Christians and atheists: who's more threatened by whom?

In his column for Newsweek, Rabbi Marc Gellman advances the thesis that atheists are "threatened" by the idea of God:

I don't know many religious folk who wake up thinking of new ways to aggravate atheists, but many people who do not believe in God seem to find the religion of their neighbors terribly offensive or oppressive, particularly if the folks next door are evangelical Christians. I just don't get it.

You know, I have precisely the opposite impression regarding theists. I have the impression that theists would find my atheism more affronting than they would find the beliefs of theists who happen to observe other faiths. Though it may surprise you to hear it, given the content of my blog, I tend not to be as "open" about my atheism in public (I also don't want to harm my employment prospects)--not knowing who I might offend inadvertently by discussing it.

But I cannot conceive how an atheist would find the idea of God more "threatening" than he or she would the idea of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Celestial Teapot. Can anyone help me out, here?

Gellman continues:

This must sound condescending and a large generalization, and I don't mean it that way, but I am tempted to believe that behind atheist anger there are oftentimes uncomfortable personal histories. Perhaps their atheism was the result of the tragic death of a loved one, or an angry degrading sermon, or an insensitive eulogy, or an unfeeling castigation of lifestyle choices or perhaps something even worse.

Or maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the lack of evidence for God's existence? Whaddya think?

UPDATE: See also this post on Philaletheia.

UPDATE II: Please spare a few moments to complete this Post-Purchase Deity Evaluation Form. (Via Pharyngula)

Read More

This is your brain on dispensationalism #7

The week in fundie . . .

*The War On Peace: A Colorado Homeowners Association bans a Christmas wreath incorporating a peace symbol, declaring it to be "a symbol of Satan." (Via Morons.org)

*Bible student burns down church because "He didn’t think they were following the Bible the way [he] thought they should." (Via Morons.org)

*A New Jersey community continues to close ranks around a lying, hypocritical teacher, because said teacher is a Christian and the student who lodged a complaint against him isn't. (Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

*Texan morons up in arms over non-hostile news coverage of gay marriage. (Queerty)

*Pentagon downgrades homosexuality from "mental disorder" to "condition." It now lives in the same category as bed-wetting and the fear of flying. (OutInAmerica)

UPDATE: "Bill Muehlenberg" has a guest post at BrokenLeftLeg. :)

UPDATE II: Remember Left Behind: Eternal Forces, the Christian violent video game I blogged about in June? It's in release and the reviews aren't kind!

Read More

Why Are Atheists So Angry?

Philaletheists take note!

Jewcy.com hosts an online debate between Sam Harris and Dennis Prager on the question: "Why Are Atheists So Angry?"

I have my own thoughts on that particular question, and I find that Prager's contribution to the discussion constitutes little more than a minefield of logical fallacies, among which the strawman, the fallacious appeal to authority and the genetic fallacy play starring roles. Prager also makes the intriguing claim--one that I had not encountered (aside, of course, from a certain blogger whose site has just recently eaten itself) since when I used to play The Bard's Tale on my friend Jimmy's monochrome Tandy computer as an 11-year old--that the more university education one acquires, the less "wisdom" one has. Prager offers no evidence to support his claim, nor does he suggest how one might measure "wisdom" in the first place other than via the use of 12-sided dice. I suppose, though, as a conservative talk radio host, Prager's right all the time and doesn't need to provide evidence.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to hear what a theist makes of Harris' arguments.

UPDATE: On a separate note, Prager is up in arms because a newly elected Muslim US Congressman intends to swear his oath of office on the Muslim Quran rather than the Christian Bible.

Read More

Your Rights At Work Nov. 30: Perth Rally

Bruce has done his bit, and I should do mine.

The Perth "Your Rights At Work" rally will be held at Members Equity Stadium, 310 Pier Street, Perth, from 12-2pm on Thursday, November 30th 2006.

Read More

ArthurVandelayWatch

It's official: Five Public Opinions has a troll site.

UPDATE:
Related posts:
To Fisk or Not to Fisk? (Ninglun)
It's Not Fisking: It's Cybermolestation (Bruce)

UPDATE II: If for whatever perverted reasons of your own you've been following this saga, it would appear that the troll site in question is either disbanded altogether, or has shut itself off from the outside world completely. So, if you're wondering why you can't access the site: that's why.

