Miscellanea Agnostica

It seems the Vatican has run out of stuff to do, these days, in spite of things like the Vatileaks scandal and the worldwide clerical child-abuse scandal (which it has yet to deal with in any kind of contrite, meaningful way). Yes, the robed denizens of the Holy See, you see, are more than slightly miffed that measures permitting gay marriage passed in three US states this past Tuesday, and it’s becoming the law of the land in France, too. The AP reports via the Washington Post that they’ve gone on the offensive over the matter (WebCite cached article):

The Vatican is digging in after gay marriage initiatives scored big wins this week in the U.S. and Europe, vowing to never stop insisting that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

In a front-page article in Saturday’s Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, the Holy See sought to frame itself as the lone voice of courage in opposing initiatives to give same-sex couples legal recognition. In a separate Vatican Radio editorial, the pope’s spokesman asked sarcastically why gay marriage proponents don’t now push for legal recognition for polygamous couples as well. …

The Vatican’s anti-gay marriage media blitz came after three U.S. states approved same-sex marriage by popular vote in the election that returned Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency, Spain upheld its gay marriage law, and France pushed ahead with legislation that could see gay marriage legalized early next year.

The Vatican used expressed the raging paranoia typical of militant religionists:

The article insisted that Catholics were putting up a valiant fight to uphold church teaching in the face of “politically correct ideologies invading every culture of the world” that are backed by institutions like the United Nations, which last year passed a non-binding resolution condemning anti-gay discrimination.

“The church is called to present itself as the lone critic of modernity, the only check … to the breakup of the anthropological structures on which human society was founded,” it said.

Given that gay marriage is vehemently opposed by lots of people and groups … like the American Family Association and Focus on the Family in the US and other evangelical Christian ministries all over the world … the Vatican lies when it says it’s alone in this regard. The cold fact is that the R.C. Church is by no means alone in its effort to unravel the advancements we’ve made since the Enlightenment and yank humanity back to the Dark Ages.

Here’s a thought for those in the Vatican who think they should be able to moralize and tell humanity what it can and cannot do: Once you’ve purged your own Church of its criminals and miscreants; once you’ve handed over for prosecution every abusive cleric in your ranks and every bureaucrat and hierarch who covered up for them; once you’ve admitted your policies were focused more on protecting your own reputations and wealth than looking out for the welfare of children in your care; once you’ve explicitly conceded your organization is not above the criminal law of the countries in which you operate; once you’ve changed your policies to put children first and commit to operating more transparently; once every abusive priest, nun, brother, etc. and obstructionist bishop has confessed his/her crimes and begun their jail sentences; and once you’ve grown the fuck up and stopped blaming anything and everything but yourselves for what you did … THEN, and ONLY THEN, might you have anything coming close to the kind of moral authority that gives you any right to tell anyone else how to live. Until then, you should just shut your fucking mouths about the evils of gays, or of this horrible, rotten, insolent “secularism” you so passionately despise. They haven’t perpetrated anything close to the scope of crimes your own Church is guilty of worldwide.

Is that clear?

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

I blogged about the anti-scientific religiofascism spewed by Paul Broun, R-GA. The problem with is that he ran unopposed, so he didn’t have to suffer any consequences from his idiotic remarks. It seems that some voters in his district nevertheless used this election to offer a kind of protest against him, as the Augusta Chronicle reports (WebCite cached article):

Charles Darwin, the 19th century naturalist who laid the foundations for evolutionary theory, received more than 4,000 write-in votes in Athens-Clarke County in balloting for the 10th Congressional District seat retained Tuesday by five-year incumbent Republican Paul Broun.

A campaign asking voters to write in Darwin’s name in the 10th District, which includes half of Athens-Clarke County and takes in a swath of eastern Georgia, began after Broun, speaking at a sportsmen’s banquet at a Hartwell church, called evolution and other areas of science “lies straight from the pit of hell.”

“I can’t ever remember seeing a (write-in ballot) report that long,” Athens-Clarke County Elections Supervisor Gail Schrader said after releasing the write-in numbers to news media Thursday morning.

