You think fundamentalism is bad in the US, try Nigeria!

Nigeria seems to be the country taking pole position for Most Egregious Offenses in the Name of Religion these days.

Exhibit A: “Reverend King,” self-styled leader of the Christian Praying Asembly, is one of these scumbags who founds a cult just so he can get loads of trim. King, real name Emeka Ezeugo, subjected female members of his “congregation” to wild orgies, and even had some of them doing the personal maid thing in the nude. Then, in a true irony-meter-exploding moment, he rounded up a bunch of them, denounced them for fornication, and set them on fire, killing one. He has now been sentenced to hang, for which I risk losing my membership in the Cool Liberals Club by saying “good riddance.” Hammurabi was a man who knew how to take care of business.

Exhibit B: The Nigerian government is all set to give the definition of homophobia a quantum leap. They are considering legislation that would make it a crime for gay people, essentially, to even exist (as if it weren’t enough that they already stone them to death there). Any public meeting in which one or more attendee is gay would be illegal; so that would include having lunch, as well as, oh, a gay person buying groceries, if the checker at the supermarket is straight. This is fear taken to lunacy. It’s the kind of thing only Fred Phelps could love. I suppose it should come as no surprise that the Christian Right in the US looks upon Nigeria as some sort of role model to follow.

This is what you get in fanatically religious societies. Fear, hate, hypocrisy, and bizarre attitudes towards human sexuality that lead to violence. Say so, though, and you’re a “militant atheist” who just doesn’t recognize the “good things” religion does for people. Whatever.

A few nuggets from yesterday’s show

The Atheist Experience is back after a few weeks of involuntary hiatus! Yesterday we had an unusually contentious show with a lot of people calling in to argue vigorously. Near the end, Matt declared someone to be “The best caller EVER!!!” thanks to his uncanny ability to answer his own questions, as in these two bits of dialogue:

Scene 1:
Russell: “So let me get your story straight. Your mother was on the brink of death, and then she was fine. And that’s proof that God exists.”
Caller: “Yes.”
Russell: “Okay, what do you call it when a person is perfectly healthy and then drops dead? Is that proof that God does not exist?”
Caller: “No, that’s just proof that whatever happens to that person happens.”
Matt: “Congratulations! You get the caller of the day award for being honest and answering your own question!”

Scene 2 (one minute and one change of subject later):
Caller: “Why is God not real?”
Russell: “Do you believe in unicorns?”
Caller: “No.”
Russell and Matt: “Why?”
Caller: “Because… unicorns are fairy tales, and it hasn’t been proven that there is one.”
Matt: “You ARE the best caller EVER! You can answer your own questions every time!”

After the show, I answered some email exploring topics that we’d touched on that day, and I thought I should share it.

Your beliefs, or lack thereof, are based on what you perceive to be empirical evidence. Have you been shown empirical evidence that god (or gods or higher beings) do not exist? All you’ve got is proof that you are alive (to the best of your knowledge) and that life is going to cease as you know it, and have had to and must continue to pay taxes until the end of this heretofore called life.

Instinctually, fine. But give the devil its due…

BTW, I’m playing devil’s advocate, insofar as I can.

In the absence of evidence, not believing that something exists is the default position. Near the end of the show, I asked a caller if he believes in unicorns. He replied “No, because unicorns are fairy tales and it has not been proven that there is one.” Even though that caller did believe in God “on faith” (i.e., without any evidence), he did not feel the need to justify his lack of belief in unicorns any further. He didn’t need to provide additional evidence that there are no unicorns. He just said, as we would, that there isn’t evidence FOR them.

There is a philosophical principle known as Occam’s Razor. It states that once you take all the available information into account, the simplest explanation is generally the preferred one. That doesn’t mean that another explanation can’t replace it if new facts become available. However, if somebody insisted on me believing that unicorns exist, but said I had to take it on faith that they do, non-belief is still the default. The position “Yes there are unicorns” and “No there are not unicorns” are not equally good.

Do you agree with that, or are you going to start believing in unicorns now?

This is the second letter:

Towards the end of the show, you said something to the effect of “God is uncaused, therefore it’s not illogical to think the universe is uncaused.” Forgive me if I’m misrepresenting, but I can see why some ID-proponents use this reasoning to assert both are an equal matter of faith. Hoping you can elaborate more.