Read More

The Protocols of the Elders of Dawkins

"I'll get you, my pretty . . . and your little God, too!"

Sammy Jankis fisks Bill Muehlenberg on the thesis that "Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history."

Read More

I don't see a white boy. I see a damn fool!

Seinfeld star makes a hipster doofus of himself at a comedy club:



I'm speechless. I am without speech. Is there something about Kramer's politics that we should know? Or do all Americans come installed with an "inner-Klansman?"

Read More

An Unexpected Parting

It looks like Peter Jackson and Co. have been give the arse from New Line's production of The Hobbit.

Much to the distress of his fans, Peter Jackson has said he no longer plans to direct "The Hobbit," a prequel to his mega-successful "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, because of an ongoing accounting and legal dispute with New Line Cinema.

In a highly unusual move, revealing some of the behind-the-scenes moves in a high-stakes negotiation, Jackson spoke directly to his fan base during the weekend, posting his explanation of recent events on TheOneRing.net. The statement from both Jackson and his wife and fellow producer, Fran Walsh, concluded: "This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness or rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of 'The Hobbit' go and move forward with other projects."

Shame, really. They did a fantastic job with at least the first two instalments of Lord of the Rings, and it's probably going to be more difficult to recruit the likes of Ian Holm (Bilbo), Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Andy Serkis (Gollum) and Hugo Weaving (Elrond) with Jackson and his team on board. (And I guess my old stomping ground will have to lie dormant for a few years longer.)

I must confess that the idea of a film version of The Hobbit doesn't excite me nearly as much as the news that a motion picture version of The Lord of the Rings was in the works did. I read the latter novel first, and found the more child-oriented Hobbit too, well, child-oriented.

Oh, well. Back to trawling through this derivative crap.

Read More

A sincere attempt to encourage civility on the Blogosphere

I'd like to give a quick plug to a new team blog, Philaletheia, offering some sage advice for us all:

How to Talk to Atheists

How to Talk to Believers

The quality of discourse there, so far, has been very impressive. Why don't you stop by?

Read More

Luminous beams are we . . .

His Holiness

From Ananova:

Two self-acclaimed Jedi Knights want their faith to be formally recognised.

Umada and Yunyun, also known as John Wilkinson and Charlotte Law, want the UN to acknowledge Jedi is worthy of being called a religion.

It comes after 400,000 people recorded it as their faith in the 2001 Census. [. . .]

There are also said to be 70,000 Jedi knights in Australia, 53,000 in New Zealand, and 20,000 in Canada. [Emphasis added]

Apparently that makes Jedi the fourth largest religion in the UK.

(Insert Star Wars cliche here.)

Read More

Responding to Kearney students

I have been receiving a lot of correspondence from the good students of Kearney in defence of their history teacher, Mr P. (I suppose they have been following the link from Jim Lippard's blog; and it's a good thing for them that I have a "Recent Comments" widget installed on my sidebar--otherwise, given the fact that blogs are regularly updated and older posts tend to get pushed off the page eventually, their protestations might have gone unnoticed.) Their comments demonstrate, if anything, an enviable degree of teacher-student rapport (from a teaching graduate's point-of-view); and it could be suggested that, for all his flaws, Mr P must have some redeeming qualities as an educator.

Two other inferences might be drawn from the Kearney students' comments, however. First, their emotional attachment to their teacher is such that it has clouded their judgment regarding the matter of Mr P's error. Second, the arguments they put forth evince a lack of development in their primary reasoning skills--perhaps not altogether unexpected, given their age, but still a matter of concern. Let me make my contribution to setting these kids back on the road to the level of cognitive maturity demonstrated by at least one of their number, Matthew La Clair, by giving them a walking tour of some of the informal logical fallacies evident in their contributions to this blog . . .

Anonymous says:

When there is only one student in the classroom who doesn't like the teacher and the way the teacher teaches, there is a problem! This student has a problem!

