Miscellanea Agnostica

I’ve already blogged about the Christofascist Franklin Graham, son of famed preacher Billy Graham. He’s a Christofascist of the first order, as one might expect, and certainly much more of a buffoon than his more-famous father … and he proved it this morning while on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show (WebCite cached article):

Graham, the CEO and president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, told a Morning Joe panel he couldn’t say for certain that Obama is a Christian. …

Graham told the Morning Joe panel that he and Santorum share the same moral beliefs, and that he’s confident Santorum is a fellow Christian.

So while Franklin claims uncertainty about Obama’s Christianity, he has no such reservations about Santorum’s. So he contradicted himself. He also reiterated his prior claim that Obama may be a Muslim:

But Graham also said he couldn’t “categorically” say Obama wasn’t a Muslim, in part, because Islam has gotten a “free pass” under Obama. Graham also said the Muslim world sees Obama as a “son of Islam,” because the president’s father and grandfather were Muslim.

This is, of course, complete bullshit:

According to Edina Lekovic, director of policy at the Muslim Public Affairs Council, being born in a Muslim family doesn’t make one a Muslim. A person has to make an active choice to become a Muslim, Lekovic said.

However, Graham considers himself an “expert” on Islam and is likely not interested in hearing what real, living Muslims think about it. And Obama is not a Muslim, even if Graham wants people to think he is.

What’s not clear, here, is what Graham meant when he said “Islam has gotten a ‘free pass’ under Obama.” If you ask me, in this country, all believers of all sorts get a “free pass,” because they always expect their religious beliefs — whatever they are, no matter how irrational they may be — must be respected by everyone.

Graham went on to vacillate idiotically on GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s religion:

Graham spoke with a little less confidence about Gingrich’s faith, and cast doubt on whether Romney’s Mormonism is compatible with Christianity.

“I think Newt is a Christian, at least he told me he is,” Graham said. He added that Romney’s Mormon faith is not recognized as part of the Christian faith by most Christians, but he wouldn’t give his own view.

Truthfully, since Mormons honor the teachings of Jesus Christ, this makes them Christians. Period. They may not have exactly the same beliefs about Christ as other Christians, but there are many varieties of Christianity, so they’re no less Christian than other types of Christians.

Here’s video offered by MSNBC of this clown in action:

I have to congratulate Franklin Graham on his achievement. On his own he did a far better job of proving he’s a total idiot, than I ever could have. What a marvelous achievement, Mr Graham. You must be so proud!

Photo credit: AP Photo, via Politico.

Tags: christian, christian right, Christianity, christians, christofascism, christofascist, christofascists, franklin graham, Islam, mitt romney, mormon, morning joe, muslim, muslims, obama is a muslim, religiofascism, religiofascist, religiofascists, religious right, rick santorum, romney, santorum

Rick Santorum is an agnostic blogger’s dream. Almost daily the guy trots out some insipid, moronic Christofascist comment or other. Among other things, he claims to be an expert on theology, and you may remember he once said the Crusades were not “aggression.” Well, he’s made news this week due to remarks he made — but four years ago, back in 2008. I’m not sure why they surfaced only just now (courtesy of the extreme Leftists at Right Wing Watch), but the mass media are now all abuzz about them, and that would include the folks at CBS News (WebCite cached version):

Santorum said in August 2008 that “Satan has his sights set” on the United States of America, adding that “the Father of Lies” is using vice to go after the nation’s great institutions.

“Satan [has been] attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition,” Santorum said at Ave Maria University in Florida in 2008. …

According to Santorum, academia was Satan’s first beachhead:

Santorum goes on to say that Satan has been “most successful and first successful” in attacking academia, saying Satan exploited the “pride of smart people.”