Broun still won re-election — given that he was unopposed — but 4,000 people making the effort to write in the name of Broun’s mortal enemy against him on the ballot as a protest, is significant. My guess is, Broun will dismiss them as wicked, Satan-inspired “secular progressives” who “worship” Darwin because they hate Broun’s almighty God, but I still find it remarkable.

Photo credit: José-manuel Benitos via Wikimedia Commons.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

This is a classic example of religionists presuming themselves the ability to do something to others, that they will not tolerate other people doing to them. In other words, they’re the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. The (UK) Guardian reports on Catholic outrage over a Scottish cardinal being condemned for having condemned gays (WebCite cached article):

Catholic leaders have reacted furiously after members of the gay rights group Stonewall named Cardinal Keith O’Brien “bigot of the year” for his vigorous attacks on gay marriage.

Stonewall said its 10,000 members had voted “decisively” to give the title to O’Brien, head of the Scottish Catholic church, after he described gay marriage as a “grotesque subversion” [cached] of the universal human right which defines marriage as solely heterosexual. …

A church spokesman said the award showed Stonewall was intolerant of its critics. “Stonewall and others have promoted terms like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ relentlessly, in order to intimidate and vilify anyone who dares oppose their agenda,” he said. …

Stonewall insisted the award was entirely justified since O’Brien had been consistently abusive and intolerant about gay marriage. The cardinal had likened it to relegalising slavery [cached], said it was an “aberration”, and claimed it might clear the way for polygamous marriages and would cause “further degeneration of society into immorality”.

So, Catholics, let me get this straight. It’s OK for your cardinals to bluster, fume, stamp, and rage about gays — comparing gay marriage to “relegalizing slavery” and calling them every vile name in the book — yet it’s somehow impermissible for anyone to call them “bigots”? Really??? Are you people sure you want to go with that? I’d be careful if I were you; after all, this is hypocrisy, and your own Jesus specifically ordered you never to be hypocritical. Keep it up, and your mortal souls might be in danger.

Here’s another thought: If you don’t want to be called names like “bigot,” how about not saying bigoted things? How about keeping your nasty, fucking hatred to your nasty, fucking selves? That way, you wouldn’t cause others to call you out for being the hateful pricks you really are.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Hat tip: Peter at Anti-Bible Project on Delphi Forums.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

This is another of those times I end up blogging about someone I’d never thought I’d be blogging about. This time, it’s the pop star Kesha. (Or is it Ke$ha? If so, how do I pronounce it?) It seems one of her songs is about having had sex with a ghost. No, this is not from The Onion … it’s reported by Discovery News, of all places (WebCite cached article):

Artists and musicians are always seeking inspiration for their work, and in a recent radio interview with Ryan Seacrest, pop star Kesha talked about the inspiration for her new song “Supernatural.” While many singers like Taylor Swift and Adele produce heartfelt songs about love and loss, Kesha’s was a little different.

“There are so many weird topics on this record from having sexy time with a ghost to getting hypnotized and going into past lives. I just really wanted the theme of this record to be the magic of life,” she told Seacrest.

Yes, “having sexy time” means what you think it means: Her song is about the time she had sex with a ghost. “I had a couple of experiences with the supernatural. I don’t know his name! He was a ghost! I’m very open to it. … I was in Africa rehabilitating baby lions. I went diving with great white sharks, and just went on this crazy spirit quest. I got hypnotized, and I just really wanted this record to be really positive, really raw, really vulnerable and about the magic of life.”

The article goes on to explain that this is not unusual, and that’s absolutely true. This kind of story led to — among other things — the medieval legends of the incubus and succubus. Accusations of having “had relations” with the Devil were commonly hurled at the victims of witch trials.

But the supernatural implications of this aside, this happens to be quite explainable by current science. Among the known phenomena which might explain such things, is sleep paralysis (which also happens to explain a lot of other odd tales people tell, such as alien abductions). In such cases, people are having very real experiences … they simply misinterpret what those experiences are.

