’t be with children:

Archbishop Weakland said this week in an interview, “The evidence was so complete, and so extensive that I thought he should be reduced to the lay state, and also that that would bring a certain amount of peace in the deaf community.”

Nevertheless, Weakland’s “too little, too late” request was ignored anyway.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: archdiocese of milwaukee, benedict xvi, catholic church, cdf, child abuse, child sexual abuse, clerical sexual abuse, congregation for the doctrine of the faith, fr lawrence c murphy, fr lawrence murphy, holy see, joseph ratzinger, lawrence c murphy, lawrence murphy, pedophilia, pope benedict, pope benedict xvi, priestly abuse, priestly pedophilia, rembert g weakland, rembert weakland, roman catholic, roman catholic church, st john's school for the deaf, tarcisio bertone, vatican

Some folks in Paducah, Kentucky have found a way to express their love for the Lord and to worship Jesus Christ. They’re doing so, by … get this! … brawling. Mixed martial arts, to be exact. ABC News reports on this new kind of Christian worship (WebCite cached article):

On a late Friday night recently at the Pure Country Bar in Paducah, Ky., a brawl is about to break out. It’s not a drunk fist fight — it’s a team of “warriors for Christ” gearing up for a fight in the name of the Lord.

“Father, we just thank you for the opportunity to go out tonight and to train and compete,” coach John Renken says. “Lord, we just pray that you protect our fighters, as well as the other guys. We pray that we will be a representation of you.”

Renken, the leader of the group of unorthodox fighters, is also an evangelical pastor who brings a new meaning to the term “bible beater.”

“I was fighting as a brand new Christian. I was fighting all the way through bible college…This is just a part of who I am,” he says. “Look at what Jesus endured for our sake. He goes down the walk that is roughly about a mile long with the Roman soldiers beating him bloody. He faced his own cage in life.”

It might sound unusual that the religion founded by “the Prince of Peace” (Is 9:6) could be expressed through brawling, but Renken is armed with his own rationale:

He says fighting has its roots in the Bible. “Jacob wrestles with God in Genesis…Exodus 15.3 [it] says that the Lord your God is a warrior. So, there is a part of God that I believe is a warrior, that is a master of battle,” he says.

There is, of course, a chance that this isn’t so much a mode of worship, but rather, a marketing gimmick:

Renken’s ministry is one of a growing number of evangelical churches that have looked to mixed martial arts as way to appeal to men, who have largely been absent from traditional congregations.

Of course, in order to market himself, Renken is forced to purposely ignore a bunch of scripture passages — other than Ex 15:3, which he likes. Let’s have a look at some of the things Jesus taught his own followers:

You have heard that it was said, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)

But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. (Luke 6:27-30)

And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for (D)all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:51-52)

I guess these brawlers for Jesus must have those passages — and others — stripped out of their Bibles.

Oh, and … worshiping Jesus in a bar? Seriously? Only rednecks could come up with that.

Hat tip: Skeptics & Heretics Forum on Delphi Forums.

Photo credit: ABC News.

Tags: brawl, brawling, christian, Christianity, christians, jesus, jesus christ, john renken, mixed martial arts, mma, paducah KY, peace, pure country bar, war, warriors for christ, worship

The religionists at World Net Daily have figured out that Easter is a pagan holiday. That’s right, a pagan holiday (locally cached page):

“Easter” is such a pretty-sounding word, isn’t it? …

It also brings to mind for countless millions the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave. …

But brace yourself, because there’s a very dark side to this centuries-old tradition, and it has to do with the famous Ten Commandments of God.

The very first commandment of the Big Ten is perhaps one of the most overlooked in everyday life.

In just eight words, it states: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3)

Most Christians, whether knowingly or unknowingly, violate this very first commandment of God each year by placing before God the actual name of a pagan goddess of fertility and the dawn.

In case you haven’t figured it out by now, her name is — believe it or not — “Easter.”

That’s correct, folks. The word Easter is actually the name of an ancient, heathen goddess who represents fertility, springtime and the dawn.

The author even provides what he thinks is linguistic evidence of this:

In different languages and through a variety of cultures, the name of this deity — who in reality does not even exist – is spelled different ways, including Ishtar, Astarte, Ostara, Eostre and Eastre.

Even in the Bible itself, many of God’s own chosen people actually followed the customs of numerous Easter goddesses, with her name spelled in the King James Bible as “Ashtaroth” and “Ashtoreth.”

There are just a couple of problems with this:

1. This association only works in Germanic languages wherein the name for the holiday is similar to English “Easter” (for instance, in German, it’s Ostern). But it doesn’t hold true in many other languages spoken by Christians; for instance, in Italian it’s Pasqua. The claim that “all” Christians celebrate a holiday named for a pagan goddess, is incorrect more often than it is true, since the majority of Christians worldwide speak non-Germanic languages!