The situation LOOKS symmetrical, until you take into account the fact that what is really in question is not the origin of God, but the existence of God in the first place.

The existence of the universe is not in question. It’s right here. We’re in it. Neither theists nor atheists dispute the fact that there is a universe. But the existence of God is not established.

Now theists say “There has to be a God, because God is a necessary condition for the universe to exist.” Why? Because “Nothing can exist unless something caused it, and nothing causes itself.” But then they go on to say, as the caller did, that “God is the alpha and the omega, he was uncaused and doesn’t need a beginning.”

The problem is that it flatly contradicts the premise of the argument. If NOTHING can be uncaused, then God (being something) can’t be uncaused either. If something (such as God) CAN be uncaused, then that invalidates the reason why God supposedly “must” exist.

Was the universe uncaused? We have no idea, of course. But the universe definitely exists. So which is harder to swallow? That a universe (which definitely exists) is uncaused? Or that there is a previously undetected, unevidenced being who is greater and more powerful than the entire universe, with super-intelligence, who answers prayer and meddles in six billion lives, and THAT thing is uncaused?

There are other possibilities, of course. For example, the universe may be caused by something else uncaused, but it is in no way god-like, and has no intelligence. Or it’s caused by something in a previous universe, which is caused by a previous universe, and so on, and there is no first cause. I’m not proposing that any of these possibilities is “right”, but only that lacking an explanation does not force us to invent a super-intelligent hyperbeing unless we have any other good reasons to think that there is one.

The fundies’ continued obsession with fudge-packin’ and rug-munchin’!

Fundamentalist Christians’ obsession with homosexuality baffles me. That anyone at all would care what two consenting adults do in the bedroom points, I humbly submit, to an unhealthy psychology. I can’t say I have much reason to give gay people and their private lives a moment’s thought, and my best friend in the world is a femme lesbian who makes most Hollywood actresses look like five miles of bad road. The homophobia of the Christian Right has been a long-established reality, but it takes on a whole new character when they start having conferences and symposia on the subject.

The Exodus Freedom Conference has been running for 31 years now, teaching gay people that they have to deny their identities and hate themselves if they want to achieve “Christ-likeness”. It’s a practice we saw work so very well in the case of Ted Haggard. Anything at all is better than catchin’ teh gay, and the Exodus people are there to help!

Just looking through the list of seminar topics, we see just how much these folks’ views on every area of human sexuality that doesn’t fall under the rubric “straight married Christians makin’ a baby Christian” is informed by fear, confusion, guilt, and mistrust of one’s own body and biological urges. Here we see the Christian mantra of “sin” driven in with a sledgehammer; these tingly feelings you have are evil, you’re evil for having them, and you need to get right with God pronto if you have a hope of entering dem pearly gates.

The Sin Cycle: Breaking the Cycle of Repetitive Sin and Moving Forward
Sometimes it is hard to see the possibility for change when our lives seem dominated by repeated and cyclical destructive behavior. But Change does happen and the cycle of sin can be broken. This workshop will explore an amazing picture of how we get stuck in cycles of sin and, most importantly, how to open your self to change and how to move forward in freedom.

Cyclical destructive behavior is quite an ugly reality when it comes to things like drug abuse, violence, or criminal activity. But remember, the Exodus folks are using this label to guilt people of a Particular Sexual Preference, and that’s pretty ugly too.

Things get weirder further on. Just who the fark would get up in front of a roomful of people and identify themselves as a “chronic masturbator”? You might as well guiltily confess, “I’m a former bag-a-day chocolate chip cookie eater,” with the only difference being that masturbation doesn’t have all the saturated fat.

Finding Freedom From Masturbation
Often in our recovery we trade one vice for another in an effort to medicate from our pain. Many have given up sex with others in exchange for self-sex, considering it the lesser of two evils. A former chronic masturbator shares her struggle to overcome her habit and the shame, guilt, and contempt that accompanied. This class will explore whether masturbation is sin, are there special circumstances when it is not, tips and techniques to increase self-control, the importance of accountability, and the role of thought life.