If — as seems likely — this is what happened with Kesha, then I am certainly not going to say “she made it up” or is crazy or anything like that. No way. I’m more than willing to concede she experienced something she subjectively feels was sex with a ghost. I just don’t think the cause of her experience is what she thinks it was. That’s all.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Psychics are some of the worst sniveling crybabies in the world — after politicians, religionists and ideologues, of course. They hate being tested, and can’t handle being doubted. The mere existence of skeptics is an intolerable burden to them. On those rare occasions when they do submit to being tested, they always have a ready excuse for why their magical powers didn’t seem to work … even if it’s the laughable claim that the mere presence of skeptics caused those powers to fail.

This immaturity proved itself once again in the wake of a recent test of two mediums held at a university in the UK. The BBC reports on the test’s results and the excuses offered by the (failed) psychics (WedCite cached article):

A scientific experiment has found that two mediums were unable to demonstrate that they had special psychic powers.

The test by researchers at Goldsmiths, University of London, tried to establish whether mediums could use psychic abilities to identify something about five unseen volunteers.

The results, carried out under test conditions, did not show evidence of any unexplained powers of insight.

Naturally these psychics refused to concede this test had any value:

But medium Patricia Putt said this experiment “doesn’t prove a thing”.

This Halloween challenge was an attempt to investigate whether professional mediums could demonstrate their psychic powers in a controlled setting – by inviting them to deduce something about people they had never met and could not see or hear. …

But one of the mediums, Patricia Putt, rejected the suggestion that this showed any absence of psychic powers – saying that she needed to work face-to-face with people or to hear their voice, so that a connection could be established.

“Psychic energy” was not likely to work in the setting created for the experiment, she said, and her success rate was usually very high.

I wonder if Putt’s “success rate” is anywhere near as high as the “87 to 90 percent” claimed by fellow psychic Sylvia Browne — whose true measured success rate is exactly zero.

The question left unanswered by Putt’s comment is glaringly obvious: If the test hadn’t been designed properly, and if they knew it wouldn’t work, why would Putt — or any other medium — have agreed to participate in it? The answer is simple: Because they felt they had nothing to lose by going along with it! If the results showed some effect, they could use that to bolster their reputations, but if the results debunked their magical powers, they could claim it was designed wrong (which is what they ended up doing). Had they any courage, they’d concede they lost this “test” and then just shut up about it, instead of sniveling and whining that they’d been treated unfairly. (Those horiffic, insolent skeptics, you see, are forever trying to lay traps in order to destroy them! Or so their juvenile, paranoiac thinking goes.)

The reality of this is, that the results of this test show that any success a “psychic” might have when dealing with a subject face-to-face, can easily by explained, if one realizes they’re using the techniques known as cold reading and warm reading. These, in turn, frequently work, due to human nature, especially subjective validation.

In other words, these psychics use parlor tricks, their observational skills, and their knowledge of basic psychology. That’s hardly a magical power. Rather, it’s crass manipulation, if not fraud.

Photo credit: Dave Hughes, BBC.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

For a country which once had — ostensibly — been fiercely atheistic, Russia has veered back toward a kind of puritanical religionism … not unlike what we’re experiencing right here in the good old US of A. Earlier this year, for example, the Russian criminal-justice system came down hard on the punk band Pussy Riot, because they’d dared hold a political protest in front of a cathedral in Moscow. Three members of the band were convicted of “hooliganism,” aka blasphemy, for having insulted the Russian Orthodox Church. Well, as the (UK) Telegraph reports, that Church appears not to be anywhere near as morally-pure as it claims to be (WebCite cached article):

Two women were arrested on suspicion of prostitution after seven rooms were found in a building close to Sretensky Monastery where sexual services were offered from 1,750 roubles (£35) per hour.

Father Tikhon, the abbot of the monastery, is said to be a religious counsellor to Mr Putin, who is a confirmed Russian Orthodox believer.

There were conflicting reports over the ownership of the brothel, found in one of a chain of mini-hotels called Podushkin.

Life News, a popular muckraking website with close ties to the police and security services, said the building where the brothel was located on Rozhdestvensky Boulevard had been rented out by the monastery.

Naturally the monks of this monastery deny that they had anything to do with this brothel. As if I’m stupid enough to believe that … !