2. The proposed etymology is also incorrect. The English name “Easter” comes to us from Old English Eastre, which in turn comes from older Germanic roots, within the Indo-European language family, from the Proto-Indo-European root *aus- “to shine,” a reference to the dawn (yes, it’s also related to English “east,” the direction of the dawn). The names Astarte, Ashtoreth, and Ishtar all have a completely different derivation, within the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family; the former two derive from from the Akkadian name Ishtar, whose derivation is less certain but may be related to a Semitic root *assur meaning “leader” or “chief.” Thus, English “Easter” and Akkadian “Ishtar” are actually not related at all, except in appearance only.

These points of ignorance are compounded by the fact that WND is screeching about Easter’s pagan roots, but every Christmastime, they’re one of the outlets beating louder than most at the drum of the “war on Christmas” trope — and seem blissfully unaware of the pagan roots of some Christmas traditions. Then again, consistency is not really something one can reasonably expect of religionists.

Hat tip: Religion Dispatches.

Tags: astarte, christian, Christianity, christians, easter, english, english language, etymology, ishtar, pagan, paganism, passover, religionism, religionist, religionists

Back in August I blogged about the explosive Youtube video claiming to have proven that Barack Obama is the Antichrist. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer‘s Strange Bedfellows blog has details of a Harris poll showing that this belief is held by a significant number of Americans (WebCite cached article):

… Full results are expected tomorrow, but preliminary findings were released in The Daily Beast by John Avlon, whose book “Wingnuts” details the hyper-partisanship that has swept America since 2008. …

And 24 percent of Republicans, and 14 percent overall, agree that Obama “may be the antiChrist.”

The other ridiculous, juvenile and untruthful beliefs that many Americans have about their president are:

• 45% of Republicans and 25% of Americans think Obama was born abroad

• 57% of Republicans and 32% of Americans think he is a Muslim

• 38% of Republicans and 20% of Americans say Obama is “doing many things Hitler did.”

Look, idiots, see if you can get this: Obama is not a Muslim, but a Christian (see FactCheck and Politifact, cached articles here and here respectively). Obama was born in Hawai’i, not some other country, and has proven it (see FactCheck and Politfact, cached here and here). Also, both Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler were heads of state, so I’m sure you will be able to find similarities in their behavior … but confusing the two is irrational and illogical.

It’s time for the Right in the US — especially the Religious Right — to grow the hell up and stop lying about people they don’t like just because they don’t like them. No one says you have to be happy that Barack Obama is the president … but not wanting him to be president doesn’t grant anyone license to lie about him. Are we clear on that?

Photo credit: Science After Sunclipse.

Tags: americans, anti-christ, antichrist, barack obama, birth certificate, birther, birthers, christian right, harris, harris poll, obama, politics, president, president obama, religious right, united states, urban legend, urban myth, white house

This past summer I blogged about the creepy but popular southern California preacher Wiley Drake praying for God to kill Barack Obama. With the passage of healthcare reform, he’s added to his list of imprecatory-prayer targets, as the Daily Beast reports (WebCite cached article):

As Randy Neugebauer cops to shouting “baby killer” on the House floor, a pastor who ran for VP with Alan Keyes has asked for the death of all 219 Democrats who voted for yesterday’s bill.

The vitriol stemming from yesterday’s health-care vote—from Randy Neugebauer’s shout of “baby-killer” aimed at pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak on the House floor to slurs shouted at John Lewis and Barney Frank from crowds outside the Capitol building—has reached a new apex: a call for the death of all 219 Democrats who voted for the bill, through the power of prayer.

Orange Country Pastor Wiley Drake fired off an email to his supporters this morning, telling them that all 219 Democrats have been placed on the “imprecatory prayer list.” “We’ll remember in November and pray Psalms [sic] 109 while waiting,” he urged, before listing each offending congressman by name in “Satan’s domain in Washington D.C.”

Here’s a link to Psalm 109, if you care to read it. It’s essentially a long, whiney prayer that God strike down some horrible enemy and leave his children fatherless and his wife a widow (Ps 109:9). I discussed this particular psalm and its political uses earlier; have a look, if you wish.

What a marvelous, enlightened, compassionate sentiment from “the Religion of Love” (i.e. Christianity), which was founded by the man who famously delivered the Sermon on the Mount.

As I’ve blogged before, Wiley is not some “fringe” preacher that no one pays attention to. He is, in fact, quite influential, and well-known and respected in Religious Right circles. He’s served on the board of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant organization in the country and the “flagship” denomination of the Religious Right. He was also Alan Keyes‘ vice-presidential candidate in 2008 (on the “America’s Independent Party” ticket).

I’m not quite sure why Drake is concentrating solely on the 219 House representatives who voted for healthcare reform and isn’t praying for the deaths of the Senate members who voted the same way … but I’m sure he has his reasons. Those reasons may not make sense, but I’m sure he has them.

Also, Jesus Christ himself was a healer, so I’m not sure how or why Drake views healthcare as “Satanic” … but he does. Again, I’m sure he has his reasons, but I doubt they’d be comprehensible to anyone but another ferocious, delusional fundamentalist Christian religionist like himself.