This, of course, is standard Religious Right anti-intellectual fare. Not too surprising — except for irony of him making this comment in the middle of a university. I expect a guy like Santorum to attack those evil communistic university-types, but he went on to attack a different target:

Then, he said, Satan went after the church, and now “we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

What makes this unfortunate for Santorum is that the Religious Right which makes or breaks GOP presidential candidates is made up primarily of Protestant evangelicals. I’m not sure how amenable they’ll be to the assertion that “mainline Protestantism … is in shambles.” Of course, if they like Santorum enough, they might very well just ignore it, or perhaps rationalize it away as his effort to pander to a Catholic school audience.

As I said, this has caused quite a stir in the news over the last few days, as though it’s somehow incredible or remarkable; but most of the tropes in this 2008 speech — especially the assertion that Satan has conquered universities — are just standard Religious Rightist fare. I wonder if the fact that I graduated from a public university would make Santorum think I’m a tool of Satan … ?

I’ll close this post with the portion of the speech that Right Wing Watch has made available via Youtube:

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: 2008, 2012 gop primary, academia, anti-intellectual, anti-intellectualism, antiintellectual, antiintellectualism, ave maria university, christian right, devil, gop, gop primary, presidential campaign, religious right, republican, rick santorum, right, santorum, satan, united states

The Afghan people managed to display their hyperreligious childishness once again, and as before, this was over some burned Qur’ans. As CBS News reports, this time the Qur’an burning was unintentional, but that clearly doesn’t matter to these sanctimoniously-enraged overgrown children (WebCite cached article):

More than 2,000 angry Afghans protested outside an American air base on Tuesday after they learned that copies of the Quran (Koran), the Muslim holy book, were burned in a pile of garbage at a sprawling U.S. military base north of Kabul.

“Die, die, foreigners!” the demonstrators shouted. Some fired rifles into the air. Others threw rocks at the gate of the base.

The Qur’ans were burned amongst a pile of other garbage that Bargam staff had thrown out:

[Provincial chief Ahmad Zaki] Zahed said five Afghans working at the pit told him that the religious books were in the garbage that two soldiers with the U.S.-led coalition transported to the pit in a truck late Monday night.

I’ll give these third-world primitives a little bit of credit: At least they’re protesting Qur’ans that actually had been set ablaze; in the past they raged, rioted and looted over a Qur’an that had not actually been burned yet. So I’ll take this as an improvement. A microscopic one to be sure, but an improvement nonetheless.

As I was typing this post, I noticed another story on this matter, from the AP, which suggests the Qur’ans had been burned intentionally (cached):

A military official with knowledge of the incident told The Associated Press on Tuesday that it appeared the Qurans and other Islamic readings were being used to fuel extremism, and that detainees apparently were leaving notes for one another inside them.

If this is true, I can’t say I blame the military for burning them. They can’t have prisoners passing messages to one another — even if they’re on the pages of Qur’ans. I also have to wonder if these Afghan prisoners hadn’t themselves already desecrated these Qur’ans by having written notes to each other inside of them? If so, maybe Afghans should be blaming each other for this blasphemy, not the US or NATO.

In any case, I suggest it’s high time for people to stop using religion as an excuse to bluster, fume, rage, riot and pillage like spoiled brats throwing a temper-tantrum. It’s time for humanity — even humanity that dwells in third-world hovels — to fucking grow the hell up for once. No one is harmed by a burned Qur’an, or Bible, or any other sacred texts. Sacred texts — and really, any text at all — cannot be harmed by burning copies of them. The content and ideas they contain exist independently of any given copy of it, and they remain, forever and always. This is obvious, and it’s not rocket-science, so even Afghans should be able to comprehend it.

Photo credit: AP photo, via CBS News.

Tags: afghan, afghanistan, afghans, Ahmad Zaki Zahed, bagram, blasphemed, blasphemy, Islam, koran, koran burning, muslim, muslims, qur'an, qur'an burning, religionism, religionist, religionists

The presidential campaign of Rick Santorum, former US Senator from Pennsylvania, continues to churn out ludicrous religiofascist gibberish. I’ve cited some of it previously, including his claim that the Crusades were not “aggression,” and his implication that the pro-choice movement are Nazis. Most recently he claimed President Obama had a “weird theology.