I’d love to have a transcript of this one; I’m sure it’s at least as delightful as the legendary Mormon Guide to Self-Control.

Now with this one, things get both hilarious and surreal.

Escaping the Gaytrix
In the blockbuster trilogy, The Matrix, moviegoers are challenged to explore a fundamental theme we can all relate too: what is the truth underlying reality? This workshop will challenge and explore how gay defined reality is a complete system of beliefs, moral code and philosophy presented as imposed reality on all those who have same sex attraction. Christ presents a complete paradigm shift that initially feels like Morpheus’ statement “Welcome to the desert of the real,” but in reality, while Truth may be initially foreign and difficult, Jesus leads us to the abundant Life found in contentment in Christ. This workshop will help us all view life with same sex attraction in the Light of Truth instead of imposed gay ideology.

You think these wackjobs are projecting just a wee bit when they go on about “imposed ideologies”?

Here’s a fascinating article on just how wrong-headed and simplistic the Exodus folks are in their attempts to examine human sexuality and “cure” gays, and the way in which these “ex-gay” ministries are actually, repellently, exploiting emotional vulnerabilities in order to inculcate more guilt and rake in a whole new flock of dependent followers.

“Sure, there are some people out there who say that they’ve been cured,” he says. “Either they’re greatly in denial and they are living a life to satisfy the perceived demands of a harsh God or they are bisexual, which is a rare possibility, or that they were really never gay in the first place. There are a lot of people in ex-gay groups who were molested and therefore think they’re gay.”

Again, one only needs to go back to The Wonderful Week of Haggard to contrast the shame and scandal surrounding his outing — loaded down as it was with the baggage of Christian anger, fear, and loathing — with the very positive, happy and healthy vibes radiating from celebrities like Neil Patrick Harris and Lance Bass, who were coming out around the same time. Being gay is just a reality for some people. Deal with it. Attaching self-loathing and guilt to it is abominably abusive, especially when it’s a guilt tied to fear of the wrath of a nonexistent deity.

For your enjoyment: Ring in 2007 with some Pat Robert-fun!

The nefarious Pat Robertson continues to inhale air and exhale laughing gas. His latest act of saying something outrageous to get headlines and attention is this little gem: he thinks jillions of us are going to be kilt by terrorists this year, and Da Big G gave him the lowdown himself!

“The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.”

Robertson said God told him about the impending tragedy during a recent prayer retreat.

God also said, he claims, that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

It is, perhaps, the greatest thing in the world for atheists when fundamentalist nutbars go off on one of these “God spoke to me” benders. The creativity value is literally boundless. Sure, I know it isn’t nice to mock the mentally handicapped, but then, this is Pat “God’s sending a tsunami” Robertson we’re on about here. I feel I can bend the rules of common decency just a wee bit. So! Let’s start with the whole thing about how he got this breaking news about our national security from God Himself! The scene fades in on an average, sunny Tuesday morning in the CBN offices…


An elderly, avuncular man, PAT ROBERTSON, in an immaculate business suit, sits at a sprawling mahogany desk decorated with family photos. The wall behind him features more photos of himself, posing with politicians and presidents, and a massive portrait of Jesus Christ, autographed, “To Pat, from your pal, J., Xmas — how bout that eggnog! Wooo! XXOO”

The intercom buzzes. Robertson, who has been muttering to himself under his breath, looks up, startled. Wiping a string of drool from his lower lip, he flicks the button with a shaky hand.



(V/O intercom)

Mr. Robertson? God. Line one.


Oh…! Ah, yes, I’ll…take it right away.

Robertson flicks another switch, activating a speaker-phone.

(clearing throat)

Ahem…this is P…uh, I mean, my Lord…?

(V/O speaker-phone)

Pat! Buddy! What’s up? How’s the “little steeple”?


Oh! Uh…heh heh. Just, uh, just fine, Lord, heh…


Aw, don’t be such a prude! It’s your own damn fault. Always told you you should jack off more.

Robertson blushes deeply, is too embarrassed to speak.


Aw, I’m just messin’ with ya. Don’t take it personal. Listen, can’t talk long, I just wanted to drop a line and give you a heads-up on the next terror attack.