Fallacy No 1 we call the appeal to popularity, also known as the bandwagon fallacy. If there is a problem with the teacher's teaching, it exists regardless of the extent to which it is acknowledged by his students. In other words: just because Matthew is outnumbered, it doesn't mean he's wrong.

Onto Fallacy No. 2:

If you don't know Mr. Paszkiewicz and the way he teaches...just be quite! You don't know what is going on...

This one is known as an appeal to ignorance, albeit applied in an unusual way. Ordinarily, advancers of the appeal to ignorance appeal to their own ignorance in defence of a given proposition; here, they're appealing to mine. Anonymous is saying: you weren't there, physically, in the classroom, so how can you comment upon what transpired there? The answer is that, not having witnessed the events myself, I have to rely upon the evidence before me; and I see no reason to distrust the evidence.

Anonymous continues:

Remember, let's be a little bit smart here, recorded material can be taken out of context.

Yes, yes, of course. But let's not forget also that (i) the audio is available online for all to hear, (ii) rather than explain the "context" of his remarks, Paszkiewicz chose to lie about them, and (iii) the recordings seem to have been accepted as credible by the school authorities, who doubtless would have taken context into consideration, but who nonetheless decided to discipline the teacher (however lightly). In any case, meet fallacy no. 3: Poisoning the well.

Stop blaming the teacher and defending the student just because you are anti-christian.

Stop constructing strawmen (fallacy No. 4)

By the way, if you can't trust recorded materials, you must ask the students who were present at the time...It doesn't look like Matthew is getting any support there...

False premise (i.e. "you can't trust recorded materials"), returning us to the bandwagon fallacy.

Carmen picks up where Anonymous leaves off:

A question..is this recorded too? "The teacher then declined to comment further without his union representative. However, he fired one last shot at the student, saying, "You got the big fish … you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher…!" if not...how can we can prove it is true? curious....

Apparently you can trust recorded materials. Carmen again:

By the way, Matthew is a biblical name...very interesting...

And this is an ad hominem argument. Whether "Matthew" is a biblical name is neither here nor there as regards the rightness or wrongness of Matt LaClair's actions.

UPDATE: For more examples of wooly thinking from the good folk of Kearney, visit this thread on the Kearney discussion forum. (Via Jim Lippard)

UPDATE II: Insofar as we can trust recorded materials (hehe), Rational Rant has a partial transcript up. How's this for a textbook example of special pleading:

But the public school shouldn’t teach a religion, but the scriptures aren’t religion.

Read More

At Arms Length: Jen on mediated relationships

From Unsane and Safe:

In effect, I found that human relations in Perth are Mediated relationships. That is, for the most part, relationships are theoretical postulates. To give an example: one does not, for instance, notice somebody in need and then immediately render assistance without first pausing to consider the theoretical postulates which are thought to govern the situation. There is always the sense of a need to pause thus, and to consider one’s axioms before any human interaction with another.

This “arms length” theoretical mandate is given further enhancement by a sense of division between public and private realms of society. This is less a structural division these days as it is an epistemological division. One assumes that the role that one has been financially harnessed to do actually provides the attributive source of each person’s identity. So much for “public” identity. “Private” identity is the lower brother in this epistemological hierarchy. One “privately” varies from one’s fellow citizens, but this is not considered problematic unless it impinges on one’s capacity to fulfill the role that is designated “public”. One is defined by the manner one has found to earn money. One is not defined by one’s choices in life – which are personal – unless it is considered that one’s personal choices impinge on one’s public identity. In other words, personal choices are not considered interesting, except in the occasional negative sense. This theoretical division between public and private produces a social pattern, which constantly repeats.

Reading this reminded me of a passage, in the honours thesis I wrote on masculinity in Lord of the Rings, in which I considered Australian male friendships in very similar terms. I suggested that the dominant model of masculinity in Australian society is one which views close or intimate male friendship with at least a tinge of suspicion. Hence, the dominant mode of male friendship in Australian society is a mediated friendship; mediated, that is, through a shared activity or interest (be it fishing, drinking . . . perhaps even blogging) which both defines and limits the friendship. (Unlike Frodo's and Sam's.)

But I digress . . .

Read More

It's not easy being atheist, but building strawmen is dead simple.