It’s that last item that triggered the next spurt of Christofascist nonsense from his campaign. CBS News reports his spokeswoman was forced to take back comments she made in support of that assertion (WebCite cached article):

Rick Santorum’s new presidential campaign spokeswoman, Alice Stewart, retracted her comment Monday that compared President Obama’s policies to “radical Islamic policies.” …

“He was not questioning the president’s character, he wasn’t questioning the president’s religion,” Stewart said. “As he’s said, he has clarified the statement. He was talking about radical environmentalists. There is a type of theological secularism when it comes to the global warmists in this country. He was referring to the president’s policies, in terms of the radical Islamic policies the president has, particular in terms of the energy exploration.”

It’s true that Ms Stewart retracted these remarks, but they were said, so a retraction is like trying to un-ring a bell. And the fact that she said them, reveals a lot.

The problems with these comments are so numerous that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, she talks about “theological secularism,” which quite obviously is a contradiction in terms. There can never be anything “theological” about “secularism” because “secularism” is a rejection of “theological” influence.

Second, she talks about “global warmists.” I have never heard of this phrase before, although a Google search shows it’s not really new. It is a neat propaganda trick, to make “global warming” an ideology of its own. While some global-warming advocates may be ideologues, I’m not sure it really deserves that kind of a general apellation (not yet, anyway). But even if it did, there’s no evidence that president Obama adheres to it as an ideology.

Third, she said Obama has “radical Islamic policies.” This can’t be the case, though, because the president is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. This fits in with the old Rightist mantra that Obama is a Muslim — which is untrue, nevertheless it persists among Rightists.

What Ms Stewart was trying to do here is an old rhetorical trick, that of sprinkling certain keywords into her comments, ones the Santorum campaign hopes will trigger GOP primary voters to support him. In the process she ends up spewing nonsensical gibberish … nonsensical because it’s self-contradictory, and does not coincide with reality. That her remarks ended up being gibberish doesn’t matter; primary voters will have heard those keywords, and the implication that Obama is a Muslim, and will only remember that. Her retraction won’t matter to them, because they heard what they wanted to hear.

Photo credit: AP Photo/Eric Gay, via CBS News.

Tags: 2012, 2012 election, 2012 gop primary, 2012 presidential campaign, 2012 primary, 2012 republican primary, alice stewart, gop, ideology, obama is a muslim, obama muslim, republican, rick santorum, santorum

Most people don’t usually think of Nepal — a predominantly, and once officially, Hindu country — as the sort of place where religious violence takes place. After all, it’s the birthplace of the famously non-violent Gautama Siddartha (aka the Buddha), which perhaps contributes to this perception. But while the so-called “eastern religions” are typically viewed as pacifist in nature, the truth is that they’re anything but. I’ve already blogged about metaphysically-motivated “honor killings” and mistreatment of “the Untouchables” in India, for example.

So really, despite this widespread assumption, it should (sadly) be no surprise that, as CNN reports, religious violence has claimed a life in the Buddha’s homeland (WebCite cached article):

A 40-year-old mother of two was burned alive in central Nepal after she was accused of being a witch, police said Saturday.

Dhegani Mahato was attacked and set on fire by family members and others after a shaman allegedly accused her of casting a spell to make one of her relatives sick, Police Officer Hira Mani Baral said. …

She was beaten with sticks and rocks before being doused with kerosene and set afire, an attack witnessed by her 9-year-old daughter, according to the local police report.

This is, unfortunately, not new. Harassment, torture, and even killing of accused witches has been going on in Nepal for a long time (cached). I’m sure the perpetrators of this crime are proud of what they did. But there is no way it can possibly be justified. None.

Photo credit: Naresh Newar / IRIN.