Tags: 219, baptist, buena park, buena park CA, capitol, christian, christian right, Christianity, congress, democratic party, democrats, first southern baptist church, healthcare, healthcare reform, house of representatives, imprecatory prayer, psalm, psalm 109, psalms, religionism, religionist, religionists, religious right, satan, southern baptist convention, united states congress, US capitol, washington DC, wiley drake, wiley s drake

After dispatching his network of parish priests in Ireland to read his letter to Irish Catholics, which ostensibly acknowledged the misdeeds there (it even referred to them as “criminal”), the very next Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI proceeded to use Bible passages to justify the evil that had been done to children in the R.C. Church’s care. The (UK) Telegraph writes about his latest address (WebCite cached article):

Campaigners had hoped that after his seven page letter on Saturday to Irish victims of child abusing priests in which he said he was “truly sorry” the Pope would use his weekly sermon to apologise in public.

But he failed to do so and instead he asked Roman Catholics around the world to be “indulgent towards sinners and pray to God to ask for forgiveness for our failings.”

He used as an example the Bible parable from John’s Gospel in which Christ asks people about to stone an adulteress: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Honestly, I can’t think of any other way to describe this, than to call it “rubbing salt into Ireland’s wounds”:

The pontiff didn’t mention his letter chastising Ireland’s church hierarchy as he made his weekly appearance Sunday from his studio window overlooking St. Peter’s Square. He cited the Gospel passage about Jesus’ inviting those without sin to cast the first stone toward an adulterer.

“While acknowledging her sin, he does not condemn her, but urges her to sin no more,” Pope Benedict said. told English-speaking pilgrims in the square. “Trusting in his great mercy toward us, we humbly beg his forgiveness for our own failings, and we ask for the strength to grow in his holiness.”

The Pope here is actually asking people not to “condemn” the child-rapists, child-beaters, and assorted other criminals who hid behind their vestments, cassocks and habits, and were sheltered for decades by the Catholic hierarchy. How nice of him. Let’s go over the many moral and contextual errors in the Pope’s use and abuse of one of the most famous gospel passages, shall we?

The story of “the woman taken in adultery” is found in the gospel of John, and the original passage is as follows:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” (John 8:1-11)

Let’s look at this. First, the Pope is comparing the ongoing and often systematic abuse of children, by adults, with a single instance of adultery, which is a consensual act between two adults. How, exactly, is there any equivalence here? If there is one, I can’t see it.

Second, this gospel story implies that the woman was at least remorseful, and it’s possible that she did, in fact, “sin no more” after this episode. The Roman Catholic clergy who abused children in their care, however, have been anything but remorseful, and they abused children for decades, often going on to later victims even after having been caught; and they were consciously protected by an organization that supported them and frequently prevented them from being prosecuted. Here again, an equivalence fails.

Usually it’s the fundamentalist Christians who abuse scripture in order to justify doing the wrong thing … but in this case it’s none other than the head of the Roman Catholic Church who’s doing so. Obviously he has no shame, no remorse, and no understanding of what has been going on in his own Church. But conveniently, he does know just enough to be able to use Jesus’ own putative words to tell people not to “judge” criminality within the Church he ostensibly commands.

Photo credit: Telegraph.

Tags: benedict xvi, cast the first stone, catholic church, catholic clerical abuse scandal, child abuse, clergy, clerical abuse, clerical child abuse, criminals, gospel, jesus, john 8:1-11, judgement, judging, pope benedict, pope benedict xvi, priestly pedophilia, roman catholic, roman catholic church, sin, sinner, sinners, woman taken in adultery

The Ten Commandments continue to be an obsession that the Religious Right cannot or will not shake. They continue to believe, among other things, that the US legal system is based on the Decalogue — even though it’s not, it’s based instead on English common law — and that forcing Americans to read the Decalogue and think about it, will somehow magically transform the country into a spiritual paradise — and that’s just laughable. The latest R.R. figure to agitate for Decalogue worship is Congressman Paul Broun, Republican from Georgia. Chris Rodda writing in Huff reports that Broun wants there to be a special “Ten Commandments Weekend” annually in the United States (WebCite cached article):

Well, spring is in the air, and that can mean only one thing: it’s time for a member of Congress to introduce a resolution proclaiming the first weekend of May “Ten Commandments Weekend.” This time, the resolution comes from Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA).

These kinds of resolutions almost always contain a dose of Christian nationalist American history revisionism, and Broun’s resolution, H. Res. 1175, is no different.

Rodda then explains how Broun misrepresented a John Quincy Adams quote to make it seem the Decalogue is more central to American law than it actually is. How nice. If Broun were correct about the Decalogue being so crucial to the existence of occidental civilization, one would think there’d be no reason for him to have to make up stuff, lie about them, or game Adams’s words in order to do so. But he did nonetheless … because ferocious religionists like Broun believe they are entitled to be disingenuous, if it gets people to obey their metaphysical codes.

Hat tip: Skeptics & Heretics Forum on Delphi Forums.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: christian right, conservative, decalogue, georgia, gop, paul broun, Religion, religionism, religionist, religionists, religious right, republican, ten commandments, ten commandments weekend