Who Knew A Christian Prank Show Could Be So Mean?

A poor girl gets pranked into thinking she is "Left Behind" during the Rapture (and do yourself a favor, skip the sermon and go to the 1:20 mark):



... So, is it Christian of me or un-Christian of me to find this funny?

... Child Abuse?

I recently finally finished reading "The God Delusion," by Richard Dawkins, after stalling on the last few chapters. Overall, the book is fantastic, surprisingly funny, and ultimately a massive relief for me. It was the first time I read something that articulated my skepticism and doubt so well.

I do not come from a religious background. For me as a child, religion was obviously true, because everyone believed in it. I can only remember one event from my childhood that exposed me to the idea of non-belief (once, a friend's mother was upset with my family for taking her child to church without her permission -- it took me a while to realize my family was clearly in the wrong) .

Once I began working through my doubts, eventually arriving at atheism in high school, I mentally relegated myself to being a minority and an outsider. Not only was it doubtful many people agreed with me, but it would be far too impolite to ever express what I really thought.

I have held onto this aversion to rocking the (religious) boat. This was one of the reasons why the penultimate chapter of "The God Delusion," which focuses on vocalizing opposition to parents passing on their religion to their children, was difficult for me to swallow. What right do you have to have any opinion on what religion someone else's child is brought up within??

Religious indoctrination, Dawkins argues, is a form of mental child abuse.

"Geez," I thought as I read Dawkin's argument, "no wonder everyone hates atheists."

But then I started to think about it. At its root, what is religion? A pleasant answer to that question is that religion is a foundation for morals and judgment on which our human world revolves. But honestly, that answer gives religion way too much credit. We have morals and judgment because, without them, humans would have become extinct thousands and thousands of years ago. To survive, we evolved into increasingly complex social creatures, capable of empathy and stumbled into our own morality.

Ultimately, religion and belief is a prism through which someone can view the world. It is immensely powerful, but it is still merely a perspective. Religion describes the world and the people in it on its own terms, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

And surely, something that is "merely a perspective" is harmless to pass onto an impressionable child, right?

I felt ambivalent about that question. That is, until watching the following video:

The video, uploaded by a young Christian girl, Molly, shows her and her friend in their effort to convert a young Hindu girl, Saraa. Thank god, they are unsuccessful.

On the surface, the video is hilariously stupid. Molly and her friend can't comprehend how someone with a darker complexion, clearly of Indian descent, comes from Asia instead of Africa. But making it through the entire 10 minutes reveals the video to be tragic.

"Okay," Molly heavily sighs, "it's really frustrating. I don't -- okay -- like I know it's not your fault that you're Hindu, but I can't -- I don't know if I can be around that type of presence, like someone who can't let Jesus in--"

"I know. It's like -- it's hard," chimes in her Christian cohort.

"Like, you're not a bad person, but -- It's just --"

"If you just try --"

"You're going down the wrong path. Okay," Molly sighs again, recognizing her defeat, "I can talk to you, but I don't know if we can be, like, friends."

Fed up with the backhanded insults, Saraa departs.

Okay, I know the girls are stupid. Deplorably stupid. But they are also young. And clearly, Molly's only perspective stems from her religion. Incapable of seeing anything of value outside her Christian prism, Molly is handicapped.

Can children handle the seriously flawed system of belief that is religion? Maybe if there was a chapter in the New Testament about critical thinking I would feel far less ... critical. At least adults can be expected to understand the archaic nature of most religions and also have the worthwhile capacity to pick and choose. But (most) kids can't pick and choose. They have what they are told. And if the parents pass on an identity of Christian or Muslim or Jew, who is the child to argue?

Should not children be given a pass, at least until given the tools of critical thinking, to be tagged with a religion? Maybe instead of asking, "what right do you have to have any opinion on what religion someone else's child is brought up within?" I should be asking "what right do you have to categorize your child's belief system before s/he is even given a chance to weigh in on the subject?"

Maybe if Molly's parents asked themselves this question, their daughter would not be down a friend.

Okay, No... This Is Some Funny Shit

I take back what I said in my previous post.  This is the funniest thing I've ever seen:

The Longest Joke In The World

In high school, I did a lot of work with the Anti-Defamation League, largely around issues of discrimination and prejudice, and they have helped positively shape my view of the world. One project I helped organize with a bunch of other high schoolers was a big Passover Seder for a bunch of other high school students. As a theme, we came up with what we believed to be about a dozen words that best characterized what we saw to be important in the world -- words like strength, understanding, and love. For each word we found corresponding quotes from people like Margaret Mead, Albert Einstein and T.S. Elliot. This was all thrown together for a (really bad) video I had made to introduce the Seder.

