Fundamentalist Idiocy Again, Again

Did I mention the idiocy of fundamentalist Christians yet?  Or do I repeat myself?  What they say makes great fodder as well as fertilizer.

It’s about the recent election of former S.C. Governor Sanford to Congress. A local radio personality [religious FM station] wrote an op ed on a local religious blog site in which he condemned his election because of his ‘personal moral failing,’ although he was forgiven by  a ‘God of grace and second chances.’ He chastised the voters in that congressional district for ’not caring care about the ethics and character of our elected officials any longer.’

Of course his ‘sin’ was the same as that of Bill Clinton [and a long list of other,unnamed politicians]. Bedroom stuff, as usual. My, my those fundies are surely obsessed with sex!

By the way, the author, who is also a pastor, skewered the Affordable Health Care Act in his rant on ‘immoral behavior’ of politicians. What? Well, yes because, after all, the pastor is a Republican.  Not only a Republican but I suspect at Tea Party Republican due to the many uses of the word ‘freedom’ in his screed.  Hence the diss on President Obama’s health care legislation.He mentioned the 15,000 pages of legislation in the act to reinforce another point: the more external restraints we need on our behavior, the less free we will be.

Go figure, this from a fundamentalist pastor. Restraints he said. As if fundamentalists aren’t into the ‘restraining’ business.

Well, I thought you might like to keep up with the latest fundy idiocy which is spreading rapidly like a malignant cancer across the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

…addendum

Educating Christian fundamentalists simply doesn’t work. They do not accept any education that is in direct conflict with their worldview. What remains is to educate the rest of the American populace about Christian fundamentalism and dominionism, educating the American populace about the David Bartons of the world, so that when elections occur, an educated populace can reject the infiltration of fundamentalism on the rest of American society, which will, given the right opportunity (usually in a climate of fear like 9/11), erode American democracy entirely and push our nation into the fringes of the world into irrelevance.

- Dakota O’Leary, freethinker,  scholar of theology and literature

Send the Clowns to DC

Clowns are a curious lot as are the current members of Congress.  It has become increasingly clear to me that our current form of government, which has served us fairly well for over 230 years, is now defunct. It is in permanent paralysis and likely to remain so for years to come.  It’s all about personal and partisan political game-playing rather than serving the welfare of The People.

More and more Americans are understanding this fact yet what can we, the people do?  Very little directly, yet there is another way to both vent our anger and perhaps bring about change- clowns.

Yes clowns!

I propose a National Clown Day all across the nation, perhaps on the fourth of July. Those who could travel to DC could ring the House and Senate with clowns.  At home, rather than waving flags and blowing off fireworks, we all should dress up as our favorite clown, get into the local parades and carry a sign such as  CLOWNS in CONGRESS!

It might be fun!

Tea Party activists are not Republicans!!

Writing from the perspective of being a life long Republican, I thought I would pass on some facts on the Tea Party and the disaster they have provided to the party.

1. As the Tea Party activists are vehemently anti-Democratic, do not be mistaken, they are not Republicans either.

Even though the Tea Party activists will vote the Republicans ticket, they are also surprisingly negative about the party they are voting for! When asked if they considered themselves more Republican or more a Tea Party member, more than three-quarters chose Tea Party. Given this outlook it is not surprising that the activists also rate the party they vote for very poorly.

2. Tea Party activists aren’t nearly as concerned about winning.

They are significantly more concerned with ideological purity than with political pragmatism. In other words, the Tea Party cares more about what nominees believe than whether they can win and compromising on politics means compromising on principle. I like to refer to this as “The Political Faith.”

The findings help explain what’s happened in so many GOP primary races. Both nationally and at the state level, moderate GOP officeholders found themselves with primary challengers. The Tea Party has helped propel several upstart candidacies, like Christine O’Donnell’s infamous effort to win Delaware’s Senate seat or more recently, Richard Mourdock’s successful challenge to sitting Senator Dick Lugar. In both of those cases, and several others, the Tea Party candidate has proved too extreme for the general election and lost. That is why there are many within the Party are today concerned with this unelectable new direction.

3. Any attempt to bridge the gap between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party are doomed to fail.

The problem facing the Republican Party today is to keep the Tea Party in the fold while shifting things more to the center. After the dismal GOP performance in the 2012 elections, establishment figures began pushing back against the Tea Party.

Famous consultant Karl Rove announced a new political action committee designed to challenge extreme GOP candidates with more marketable ones. The national party even put out a report after the 2012 losses that pushed for more pragmatic candidates that could have a broader appeal but the gap between the two groups is huge.

Simply put, the GOP has been way too reliant on the Tea Party base but the Tea Party doesn’t care about the GOP or its fate. The Tea Party only cares about moving the political conversation increasingly towards the extreme, reactionary right of the Political Spectrum.

Interesting quote of the day:

From the FAIR blog:

Where media define the “center” or the “middle” tells you a lot about the worldview they are promoting. The “center” doesn’t usually indicate where most of the public is, but rather where elites have determined an appropriate middle between opposing arguments. Confusing the two concepts is common (and not an accident).