Pastor Steve at Millersville Bible Church thinks he's figured out what's been eating us atheists:

An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose. Yes, atheists enjoy many smaller meanings of life-- like friendship and love, pleasure and sorrow, Mozart and Plato. But to be consistent with his atheism, he cannot allow for ultimate meaning. Yet, if the atheist is honest, he will admit to feeling that there is something more to existence -something bigger.

The theist is in precisely the same boat--unless he can demonstrate that this "ultimate purpose" of which he speaks actually exists. (He can't.) "Feeling" that there is something more to existence is not evidence that there is more to existence. Nor is it evidence that others share necessary share this "feeling."

The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic. He is like the man who finds an encyclopedia lying in the woods and refuses to believe it is the product of intelligent design. Everything about the book suggests intelligent cause. But, if he accepted such a possibility, he might be forced to conclude that living creatures composed of millions of DNA-controlled cells (each cell containing the amount of information in an encyclopedia) have an intelligent cause. His controlling bias against God will not allow him to accept this.

Here's where the encyclopedia analogy falls flat. (i) Everything about the book suggests intelligent cause only because we already know that encyclopedias are human artefacts. (ii) The only intelligent designers of which we are aware are humans. (iii) It does not follow from the fact that encyclopedias have an intelligent cause, that living creatures have an intelligent cause. That's what we call a nonsequitur--unless the author is suggesting that humans are the intelligent cause of all living creatures.

Yet, ironically, the atheist has to believe in miracles without believing in God. Why? Well, one law that nature seems to obey is this: whatever begins to exist is caused to exist. The atheist knows that the universe began to exist and since the universe is, according to the atheist, all there is, the very existence of the universe seems to be a colossal violation of the laws of nature (i.e., a miracle).

Nobody suggests that this universe is "all that there is."

But if (i) everything has a cause, and (ii) God is the cause of the universe, then what caused God? Oh, I get it. Your God is "miraculous," so the logic of causation doesn't apply to you. Belief in Christ gives you the power to move goalposts!

An atheist must also suppress all notions of morality.

No, he mustn't. What's scary is the notion that morality depends upon a belief in God--and I urge my readers, should they encounter anyone who propounds such a notion, to run very quickly in the opposite direction. The only thing preventing this person from hacking you to pieces, apparently, is his belief in a deity. We call such a person a psychopath.

In fact, the atheist must conclude that evil is an illusion. For there to be evil, there must also be some real, objective standard of right and wrong.

How does this constitute evidence of God's existence? It doesn't. In fact, what's happening here is what Voltaire predicted would happen when he said: "If God doesn't exist, we would have to invent him." God is invented, after the fact, as a guarantor of a pre-existing moral code.

The atheist must also live with the arrogance of his position.

Lacking a belief in God because there is no reason to believe in God's existence is not arrogant--it's reasonable. What's arrogant is purporting to have such a total knowledge of the universe that one can confidently assert that God exists.

The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof. If he accepted the standard rules for testing the truth claims of historical documents, he would be forced to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Only if the "standard rules" amounted to this: it's in the Bible; therefore it's true. But the Bible is not a historical text; nor did historiography mean the same thing two thousand years ago that it does today.

Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals.

It depends what he means by "importantly different." But human beings are, as a result of evolution, importantly different from other animals. They still belong to the animal kingdom, nevertheless.

The realities of human creativity, love, reason, and moral value seem to indicate that humans are creatures uniquely made in the image of God.

How so? (Another nonsequitur.)

Always remember that the atheist's problem with belief in God is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it.

No, the atheist's problem with belief in God is the absence of evidence. The notion that evidence for God's existence exists, but is being supressed, is . . . too idiotic for words.

Via Pharyngula

Read More

Dealing with disgust: the Aghoris

Radio National's Encounter has a program on the Aghoris, a Hindu sect that worships Shiva and practices necrophagy--the eating of the flesh of human corpses:

In many cultures throughout the world, death is a confronting process. People distance themselves from anything that involves decay, and rituals are often sanitised.

But in India, even though death is regarded as ritually polluting, bodies are burnt openly on funeral pyres, with families looking on. Some religious traditions believe that contact with death and decay is a powerful opportunity for spiritual development. [. . .]