I was thinking about all this recently, and I had an odd realization about one of the quotes. The quote in question was for the word "faith," and was written by someone named Ambrose Bierce:

"Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel."

I am not sure why I so clearly remember this one particular quote for "faith," while having to go back and re-watch the video to merely remember some of the other words we came up with. I think this quote was the only one I did not fully comprehend, so I stored it away in my subconscious, slowly toiling over its meaning.

It has been ten years since the Passover Seder, and I think I just figured it out. I think this quote is a joke.

Actually, I am pretty sure it is a joke. The quote is taken from a satirical book published in 1911 called The Devil's Dictionary, a large collection of quirky definitions making fun of the world. For instance, the definition for "congratulations"?

"The civility of envy."

And the definition for "love"?

"A temporary insanity curable by marriage."

See? Really funny stuff. So funny, I think it has taken me a decade to get one of the punch-lines.

When it comes to Bierce's definition of "faith," the joke is the emphasis on ignorance:

"Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel."

The quote sure sounds nice though, doesn't it? The repetition of the word "without", the iambic-ish rhythm to the words. It is not hard to see why some high school junior doing a google search for "faith quote" thought it was a good idea.

But take away the poetics, and the definition says that faith is the belief of someone trying to deal with shit way above their pay grade.

If that is true, should we really consider faith to be a virtue? I do not mean "faith" as a synonym for hope or trust (which are two things of which I am a big fan), but "faith" as certainty of the unknowable. The world around us is going to keep going and we are going to keep figuring things out. And uncertainty about the unknowable is our fuel.

I am not saying that having faith is incompatible with intellectual curiosity and progress, but it does not help. That sounds harsh, but think about it.

Faith is a belief that no amount of proof or data or learned knowledge could ever shake. It is a "belief without evidence." So once again I ask, is that really a virtue?

A few days ago, scientists picked up a noise six times louder than any noise they have ever heard from deep space. It is a fascinating story. So far, no one has any idea what it is. They are clueless. And yet, you do not have astrologers and astrophysicists coming up with random ideas about what is this noise, and then when asked for proof, responding with, "I have no proof, I have faith."

But still, the word faith, essentially meaning a lack of a plausible explanation, is revered. Maybe I'm ignorant, but that makes no sense. What is positive in admitting complacency to ignorance?

Maybe this is something I need to accept that I will not understand. Maybe I should just have faith that faith is a good thing. That would solve my problem, wouldn't it?

FMI (For My Information)

I am posting this video not expecting anyone to to actually watch it (it is nearly an hour and a half long), but it is a fantastic interview with Sam Harris covering all the bases of science, religion, thought, society, the brain -- everything. He has such a poetic way of stating his position on things, I just want a place where I can watch it again.

Happy Holidays Merry Christmas

The other night, my friend remarked about my relationship with the holiday season: "Travis is an atheist, but I think he is more into Christmas than most people I know.  Isn't that funny??"  Well, that is not the exact quote, but you get the idea.  

But it is true.  Right now it looks like Christmas vomited in my living room.  Last night I was inspired by the decorations in a bar, and I want to copy their ideas in my apartment.  But to prevent my living spaces from being overtaken with a total lack of tact, I will refrain (mostly because my ceiling isn't high enough).   

But overall, there is nothing Christian about Christmas that I celebrate.  

I agree with the Bill O'Reillys and Pat Robertsons of the world that the holiday season is over-commercialized.  I agree that there is a "spirit of Christmas," but I do not think it has as much to do with Jesus as it does with Santa Claus.  I may as well be celebrating the Winter Solstice, just a few days late.  

I bring all this up because I just came across a fun article from a few years ago talking about the relationship famous atheist writers have with Christmas.  An excerpt:

“It seems to me to be obvious that everything we value in Christmas — giving gifts, celebrating the holiday with our families, enjoying all of the kitsch that comes along with it — all of that has been entirely appropriated by the secular world,” [Harris] said, “in the same way that Thanksgiving and Halloween have been.”

Mr. Dawkins, reached by e-mail somewhere on a book tour, was asked about his own Christmas philosophy. The response sounded almost as if he and Mr. Harris — and maybe other members of a soon-to-be-chartered Atheists Who Kind of Don’t Object to Christmas Club — had hashed out a statement of principles. Strangely, these principles find much common ground with Christians who complain about the holiday’s over-commercialization and secularization, though the atheists bemoan the former and appreciate the latter.