The Article in question is about the economic advice from two of the most prominent economists who have worked at the highest levels of government and academia.  On the other hand, this is a fairly telling comment as I have been seeing a lot of political terms being misused, such as “socialism” and “conservative”.  The last term being the most thoroughly brutalised of all of them.

“Conservatism”, from the Latin: conservare–”to retain”, is defined as a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative. Conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity. According to the 2nd Viscount Hailsham, a former chairman of the British Conservative Party, “Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself.”

To me to be a “Conservative” one must be strongly for social order and institutions while not accepting change to that order without good reason.

Of course, the definition is used about has this caveat:

There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world – each upholding their respective traditions – may disagree on a wide range of issues.

I am of the opinion that the precedent set in the US by its use of force to obtain independence from Britain (a decidedly non-conservative act) has left its mark on US politics to bring about what I call the “reality challenged right”.  Although, one could also add that other factors are also afoot to create the “reality challenged right”.

The main characteristic of this is the belief in the use of force in politics, which is not found in most civilised nations.  In fact, that is probably the most obvious characteristic of this movement.

Another characteristic is being fact adverse, with the most frightening aspect being the failure to address climate change as news comes that the atmospheric level of a carbon dioxide has reached a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.  Scientists believe the rise in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea.

“It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

I have to admit that I find this movement quite frightening and am not sure how it could have been allowed to arise, but the fact that such a disastrous political faction could be given any level of credibility, let alone called “Conservative”, boggles my mind.

The Bible: History or Myth?

By Jeffrey Small, From the HuffPost Blog:

When you hear the word “myth” associated with the Bible, what is the first thought that comes to your mind?

Many use the term myth in a pejorative sense to mean that the stories described are not factually true. Others define myth as non-historical tales that contain a moral message. Both of these definitions miss the richness of the term. Mythology is a form of literature that expresses fundamental truths in a way that ordinary discourse is inadequate to describe. The stories that make up the myths are often anchored in some historical reality, but this need not be so. Mythology adds a richness of detail and a concreteness to metaphorical language. Reading Biblical stories as mythology gives me the freedom to understand their underlying meaning in a way I never did when I was taught as a child that these stories were factually true.

Why do most modern scholars reject a reading of the Bible as history much less as literal fact?

1. In an age of science and technology, too much of the Bible is simply unbelievable to today’s mind and turns people away from the underlying messages. From a scientific standpoint, many of the “facts” in the Bible are simply wrong. One of many examples: according to Genesis, the universe is just over 6000 years old. According to physics, the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago.

2. Many of the stories are also scientifically impossible, like the tale of Joshua stopping the sun moving across the sky. This story assumes (as was the thinking then) that the earth was flat and was at the center of the universe. We simply know this to be false. Second, for the sun to stop would mean that the earth would have to cease rotating on its axis — an event which would destroy the planet.

3. For many of the miracle stories, natural explanations exist. The authors of these stories lived in an age when people believed that solar eclipses were divine omens, disease was divine punishment, and mental illness was caused by demon possession. In the case of Jesus, healing was an important part of his ministry. However, today we can find faith healers in Haiti who practice voodoo and in tribal Africa who practice witchcraft. Many of these modern-day faith healers have patients who are actually healed by these practices. Doctors call this the placebo effect, an effect so powerful that drugs must undergo double blind experiments.

4. Some of the mythological stories in the Bible are not original, but were borrowed from other traditions. The Epic of Gilgamesh — a Sumerian poem detailing the creation of the universe that predates the writings of Genesis by many centuries — contains a flood story whose plot points are almost identical to the story of Noah.

5. The other world religions also contain rich histories of mythology and fantastical sounding (to us) stories. On what basis can we Christians claim that our miracle stories are legitimate, yet theirs are flights of fancy? The mythology surrounding the Buddha, who lived 500 years before Jesus, includes tales of how he healed the sick, walked on water, and flew through the air. His birth was foretold by a spirit (a white elephant rather than the angel Gabriel) who then entered his mother’s womb! At his birth, wise men predicted that he would become a great religious leader. Twentieth-century scholars Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell wrote that certain archetypal religious myths are found across cultures, histories, and religions. Examples include the Cosmic Tree, the Virgin Birth, and The Resurrection.

6. The Bible itself is full of inconsistencies. How can it be an accurate historical record, when the various books contradict each other? Here is UNC Religion Professor Bart Ehrman:

“Just take the death of Jesus. What day did Jesus die on and what time of day? Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John explicitly says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicitly says? Did he die at noon, as in John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself or did Simon of Cyrene carry his cross? It depends which Gospel you read. Did both robbers mock Jesus on the cross or did only one of them mock him and the other come to his defense? It depends which Gospel you read. Did the curtain in the temple rip in half before Jesus died or after he died? It depends which Gospel you read … Or take the accounts of the resurrection. Who went to the tomb on the third day? Was it Mary alone or was it Mary with other women? If it was Mary with other women, how many other women were there, which ones were they, and what were their names? Was the stone rolled away before they got there or not? What did they see in the tomb? Did they see a man, did they see two men, or did they see an angel? It depends which account you read.” 