This is not the only problem the R.O. Church has faced recently. The Telegraph points out:

Critics of the church say its moral posturing is eroded by the behaviour of senior clerics. [Head of the Church] Patriarch Kirill was pilloried in April for wearing a £20,000 Breguet watch and a priest in Moscow came under scrutiny in August after crashing a BMW Z4 roadster with Maltese license plates [cached].

This is ironic, considering Kirill acted as cheerleader for the prosecution of the Pussy Riot. Can you say “hypocrite”? Moreover, the idea that Vlad Putin — once a KGB agent and head of its post-Soviet successor agency — could have a “spiritual advisor” is astonishing, to say the least. What, exactly, does the “spiritual advisor” to a KGB agent and virtual dictator do? Lead him through prayer and meditation after he orders an assassination?

Photo credit: ALAMY, via Telegraph.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

I’ve blogged a number of times about the ultra-conservative Roman Catholic order known as the Society of St Pius X (or SSPX). Among other things, this crew is so whacked, that they cling to the delusion that the geocentric model of the solar system is correct. Even so, SSPX’s insane wingnuttery wasn’t enough to prevent the Vatican from reaching an accord with them and bringing them back into the Catholic fold.

But it turns out there was a wrench in the works. And that was Bishop Richard Williamson, who’s denied the Holocaust on the grounds that it turned every Jew into an “ersatz savior.” The Catholic News Service reports that Williamson has tested the patience of even the SSPX and has been tossed out (WebCite cached article):

The leadership of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X has expelled British Bishop Richard Williamson from the society, saying he distanced himself from them and refused “to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors.” …

Bishop Williamson had been a harsh critic of the group’s engagement in doctrinal discussions with the Vatican, which were aimed at bringing the society back into full communion with the Catholic Church. …

The Vatican knew Williamson would be trouble, right from the start of the reconciliation effort:

Even as the Vatican negotiated with the SSPX, Vatican officials said separate discussions would be required with Bishop Williamson, who not only criticized the dialogue, but has publicly denied the extent of the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews.

The bishop’s Holocaust denials were included in an interview aired by a Swedish TV network on the same day in 2009 that the Vatican announced Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunication of Bishop Williamson and three other of the society’s bishops, ordained without papal permission in 1988.

Williamson’s caterwauling derailed the reconciliation, and the chaos he fostered might prevent it from coming to fruition — even in spite of his ouster:

In an early October interview with a German radio station, Archbishop Gerhard Muller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, confirmed that the talks with the SSPX had broken down and that no further discussions had been scheduled.

I have to congratulate the Vatican and the SSPX. Their tap-dancing around the feelings of a crazed Holocaust-denier managed to ruin everything for them. Well done, fellows. Well done!

Hat tip: Apathetic Agnostic Church.

Photo credit: CNS News Service.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

I’ve just posted a new static page on my blog, describing a number of Bible verses that Christians generally don’t obey. I’m not quite sure why this would be the case, since some of them are widely quoted and are featured in Jesus’ two most famous sermons, the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain. Nevertheless, few Christians these days live by them. And Christians have been refusing to live by them, almost since the founding of their religion. So ignoring these verses is a very long and very deep Christian tradition, that will be difficult to root out.

The reason why these verses are ignored is because — to be perfectly honest — they’re inconvenient to practice. Poverty as a spiritual ideal is not all that attractive; and pacifism to the point of not defending oneself is none too appealing either.

Nevertheless, these things — and more — are all explicitly mandated by Christianity’s most sacred texts, which means Christians must go along with them … or cease being Christians. It really is that simple. My guess is that most of the disobedient Christians who refuse to follow these instructions, are nevertheless going to continue refusing to follow them, and continue calling themselves Christians, even though their disobedience means they’re not.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

P.S. In case you were wondering, here’s a list of the verses covered in that page, in Biblical order:

If you want to know more about these verses, you’ll just have to find out for yourself!

Update: I’ve gotten some comments, and a lot of personal correspondence, about that page. I responded to that a couple days ago in another blog post.

Be Sociable, Share!

•