Tags: bagauda, bagauda nepal, chitwan, chitwan district, dhegani mahato, mob, mob rule, nepal, peasants with pitchforks, witch, witch burning, witch killing, witches

Religious Rightists tend to view all of Christianity as being their Christianity … whichever version of it they belong to … and see no difference between its many varieties. What’s worse, they sometimes extend this even further, and view all religions has being their particular version of their particular religion (i.e. Christianity). In other words, they tend to ignore differences between denominations and sects, and even between religions. All things religious are, therefore, conflated within their minds.

This tendency leads them into all sorts of nonsensical territories. One of which is the all-too-common statement, “S/he isn’t a Christian because s/he doesn’t believe X,” where “X” is some theological point that person holds to, but which other Christians might disagree on.

As CNN reports, the ferocious Religious Rightist and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum recently used this type of reasoning to attack the incumbent president (WebCite cached article):

Rick Santorum drew applause from Ohio tea party voters – but perhaps raised some eyebrows, too – when he suggested Saturday that President Barack Obama leads based on a theology different from that in the Bible.

It left some wondering whether he was implying that Obama subscribes to a religion other than Christianity. …

“It’s not about your job. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology,” Santorum said. “Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology. But no less a theology.”

Santorum is wrong on several counts. The most obvious of these is that lots of Christians have lots of different “theologies,” but each is no less of a Christian than the rest. And he must know this; after all, there are thousands of different Christian denominations in the world. More specifically, as a Catholic, Santorum must be aware that his Church has different “theology” than Protestant churches, which among other things refuse to acknowledge the Pope’s primacy and reject transubstantiation. Yet, I cannot imagine him complaining about the “different theology” of other Religious Rightists who happen to be Protestant.

Second, the many different theologies which the many Christian denominations hold, are all widely viewed as originating in the same Christian Bible. He can’t very well claim that Obama’s “theology” — whatever it is — can’t be based on the Bible, merely because it’s different from his own. History shows that devoted and sincere Christians can and do disagree on what their Bible tells them. Again, no Christian theology is appreciably less Christian or less scriptural than any other. They simply happen not to be identical.

Third, Santorum’s desire to conflate governance and theology directly contradicts the teachings of the founder of his own religion. Jesus Christ was very clear on the matter; three of the four evangelists report that he said the following:

• Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s. (Mt 22:21b)
• Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. (Mk 12:17b)
• Render therefore to Caesar the things, that are Caesar’s: and to God the things that are God’s. (Lk 20:25b)

Jesus was very clearly apolitical and unconcerned with statecraft. He viewed government as being part of the physical realm and therefore of no importance; his preaching was about, instead, the spiritual realm, or the Kingdom of God. Santorum need only concern himself with this one lone theological point. No other “theology” ought to cross the mind — or the lips — of a dutiful Christian politician who claims to obey the words of his own Bible.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: 2012 election, 2012 primary, barack obama, christian, christian right, Christianity, christians, gop, no true scotsman, obama, primary, religious right, render unto caesar, republican, rick santorum, santorum

I already blogged about the militant Christianists in Cranston, RI who threatened the student who won a court case over a prayer banner in her public high school. As the AP reports via ABC News, the school system has decided not to appeal this decision (WebCite cached article):

A Rhode Island public school committee on Thursday voted not to appeal a federal court decision ordering the removal of a prayer banner displayed in a high school.

The Cranston School Committee cast the 5-2 vote at a public hearing to discuss a lawsuit that had been brought on behalf of 16-year-old atheist Jessica Ahlquist, a junior at Cranston High School West.

Their vote was not a foregone conclusion. A lot of folks in Cranston wanted the board to appeal the case as far, as long, and as hard as they could:

Appeal supporter, Christopher Young, who is running for U.S. Congress, said he is talking to students about suing the school.

Student David Sears Jr., 15, asked the board to appeal.

“We have to appeal for the students of Cranston High School West and we have to appeal for our humanity,” he said.