Oh dear. Oh dear dear dear. Will it — uh — will it be…big?


Hmmm…yeah. Pretty big. Good size one, anyway.


Oooh dear. I knew it. Those Muslims…if they would only confess their sins, give their hearts to your Son…


Yeah, it’s a pisser. What can you do, eh?


So…another attack. I just know there’s a scripture pointing right to this, but in Your wisdom, Lord, it’s up to me to study Your word and find it myself. And I will, Lord, I will.


Right, right. Good plan. What I like to see. Some real word-studying. That old Bible of mine won’t interpret itself, you know!


Will it be nuclear?


Will what be nuclear?


The, uh, attack, Lord.


Oh yeah! That. Uhhh… no comment.


I beg y…I mean, I’m sorry Lord?


I just think I’d rather not say. About the whole nuclear part.


But…why? I mean, I know I’m not supposed to question you, don’t think that! I’m just…


Curious, sure, I gotcha. Well, you know how it is. I just better not say. Can’t be seen interfering with that whole “free will” thing.


That’s true, very true. But…well, no. It’s a sin to question you, Lord…


Naw, go ahead, ask me. It’s cool.


I was just thinking a hint would be nice. I mean, the, heh heh, the Orlando thing was a little embarrassing, you know. Not that I’d ever let on…


Yeah, that one was pretty fuckin’ stupid even for you. Okay, hint. Let’s say… sometime this fall, definitely not September this time, how about after. And, um, big major American cities, millions dead, all that good stuff.


Oh, goodness. Oh, dear. But…Lord, wouldn’t it be best to tell, you know, Mr. Bush, the CIA…they could get organized, prevent the attack this time…


Pat, sweety, you and I both know Bush and his boys couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse. I mean, even you were able to figure out the Iraq war was stupid, which puts it right at the top of the list of stupidest things of all time. And besides, it’s you who is my most trusted spokesman and representative on Earth. You’re the man I trust most with the most solemn duties in My Holy Name. None other has what it takes to do his duty by Me.

A tear falling from one eye, Robertson sits up tall in his chair.


I hear and obey, Lord. You are the truth, the way and the light, and in Jesus’ precious name, I promise I will not fail you. I will do what must be done to warn humanity.


You da man, Pat. Look, gotta run. Always enjoy our little chin-wags. Give the wife a kiss, and tell Falwell to lay off the fuckin’ eclairs. I don’t want his fat ass up here that soon. Shit.


Hallowed be thy name, o Lord, I…

The line clicks dead. Robertson clicks his intercom. No sign of the physical frailty he possessed minutes ago is present.


Get me the news desk, right away.


GOD snaps shut his flip phone and smiles. Camera pulls back to reveal a poker table, around which sit JESUS, LUCIFER, and THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. There is a moment of quiet, then all of them burst out laughing.


God, you asshole!


Hey, it’s Pat. You gotta love the guy!

SAINT PETER enters, carrying a case of Heineken and three extra-large Domino’s pizzas.


Which one of you guys had the hand-tossed with extra pepperoni?


Hey, none of those better be anybody I know!

GOD looks over to JESUS and LUCIFER.


So…a little bird tells me you crazy kids are getting married!


Dawkins admits mistake, removes name from petition

Richard Dawkins has admitted he erred in signing the controversial petition mentioned in the previous post, and in a comment on Ed Brayton’s blog, says the following:

I did sign the petition, but I hadn’t thought it through when I did so, and I now regret it. I have asked the organizer to remove my name. Unfortunately, it seems that the list has already gone off to Downing Street but the organizer, Jamie Wallis, has kindly asked their web manager to remove my name. I suspect that he himself may be having second thoughts about the wording, and I respect him for that. It isn’t always easy to get the exact wording right.

I signed it having read only the main petition: “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.” I regret to say that I did not notice the supporting statement with the heading, “More details from petition creator”: “In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians.” If I had read that, I certainly would not have signed the petition, because, as explained in The God Delusion, I am in favour of teaching the Bible as literature, and I am in favour of teaching comparative religion. In any case, like any decent liberal, I am opposed to the element of government coercion in the wording. Furthermore, the Prime Minister, thank goodness, does not have the power to ‘make’ anything ‘illegal’. Only parliament has the power to do that.