A radical tradition with Hindu elements arose in India many centuries ago that likes to get close to everything that's considered dirty to do with death and decay. The Aghoris are a little-known community in north India who consume substances believed to be polluting to orthodox Hindus. Traditional Aghori practices include: drinking wine and urine from human skulls; smearing themselves with cremation ash, and the practice that has most coloured their image - the eating of human flesh.

The entire transcript is available here.

Read More

BlogReAnimator III: "On the 'appeal to disgust'"

I haven't rebirthed an old blog post in several months. This one has been prompted by Daniel (late of Seeking Utopia, currently of Secretly Seeking Utopia) who has seen fit to publish an image of an infant, killed in recent Israeli attacks upon the Gaza Strip, whose brains are falling out of its open skull.

(There. I've said it. You know the content of the image (NSFW). You know the context. I'm not going to link to it--so track it down at your own risk.)

Before we proceed . . . I think there is an inherent risk in publishing gruesome or grisly images of the dead with the intent of "shocking" viewers into supporting your cause. Such images have a tendency to rob their subjects of their dignity, and you may find that the outrage generated by the image ends up being directed squarely at you. The litmus test can be summed up in a simple question: does viewing this image advance our knowledge of the situation? In the case of, say, the Abu Ghraib images, I would say: yes. In the case of the image on Seeking Utopia: we know already that innocents are being slaughtered in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so does publishing this image achieve anything beyond robbing the dead infant of her dignity? I think not.

Anyway . . .

Friday, July 28, 2006

I have just come across a wonderful interview with the philosopher Martha Nussbaum on the topic of the deleterious role played by disgust and shame in public policy and discourse surrounding important social issues. You might even say her argument establishes the appeal to disgust as a logical fallacy--though she is careful to emphasise that emotion can have a legitimate role to play in reasoning:

Some emotions are essential to law and to public principles of justice: anger at wrongdoing, fear for our safety, compassion for the pain of others, all these are good reasons to make laws that protect people in their rights. [. . .]

Disgust, I argue (drawing on recent psychological research), is different. Its cognitive content involves a shrinking from contamination that is associated with a human desire to be non-animal. That desire, of course, is irrational in the sense that we know we will never succeed in fulfilling it; it is also irrational in another and even more pernicious sense. As psychological research shows, people tend to project disgust properties onto groups of people in their own society, who come to figure as surrogates for people's anxieties about their own animality. By branding members of these groups as disgusting, foul, smelly, slimy, the dominant group is able to distance itself even further from its own animality. [. . .] Unlike anger, disgust does not provide the disgusted person with a set of reasons that can be used for the purposes of public argument and public persuasion.

Nussbaum cites recent debates around same-sex marriage and gay rights--including, for example, claims that "gay men eat feces and drink raw blood"--as examples of public discourse that regularly invoke disgust to persuade people to adopt a particular point of view. Videos of abortions produced for public consumption by anti-abortion groups also spring to mind. There is a case to be made, perhaps, that images of dead, wounded or disfigured women and children--which might be used to bolster both pro- and anti-war arguments--also constitutes an appeal to disgust.

What do you think? Is the appeal to disgust a logical fallacy, and should it be avoided?

Read More

The Best of Net Atheism

I'd like to draw your attention to a new link on my sidebar (under "Politics, Philosophy and Slave Morality": if I knew how to upload graphics to the Blogger template, I'd use the banner above): The Best of Net Atheism. And by the looks of it, this atheism thing is developing into quite the cottage industry: The Best of Net Atheism links to an atheist film reviewer, an atheist radio station, an atheist teen site, and even an atheist dating service. (You'll find yours truly listed there, too ;))

There's something unsettling about all this. Scrolling down the list I find the whole endeavour eerily reminiscent of the parallel popular culture fashioned by Pentecostal/Evangelical Christians in an endeavour to close themselves off from the evil secular world*. (Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that many of the sites are operated by deprogrammed evangelicals.) What worries me is the possibility that atheists might be developing a similar kind of siege mentality--and atheists have less to fear from reality than certain of their faith-based counterparts.

