Wait–It’s JesusWeen Already?

I hope you have your bibles, in a big stack by the door
Cos tonight’s the night (it’s JesusWeen!) that’s what those books are for
You can hand them to the costumed kids who plaintively implore
“In the name of Christ the Savior, Trick or Treat”

They’ll be dressed as saints and sinners as they travel through the night
As they spread the word of Jesus, to the neighborhood’s delight
You can offer them some candy, but they won’t accept a bite–
Next to Jesus, nothing else could be so sweet!

Stack of pocket sized bibles

Stack of pocket sized bibles

I forgot it was (or nearly is, depending on your neighborhood) JesusWeen! (which, yes, really is a thing.)

Related:
It’s JesusWeen, Charlie Brown!
The JesusWeen Story
Bibles For Trick-Or-Treat!
Blue Roses: A Halloween Poem
Trick or Treat!

Satanists Vandalize Church; Atheists Blamed

When, in Tennessee, there’s hatin’
There’s no time to waste in waitin’—
Best to blame it all on Satan
And the atheists as well

Time to blame, for this infliction
(Without thought of contradiction),
Folks who think the devil fiction
Likewise heaven; likewise hell.

The graffiti was Satanic
Which, of course, ignited panic
(Could be worse; could be Koranic):
Must be atheists to blame!

See, cos atheists are people
Who, while Christians are asleep, ‘ll
Spray-paint pictures on their steeple
To their everlasting shame

Yes, their godless souls are sinking
Or at least, so goes the thinking
Of the church, forever linking
Us, our good name to besmirch

Cos the atheists are blameless
And the Satanists still nameless—
Casting blame like this is shameless
And it’s stupid of the church.

Actually, it might not be stupid of the church at all; the report (“Tennessee Church Vandalized with Atheist Themes”), from the Western Center for Journalism (we’ve seen them before), does not quote church members as blaming atheists at all. It could just be the incredibly bad journalism practiced by the Center for Journalism.

Members indicated that two crosses were inverted in an apparent attempt to recreate a common satanist symbol; and page 666 — a number often associated with Satan — was burned out of a Bible at the location. That number was also carved into the church altar.
To remove any doubt regarding their intended message, the vandals also carved a succinct and disturbing message into the altar: “Smoke meth and hail Satan.”

Now, get out your word salad bingo cards:

As Christians across the world face persecution and even death at the hands of Islamic terrorists, the U.S. remains a nation in which believers of all faiths can gather to openly worship. We must remain dedicated to preserving that right, though, as it continually faces opposition.
While this Tennessee church experienced an outright attack, secular humanists continue to work behind the scenes to surreptitiously silence the Christian voice within America. Whether through ObamaCare mandates, anti-discrimination lawsuits, or any other desperate ploy, the left understands that the only way to continue its transformation of this nation is by maintaining a stranglehold on those fighting to preserve it.

Satanist atheist Islamic secular humanist leftist Obamacare advocates trying to strangle Christians. It must be horrible being a powerless persecuted minority.

Really, a center for journalism?

International Blasphemy Day 2013

Today. In recognition of the day of publication of cartoons in Denmark that depicted Muhammed, September 30 has been named International Blasphemy Day.

Blasphemy Day is important. Not for offending people, but for celebrating the right to speak without fear that such an offense can land you in jail, or worse. Political speech often offends me, but the rough-and-tumble of open political debate is a good thing. When we coddle ideas, we allow bad ones to flourish. Religious speech is, and should be, protected in the same sense that political speech is. This includes religious speech that the listener disagrees with. A day to celebrate this idea? I like it.

Today is the day I remind you in rhyme
That blasphemy is a victimless crime.

More after the jump:
[Read more…]

It’s Like Getting A Letter Back From Santa Claus!

A letter arrived in my mailbox today
From a special location so far, far away
I dropped all my duties to read it, because
The return label said it had come from “S. Claus”

I had written to Santa, some long time ago,
Addressed it and stamped it and walked through the snow
The letter was taken, and wasn’t returned
Which they would, if he hadn’t existed, I’ve learned.

“Dear good little … boy? Little girl? Little fish?
I know you did not get the gift that you wish;
I’m sorry that so many months have gone by
But I’m writing you now and I’m telling you why.