7. Reading the Bible as a literal historical account of events from the past limits the power of these stories. Rather than expressing universal truths, a literal interpretation limits the actions of God to certain events in history. God’s actions in the world become finite, confined to certain historical events: like the chess master making individual moves on a chessboard frozen in time two thousand years ago. Reading these same stories mythologically, however, can bring forth their universal qualities.

8. A literal reading of the Bible alienates much of our society. The stories were written in a different age with different views on social justice — an age in which slavery was legitimate, an age when discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation was the norm. Too often because of this history, the Bible is used to justify intolerance today.

Reading the Bible as mythology is not a new concept. Two of the early Church Fathers, Origen (185-254 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD), both interpreted Genesis metaphorically, rejecting literal interpretations. Early in the 20th century, German theologian Rudolf Bultmann called for a “demythologizing” of the New Testament for many of the reasons given above. Rather, the movement in many fundamentalist circles today to read the Bible as inerrant (an extreme form of literalism, in which every word of Bible is viewed as true) is a late development from the 19th century as a response to the chipping away at the historicity of the stories since the Enlightenment.

I fear that an insistence on a literal or historical reading of the Bible will ultimately lead to the irrelevance of Christianity in our society. By throwing off the shackles of having to believe in the historicity of the Bible, we are free to interpret the stories as a testament to the religious experiences of people from a different age — a testament that communicates a meaning about their experiences of Ultimate Reality, of God. I understand that their experiences of the divine ground in their lives were interpreted through the lens of a pre-modern view of the world, and my own religious experiences will take on a different form today.

Will the Idiocy Ever End?

We are a remarkably moronic nation and I’m not talking about the math, science and reading scores of our students. It’s the adults.  The ones who ‘believe’ lots of idiocy. Yesterday my wife found the photo below on her Facebook page posted by a right-wing ‘friend.’

Sigh!

It truly is amazing what we Americans ‘believe.’ I wonder, though, if it is universal, cutting across national borders? Are Europeans and Canadians as gullible as we Americans? Or do they have a built-in ‘sensibility’ filter that many Americans lack?

Take religion for example. I’ve been playing around on a religious website lately observing the ‘beliefs’ of a group of fundamentalist Christians. When I throw in my agnostic thoughts I’m attacked like a rabid dog. Seriously. These people are sold on Creationism, the young earth hypothesis,  blood atonement, literalism of the Bible, and anything else you can imagine. It doesn’t take too much effort to ‘imagine’ what else is in their box of beliefs.

What else could account for the odd and skewed ‘beliefs’ demonstrated by those on the right-edge of the political spectrum?  After all, most are God-fearing, born-again, Bible-thumping Christians. You know, those who answer any question of morality with, “For the Bible says…”

I’m not talking a small group by any means. The Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape survey found that 26.3% of U.S. Protestants refer to themselves as evangelical. One fourth! Another Pew survey found that about 27% of the U.S. Catholic population consider themselves as old-style, literalist, charismatic Catholics. Together, this is a huge number of people across this nation.

Given this, why would we wonder why so many Americans hold odd ‘beliefs’ on other, non-religious issues? If this group can hold on to  incredible religious beliefs that defy history and science, it is easy to understand that this group may be quite vulnerable to accept propaganda of a political nature.

In a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey released January 2013, 75 percent of Republicans say that at least one political conspiracy theory [of 4 given to them] is likely true. This includes 64 percent who think that President Obama is hiding information about his background and early life and 19 percent who think the 2012 Presidential election was stolen. Yes, that stuff!

My unproven theory is this: a religiously marinated mind is a sponge for conniving politicos. What do you think?

Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum

www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA

By Britt Kennerly (AFP) – Jun 30, 2009

PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) — For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.

But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution — and their life’s work — was attacked.

“It’s sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn’t it?” said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.

“Like Sunday school with statues… this is a special brand of religion here. I don’t think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth’s history.”

The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a “creationist Disneyland” has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to “bring the pages of the Bible to life.”

Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values.

Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.

Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution.

“I think it’s very bad science and even worse theology — and the theology is far more offensive to me,” said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.

“I think there’s a lot of focus on fear, and I don’t think that’s a very Christian message… I find it a malicious manipulation of the public.”

Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur display.

The museum argues that the fossil record has been misinterpreted and that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple.

Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he was disturbed by the museum’s cartoonish portrayal of scientists and teachers.

“I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start guessing if what they’re being taught is wrong,” Jardine said.

Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to “the lay of the land” and show them firsthand what’s being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from the scientific community.

“I think in some cases, people were surprised by the physical quality of the exhibits, but needless to say, they were unhappy with things that are inaccurately portrayed,” he said.

“And there was a feeling of unhappiness, too, about the extent to which mainstream scientists and evolutionists are demonized — that if you don’t accept the Answers in Genesis vision of the history of Earth and life, you’re contributing to the ills of society and of the church.”

Daryl Domning, professor of anatomy at Howard University, held his chin and shook his head at several points during the tour.

“This bothers me as a scientist and as a Christian, because it’s just as much a distortion and misrepresentation of Christianity as it is of science,” he said.

“It’s not your old-time religion by any means.”

Copyright © 2013 AFP. All rights reserved.