I signed the main petition, because I really am passionately opposed to DEFINING children by the religion of their parents (while ‘indoctrination’ is such a loaded word, nobody could be in favour of it). I was so delighted to hear of somebody else who cared about the defining or labelling of children by the religion of their parents (how would you react if you heard a child described as a ‘seclular humanist child’ or a ‘neo-conservative child’?) that I signed it without reading on and without thinking. Mea culpa.

So there we have it. Unlike creationists, Dr. Dawkins shows a scientist’s humility and willingness to admit to a mistake. I hope he is more circumspect in future about adding his name, and the considerable weight it carries, to anything that on the surface appears to support his views, before looking more deeply at its true ramifications.

PS: PZ Myers has spoken to Dawkins personally and confirmed it is Dawkins who commented at Brayton’s blog, and that Dawkins has in fact recanted.

Has Dawkins totally jumped the shark?

Richard Dawkins has been a huge hero to the atheist community for some time, not only for his years of tireless advocacy of science, but, most recently, for his work in bringing atheist views into the mainstream with his bestseller The God Delusion. But recently, his support of a rather alarming petition in his native England has disturbing implications.

The petition, authored by one Jamie Wallis using a service on the #10 Downing Street website that allows users to write their own petitions and gather signatures right there for the PM’s consideration, reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16. In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.


Let’s run through this.

The first and most obvious thing that comes to mind is that what the petition asks is something that in America is unequivocally unconstitutional: government intrusion in private religious practice. Ed Brayton, over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, has gone into outrage overload at this whole thing, declaring that “as far as I’m concerned, this pretty much removes Dawkins from any discussion among reasonable people.” He goes on to a laundry list of entirely valid criticisms.

This proposal is every bit as noxious and totalitarian as a proposal from Christian reconstructionists that those who teach their children about witchcraft or atheism should be thrown in jail would be. Just imagine what you would have to do to actually enforce such a law. No one could take their children to church, which means you’d have to literally police the churches to make sure no children went in. Nor could they teach their children about religion at home, read the Bible with them, say prayers with them before they go to bed. The only way to enforce such a law would be to create a society that would make Orwell’s 1984 seem optimistic by comparison.

In case the “thrown in jail” part sounds a little hyperbolic to you, recall that the petition itself uses the word “illegal,” and the general idea is that if someone does something illegal, then they’ve earned at the very least a citation and at worst imprisonment. Does Dawkins really want people to go to jail for taking their kids to Sunday School? Has he really gone that far over the top?

I ask this because, unlike Brayton, who tends to get reactionary and pissed off at the drop of a hat, I have the impression just based on my reading of Dawkins over the years that the man is at least sensible and rational enough to comprehend and even concede all of the points Brayton has raised in objection. He has never come across like 1984‘s O’Brien, nor even as someone inclined to shoot off his mouth carelessly like Elton John about banning religion utterly.

A law that tossed parents in jail because they told their kids about the baby Jesus would obviously be not only an egregious intrusion into the sanctity of the family and home, but a brand of thought crime so self-evidently absurd as to be beyond rational consideration. Is Dawkins perhaps thinking, Well, we prohibit children from drinking and driving and voting and going off to war until a certain age. Shouldn’t we consider religious indoctrination similarly risky and withhold it until the age of consent as well? Is he perhaps thinking of the way children in heavily religious, war-torn areas — such as Catholic-vs-Protestant Northern Ireland or Muslims-vs-Jews West Bank or Muslims-vs-Christians Sudan — are unfairly harmed and victimized by conflicts brought on by the warring faiths of their parents? While this is another reason to disdain religion, I hardly see how a law prohibiting religious exposure to minors will protect one from a stray .50-caliber round fired by some hopped-up asshole screaming “Allah akbar!”

I could go on. I will go on. Does Dawkins think that freethought can only arise in a young mind if religion is kept away? I was raised Christian, and many of my fellow heathens are surprised to hear I have quite fond memories of my adolescent churchgoing years — particularly the sleepover parties at the Tallowood Baptist Church rec center we called “lock-ins,” in which we 14-year-olds indulged in the rare prilivege of staying up all night. (And no, we weren’t preached to the whole time, it was pretty much lightly supervised. If anything, I remember myself and my friends sitting around talking about girls like any other 14-year-olds would do, and using naughty words while we did so.)