These delusional Christianists actually think the US Supreme Court will overturn decades of jurisprudence, and numerous prior decisions, to allow them to put their prayer back into their public school. They just can’t handle the idea that they aren’t allowed to keep it there. They should form their own country somewhere else, and establish whatever Christocracy they want. Until they do, what they want remains illegal and unconstitutional.

Photo credit: Austin Cline, About.Com.

Tags: banner, christian, Christianity, christians, court, courts, cranston, cranston high school west, cranston RI, jessica ahlquist, prayer banner, prayer in public school, public school, public schools, socas

This is a story which, no doubt, has lifted the hearts of America’s Neocrusaders, and which will — as they see it — confirm that Islam needs to be banished from the US. As CBS News reports, the infamous “underwear bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was sentenced for his attempt to bomb a plane as it approached Detroit in December 2009 (WebCite cached article):

After a short prayer, [Abdulmutallab] said sheik Osama Bin Laden and sheik Awlaki “are alive” and the “mujahedeen are proud to kill for Allah” and that it was “exactly what we were told to do in the Quran”.

I expect violently hyperreligious nutjobs like Abdulmutallab to spew crap like this. The Qur’an is large enough for them to sift through and extract any number of passages that they view as mandating their campaign of terror and death. I’m sure that Abdulmutallab and his murderous cohorts are certain that 72 houris await them in Paradise after their deaths (his, of course, will likely occur in prison decades from now).

While Neocrusaders will view Abdulmutallab and his claim as proof that Islam must be eradicated, they will also miss the real point here, which is that any religion based solely on faith, which presumes to press itself on reality, and which considers itself mandatory for all of humanity, is going to generate murderous followers like Abdulmutallab. There are, for example, Christian groups that advocate killing, such as the Army of God. There have been bombings and killings by Christians who believe their religion orders them to be violent.

In short, this problem is not solely limited to Islam, as the Neocrusaders would have us believe. Any sufficiently religionist system can conceivably lead to terror and murder in the name of metaphysics. Yes, even within Christianity. The sooner we all understand this, the better off we’ll all be.

Photo credit: AP Photo/Jerry Lemenu, via CBS News.

Tags: Abdulmutallab, bombing, detroit, detroit MI, Islam, islamism, islamist, islamists, koran, qur'an, religionism, religionist, religionists, terror, terrorism, terrorist, terrorists, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, undewear bomber

The sorry outfit known as the Roman Catholic Church continues to reveal itself as a morally bankrupt monstrosity, but that’s no surprise to those of us who’ve watched it closely over the years. Just over a week ago, I posted a recap of all the evasive, sniveling, paranoiac excuses for the worldwide child-abuse scandal that’s rocked the Church for over a decade. Since then, the archdiocese of Hartford has defended its (non-existent) handling of child sexual abuse by its priests, by claiming — in open court — that the victims “liked it,” so it was no big deal … and have persisted with this bone-chilling defense.

In that same time, too, another former Connecticut hierarch has weighed in on the scandal, demonstrating that he’s gone off the deep end. Retired Cardinal Edward Egan, who’d served as bishop of Bridgeport (CT), offered some demented and dishonest comments in a recent interview with Connecticut Magazine (WebCite cached article):

You know, I never had one of these sex abuse cases, either in Bridgeport or here (New York). Not one. …

I’m not the slightest bit surprised that, of course, the scandal was going to be fun in the news—not fun, but the easiest thing to write about. …

There really wasn’t much in the way of hidden. I don’t think even now you’re obligated to report them [the abuse cases] in CT. …

Well, the media everywhere made that the whole thing. I never had a case. And I believe that the cases I had were each handled just exactly as they should have been.

The retired Cardinal lied, in all of these remarks. It is not true that he “never had a case” involving sexual abuse of a child by a priest in his service. Connecticut Magazine itself had reported on some of them back in 1999 (cached). That he shuffled abusive priests around has been documented. I’ve even blogged about the case of Fr Raymond Pcolka, and about Egan’s dismissive, snarky attitude toward child-abuse reports.