Then again, maybe what atheists need--and remember, they're even more unpopular than Muslims and homosexuals in America (Australian data is unavailable at this time)--is a little evangelical zeal!

*For comic relief, have a look at Landover Baptist's TrueChristian TV Guide.

Read More

Deadset Legend of the week: Matthew LaClair

Here in Australia we regularly endure Rightwing culture warriors screaming at the top of their lungs about the Left's "long march" through educational institutions, bedazzling us with tales of how our children are strapped into their chairs Clockwork Orange-style and force-fed ideas that come "straight from Chairman Mao."

Well, Jim Lippard's blog (Via Pharyngula) really gives them something to whinge about:

A history teacher at the local public high school here may have bitten off more than he cares to chew this fall. Self-described conservative Baptist David Paszkiewicz used his history class to proselytize biblical fundamentalism over the course of several days at the beginning of this school year.

Among his remarks in open class were statements that a being must have created the universe, that the Christian Bible is the word of God, and that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark. If you do not accept Jesus, he flatly proclaimed to his class, "you belong in hell." Referring to a Muslim student who had been mentioned by name, he lamented what he saw as her inevitable fate should she not convert. In an attempt to promote biblical creationism, he also dismissed evolution and the Big Bang as non-scientific, arguing by contrast that the Bible is supported by what he calls confirmed biblical prophecies.

One of his hell-bound students, Matthew LaClair, took issue with Paszkiewicz's ramblings and requested a meeting with the teacher and the principal. The teacher lied (for Jesus) through his teeth, denying he had uttered the offending statements; upon which instance LaClair revealed that he had recorded the remarks, presenting two CDs to the principal.

The teacher then declined to comment further without his union representative. However, he fired one last shot at the student, saying, "You got the big fish … you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher…!"

Matthew LaClair, you are a Deadset Legend, and an inspiration to us all.

UPDATE: At Dispatches from the Culture Wars, a Deadset Legend from the past.

UPDATE II: Audio and a transcript of part of the recordings, via Jim Lippard.

UPDATE III: I respond to Kearney students here.

Read More

Today's Text

Isn't it interesting how, "I think, therefore I am," has today become, "I emote, therefore I think"?

--Jennifer Cascadia

Read More

The Lazy Blogger

I can't be bothered with a proper post this weekend, so allow me to point you in the direction of some worthwhile discussions and posts on other blogs:

New Lines from a Floating Life
Religion and politics in the USA: nonstereotypical view
A particularly Australian decency

Bruce's Rave and Rant
My farewell post to "Seeking Utopia" (a.k.a "Secretly Seeking Kool-Aid")
Metablogging Blog Implosions: Timorous and Callow

Also noteworthy:
Slacktivist's rejoinder to Jim Wallis' strawman attack on the "Secular Left."
Another strawman attack on the "Secular Left" that desperately deserves fisking (Radio National: "Ockham's Razor")

Read More

This is your brain on dispensationalism #6

The week in fundie . . .

*Purity Balls: Proof that the Christian Right hates women's sexuality as much as Sheik Hilaly does. (Via Pharyngula--and check out this fantastic post on the same topic at SFGate.com)

*From the same Pharyngula post--news that the "Kids on Fire" summer camp, featured in the documentary Jesus Camp, has been closed down.

*Oddly enough, it appears that "abstinence education" has not lowered the incidence of sexually-transmitted disease in the US. (No!) (Via Morons.org)

*A Texas landscaping firm, Garden Guy, sent the following email to a prospective client:

"I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work for homosexuals."

Said prospective client promptly forwarded the email to all his friends, who forwarded it onto theirs, and the rest is history.

*Bill Muehlenberg dons the tinfoil hat in a letter to the evangelical newsletter New Life:

I have long been aware of the number of people and organisations that really do not like me and what I am doing. But lately I have learned of even more hatred and animosity being directed at me, and all this makes me realise how much more I need your prayer covering. The hatred and vitriol is of course symptomatic of a deeper spiritual war, as Scripture tells us ...

I continue to be amazed and grateful that neither I nor my family members have been physically attacked as yet, and our home still stands. Undoubtedly there are angels surrounding our home, and all the hatred has thus far been limited to mail, email, phone calls etc.