Despite this youthful “indoctrination,” I emerged a freethinker and an atheist every bit as hardline as Dawkins. Why is this? Because in addition to church there were other influences in my life — I was and still am a voracious and omnivorous reader — and I learned to question received wisdom and authoritarian declarations as a matter of course. It is very true that not all kids — few, even — have these options or would take them if they did. But is it the sort of situation that can be created by legal fiat? You’d have to be a blind fool to think so. We’ve all seen how well laws banning kids from buying cigarettes have succeeded in eradicating teen smoking.

Most other atheists have come from a religious tradition. Team member Matt Dillahunty has described himself as a former fundamentalist who was firmly on board the young-earth creationist train. A cohost I had for a few months on the AE TV show, David Clark, was a former seminarian who had even performed baptisms; before he moved from Austin he was leading a push to get a decalogue monument off the state capital lawn (it’s still there). Today, atheists all. Would keeping religion away from them as minors have made them any better or stronger in their atheism, more prepared to argue soundly and think rationally, than they are today?

I remember years ago watching Frank Zappa tell a TV interviewer that his formula for raising perfect children was to keep them away from religion. Children should not have such an important decision foisted upon them until they are old enough to comprehend what religions are all about, what they claim, and how to evaluate their claims. Only with age and intelligence can the choice of which religion to choose — including none at all — be made. It is, on balance, a sensible opinion.

But of course, Zappa did not and never would have advocated government enforcement of this idea. I’m baffled to see why Dawkins seems to endorse it. And so, as an admirer of Dawkins over the years (I’m not yet ready to write him off like Brayton), I want an explanation.

What exactly does Dawkins mean by this? Would he really wish such intrusion into the private lives of U.K. citizens? He must know that the Christians are going to go bugfuck over this; why would he hand them such a blatant and easy weapon? (Let’s take a quick bet on how many Christian blogs will not pass “go” and go directly to Godwin’s Law on this one.) And does he honestly think that, even if it were possible (how the hell do you keep religion away from kids when almost anywhere you look in London or any other British city or town you see steeples?), shielding children from religious exposure until their teens will do fuck-all to stem the tide of irrationalism, superstition, intolerance, ignorance, p
rejudice, and scientific illiteracy that religion propogates now? Can there be, lurking behind Dawkins’ calm demeanor and eminent rationalism, such naivety? It just doesn’t compute.

So I think he needs to get on his website and immediately post an editorial or something explaining why he endorses this petition, and what he thinks it means.

He especially owes this to those of us who are his supporters, but who also believe in freedom from government intrusion into private affairs, and who don’t think the cause of freethought — let alone its very definition — is at all served by laws allowing the government to tell you how you can or can’t raise your kids.

Bored gaming

The demented duo, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, are at it again. I’ve already posted lengthy responses to their “Way of the Master” series, covering episodes on atheism and evolution — but it seems they haven’t bothered to read and learn.

Their latest endeavor is a new board game called “Intelligent Design versus Evolution”. According to Kirk Cameron,

We are very excited about this game because it presents both sides of the creation evolution argument, and in doing so, shows that the contemporary theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest hoax of modern times.

Which means that they haven’t actually presented both sides, they’ve simply presented their side along with their grossly misunderstood view of the actual science that supports evolution.

The goal of their game is to collect “brain cards” and the player with the most brain cards wins. The irony is so thick that the responses nearly write themselves…

Endorsing this brain trust is Ken Ham, the creationist responsible for and quotes like:

I don’t use science to prove my religion. I use the Bible to build my science.

Evidently Dr. Dino is a little busy.

So it’s Monday

Evidently the Christians are having some major holiday today. To me, it’s a very quiet Monday. The weather’s pretty, though. Very nice change from the rains yesterday.

I don’t see any reason to treat December 25 any differently from any other day, whether for “cultural” reasons or any other. They’re all unique, you only live them once, so enjoy them as best you can!