Also, even more demonstrably, Egan is dead wrong about the diocese of Bridgeport having no legal duty to report child abuse. In Connecticut, all clergy are mandatory reporters of child abuse, and this has been the case since the early 1970s, prior to his tenure as bishop. Of course Egan knew this was the case. He absolutely knew it. But like any good “prince of the Church,” he chose not to accept that; in his mind, the Church is above Connecticut law.

But beyond Egan’s lies about his own record on the matter and the nature of Connecticut law, Egan proceeded to dig himself even deeper during the interview:

CT Magazine: In 2002, you wrote a letter to parishioners in which you said, “If in hindsight we discover that mistakes may have been made as regards prompt removal of priests and assistance to victims, I am deeply sorry.”

EGAN: First of all, I should never have said that. I did say if we did anything wrong, I’m sorry, but I don’t think we did anything wrong.

So, here we have a man who, 10 years ago, had issued a non-apology apology; but now, he’s taking back even that sorry, cowardly measure.

Way to go, Cardinal. Well done. I am so fucking goddamn impressed with you! Why, of course the worldwide Catholic clerical child-abuse scandal was woven out of whole cloth by reporters who gleefully fabricated all its details. Why, of course, it’s all a horrid fiction, cooked up by the media because it was so “easy” for them to do. Why, you’re absolutely right, Cardinal; and the media are, of course, completely wrong to have so maligned you over nothing.

And congratulations to all the Catholics out there who remain steadfastly loyal to this reprehensible, Mafia-like crew who are shepherding you through life. I admire the tenacity with which you actively defend these cretins and monsters. I’m sure it’s hard work trying to justify and rationalize their evil behavior and their lies about it. You must be so proud!

Photo credit: Archdiocese of New York Web site.

Tags: bridgeport CT, cardinal edward egan, cardinal egan, catholic church, catholic clerical abuse scandal, catholic clerical child abuse, child abuse, clerical child abuse, connecticut, diocese of bridgeport, edward cardinal egan, edward egan, priestly pedophilia, roman catholic, roman catholic church

Some militant Christianists in Congress are furious over changes that have been made to the logo of an Air Force unit. Specifically, “God” has been removed from it. The Washington Post On Faith blog reports that they find this absolutely intolerable (WebCite cached article):

Dozens of members of Congress are upset that the Air Force has removed the Latin word for “God” from the logo of an Air Force acquisitions office.

Led by Rep. J. Randy Forbes, co-chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, 36 lawmakers Monday (Feb. 6) sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz objecting to the removal of “God” from the logo of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO).

The logo was recently removed, according to Forbes, after objections by the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.

They claim it’s OK for the RCO’s logo to promote God, because God is found elsewhere in government, even where it shouldn’t be:

The letter argues that “courts consistently have upheld the constitutionality of our national motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ despite the obvious mention of God.”

In other words, they’re saying, “We’ve gotten away with injecting ‘God’ into Americans’ lives for decades now and no one has stopped us … therefore it’s OK for us to keep doing it, wherever and whenever we want, forever.”

Here’s an open invitation to Randy Forbes and every other member of the Congressional Prayer Caucus: If you want this cynical, cold-hearted, godless agnostic heathen to actually obey the U.S. motto and truly “trust” your God, then go right ahead and make me trust him. I dare you all to give it your best shot. If — as you claim — I’m required as an American to “trust” your God, then you have no reason to hold anything back. Come on … do your worst, and make me.

Photo credit: USAF RCO Web site.

Tags: air force, christian, christian right, Christianity, christians, congress, congressional prayer caucus, cpc, god, gop, in god we trust, j randy forbes, logo, motto, pentagon, randy forbes, rapid capabilities office, rco, religious right, republican, republicans, Separation of church and state, socas, us air force, us military, usaf