Even yours truly gets a mention, courtesy of the Trophy cast in Bill's name and awarded periodically on this blog. More at Unbelief.org (5/11/06 entry).

Read More

The US midterms: Fundie is so last week . . .

The latest Religion Report looks at the failing marriage between libertarians and fundies in the Republican Party, also making the point that both groups are becoming disillusioned with the Bush administration, albeit for different reasons. Libertarians are unhappy with the increasing size and power of government under Bush; while the fundies are pissed off that the administration hasn't used its power--including its domination of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government--to punish sodomites, further curtail the reproductive rights of women, and force prayer and pseudoscience upon students in public schools.

This all bodes very interesting for Australian politics. The Religious Right does not have the power and influence here that it enjoys in the US; nevertheless, the Coalition, in imitating what it believes has been a very successful Republican Party formula*, has focused a lot of energy into cultivating an evangelical Christian base of its own (the Hillsong vote). Now that the Republican formula has demonstrably failed, and with increasing numbers of "Howard's Battlers" struggling to service credit card debts or even losing their homes, it remains to be seen whether there will be a shift in direction on the part of the Howard Government (or whether it will keep on digging).

*OK, OK, I'm not being fair. In some areas--such as its cruelty towards asylum seekers--the Howard Government has been a global trendsetter.

UPDATE: Looks like the Dems have the Senate in the bag as well.

UPDATE II: Concerning reaction to the Dem's win, all's quiet on the RWDB front (so far). For sheer entertainment, have a look at the Little Green Footballs response (Jesus General). The RaptureReady crowd, meanwhile, are not happy with the fact that a Muslim has been elected to the House of Reps (Pharyngula).

Read More

The Cream of the Republican Party

Some interesting information regarding Republicans running for Congress:

–AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
–AZ-01: Rick Renzi
–AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
–CA-04: John Doolittle
–CA-11: Richard Pombo
–CA-50: Brian Bilbray
–CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
–CO-05: Doug Lamborn
–CO-07: Rick O’Donnell
–CT-04: Christopher Shays
–FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
–FL-16: Joe Negron
–FL-22: Clay Shaw
–ID-01: Bill Sali
–IL-06: Peter Roskam
–IL-10: Mark Kirk
–IL-14: Dennis Hastert
–IN-02: Chris Chocola
–IN-08: John Hostettler
–IA-01: Mike Whalen
–KS-02: Jim Ryun
–KY-03: Anne Northup
–KY-04: Geoff Davis
–MD-Sen: Michael Steele
–MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
–MN-06: Michele Bachmann
–MO-Sen: Jim Talent
–MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
–NV-03: Jon Porter
–NH-02: Charlie Bass
–NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
–NM-01: Heather Wilson
–NY-03: Peter King
–NY-20: John Sweeney
–NY-26: Tom Reynolds
–NY-29: Randy Kuhl
–NC-08: Robin Hayes
–NC-11: Charles Taylor
–OH-01: Steve Chabot
–OH-02: Jean Schmidt
–OH-15: Deborah Pryce
–OH-18: Joy Padgett
–PA-04: Melissa Hart
–PA-07: Curt Weldon
–PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
–PA-10: Don Sherwood
–RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
–TN-Sen: Bob Corker
–VA-Sen: George Allen
–VA-10: Frank Wolf
–WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
–WA-08: Dave Reichert

Read More

This is your brain on dispensationalism #5

The week in fundie:

*Irony can be a bitch: having, along with many other evangelical leaders, prostituted himself to the Republican Party for years, National Association of Evangelicals president (and rampant homophobe) Ted Haggard finds himself at the centre of a gay sex and meth scandal involving a male prostitute in Denver. (TIME)

*Homophobia: bringing Jews, Muslims and Christians together for two millenia. (TIME)

*Hilaly is the theory and Saudi Arabia is the practice. (Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

UPDATE: Bugger the closet-homosexuality allegations--the real question is: does Ted Haggard eat figs?

UPDATE II: President Bush claims only to have spoken with Haggard a couple of times, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell play down his influence among evangelicals, and now his own church has sacked him. That's thrice he's been disowned!

Read More