“Presumably your reason for asking me is that ‘The God Delusion’ is an atheistic book, and you still think of Christmas as a religious festival,” Mr. Dawkins wrote, in a reply printed here in its entirety. “But of course it has long since ceased to be a religious festival. I participate for family reasons, with a reluctance that owes more to aesthetics than atheistics. I detest Jingle Bells, White Christmas, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and the obscene spending bonanza that nowadays seems to occupy not just December, but November and much of October, too.”

He added: “So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone a Merry Christmas.”

While I partly disagree because there is a solid portion of the population that celebrate the holiday purely as a religious celebration and reject its secularization, I would argue they are in the minority.  The word Christmas will always retain some religious significance because... well... it has the word Christ in it.  But if you name me one religious aspect to Christmas, I will name five secular ones that have nothing to do with Jesus' birth.  

As corny as it sounds, this time of the year is ultimately about reconnecting and reaffirming your appreciation for family and friends.  It is a time of year to remind everyone to try to be a little bit nicer.  That giving can be more gratifying than receiving.  

If those are the ultimate goals, then Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.  

Oh, That's Interesting

Just when I thought I had a pretty good grasp on this whole gay marriage controversy, this interview springs up online.  I can't figure out yet if I agree with the general thesis, but it is very compelling:

The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.

Monotheistic religions feel threatened by the rise of feminism and the insistence, in many communities, that women take a bigger role in the church. At the same time that women are claiming more responsibility for their religious life, they are also moving out of traditional roles as wife and mother. This is why abortion is so threatening to many religious people -- it represents some rejection of the traditional role of mother.

I recommend the entire interview here.  

An Affront to Christians Everywhere (from my hometown, too!)

Well, not really.  But there are a bunch of Christians in Denver up in arms about some new billboards about Atheism.  The billboard, which comes across to me as a new support hotline, is up in a few random places around the Metro Area proclaiming, "Don't believe in God?  You are not alone."  A quick news clip:

There are a couple reasons why this story is immensely amusing.  

(1) They are billboards.  Metro Denver is a pretty large place, and they'll have a whopping 10 billboards in total.  Big deal!  If no one feigned persecution, the billboards would have been forgotten as soon as they went down.  The Christians creating this fake controversy are only giving the atheist group more bang for their buck.  Thanks to them, people are now more likely to pay more attention to the ads.  

(2) There are religious billboards up all the time.  People do not care.  Atheists do not freak out over them.  How insecure are you in your beliefs that you are taken aback by these billboards?  The billboards are not even directed at Christians!  They are directed at people who already do not believe in God!  

Do not get me wrong.  Religious people have been persecuted throughout history.  But pretending to be persecuted or affronted over something as uncontroversial and harmless as these billboards is just plain silly.  If you do not want to encounter anything in public that goes against your view of the world, do us all a favor and stay home.  

An Inalienable Right?

Dr. James Dobson of the right-wing, theocratic, anti-gay, Colorado Springs based evangelical powerhouse "Focus on the Family" is on the airwaves and in newspapers throughout the country this week with stories of doom and gloom about America's future after four years under President Obama. Some predictions:

"The Boy Scouts no longer exist."
"Tens of thousands of Christian (public school) teachers either quit or were fired."
"The Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations."
"Christian nurses, physicians, family counselors, lawyers and other professionals are being stripped of their right to work in those fields."

The common theme for these drastic domestic predictions: the gays. Or, more specifically, our society's successful inclusion of gays and lesbians as equal members of society.

Or, to read between the lines, Dobson is openly worrying about his right to discriminate. How can he still impose his religious beliefs on other people if he cannot force people to live their lives according to the rules of his ancient storybook? Of course, he would not call it "discrimination," but at that point you are merely playing with semantics. In his worldview, my civil rights are at odds with his religious freedom.

Please.

But that leaves the question: does Dobson have the right to openly support discrimination in both the private and public sector? In my opinion, of course he does. However, expecting the growing socially-liberal electorate to play along is going to be difficult.

After eight years of theocratic and divisive right wing politics, I think people have rightly developed a "live and let live" social attitude. By and large, people respond less and less to cultural "wedge" issues. They are tired of it. Dobson backfired. And consensus is mounting that supporting people like Dobson and his hateful rhetoric is prejudiced and discriminatory.

Society almost always moves towards inclusion. And reading Dobson cry about his view of the future only illustrates how out of touch he is with the real world.

So Dobson and his followers are more than welcome to their views and are free to pursue them, but they better not be surprised when more and more people call them out on their hate. If you want to behave like a bigot, you have to be comfortable being called a bigot. That's the new rule of the game.