You wanted a pony—or was it a horse?
Could Santa have brought what you wanted? Of course!
The reason I didn’t, though you wish I had,
Is simple: You’ve really been horribly bad.

That’s right; it’s your fault, not that Santa’s a phony—
Of course I could bring you a horse (or a pony)
On my sleigh, even though there’s no snow in Atlanta,
Cos physics works different for me, cos I’m Santa.

There’s no time for the flying, much less for the landing,
So of course it’s too much for your small understanding;
I’m magic—I’m flying, with Dasher and Cupid—
You don’t understand, cos you’re bad and you’re stupid.

So yes, in a magical instant, I’m flying
Which skeptical you make a point of denying
And that’s why your name’s on the naughtiest list…
Because really and truly, I swear I exist.

Just think of the presents you’d get to receive
If you only repented and start to believe!
You could have had presents galore, all along…
If you hadn’t insisted on doing it wrong.

Now I’ve got to get going, so this is goodbye,
And you can be better, perhaps, if you try.
But… if you get nothing, despite what you do?
It’s still cos you’re bad, so I’ll blame it on you.

News Item: Pope Emeritus Benedict Writes Letter To Atheist

Benedict wrote his letter to Piergiorgio Odifreddi, an Italian atheist and mathematician who in 2011 wrote a book titled “Dear Pope, I’m Writing to You.” The book was Odifreddi’s reaction to Benedict’s classic “Introduction to Christianity,” perhaps his best-known work.

And the letter?

In Benedict’s letter, he takes Odifreddi to task for what he said was the “aggressiveness” of his book, and responds to many of the arguments with piqued criticism himself.

“What you say about the figure of Jesus isn’t worthy of your scientific standing,” wrote Benedict, who authored a highly praised, three-volume work on the Jesus Christ during his pontificate.

He similarly criticizes Odifreddi’s “religion of mathematics” as “empty” since it doesn’t even consider three fundamental themes for humanity: freedom, love and evil.

On evolution, he wrote: “If you want to substitute God with Nature, the question remains: What does this Nature consist of? Nowhere do you define it and it appears rather like an irrational divinity that doesn’t explain anything.”

Odifreddi doesn’t deserve a pony. But Santa is real.

Dick Move, Jesus

I heard the TV preacher say,
Without a trace of hate
“When Jesus sees a tragedy
He likes to show up late.
He likes to wait till things have gone
From bad to much, much worse,
To demonstrate to everyone
He runs the universe.”

Disaster strikes, and people ask
How bad it’s going to get—
In pain, afraid, they pray to God
But Jesus says “not yet.”
Almighty Christ could calm the storm
And heal the injured quick
He likes to make an entrance, though,
Cos Jesus is a dick.

The sanctity of suffering?
The cleansing pow’r of pain?
Excuses by apologists—
The gospels make it plain
When people are in trouble
And it’s time to get to work
You can count on Christ to clock in late…
Cos Jesus is a jerk.

So I turned on the TV this morning, and (you know, because Christianity is being silenced everywhere) it was one of those Sunday morning sermon shows, in this case from Jubilee Christian Church. The preacher was speaking of the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead; in this interpretation, Jesus hears that Laz is in trouble, but rather than hurrying to his side, he casually mentions to a couple of companions that this was all going to work out for the glory of God… then waits until everyone thinks it’s too late (Lazarus has died, after all), then zaps his buddy back to life.

The preacher likened it to “making an entrance”. Not wanting to fix a problem until it was a worthwhile challenge, something that would really bring glory. After all, preventing suffering is an invisible trick. No one can see it, so there’s no praise or adulation. But wait until someone is in their final death throes, in mortal agony, or later, and then step in? They’ll write books about you. They’ll talk about you on TV some 20 centuries later.

Of course, this is not a terribly flattering picture of Jesus, so I had to keep watching to see where this was going… and… Bingo! “Mysterious ways”, chronos vs cheiros, have faith that Jesus is doing what is in our best interest. Mind you, the egotistic picture of Jesus the preacher had just painted would be completely consistent with a Bully Jesus, dunking humanity’s head in the toilet and asking us to praise him for pulling it out just before we drown.

But of course, if that’s the way Jesus is, then we’d all better praise him, and pretend we believe the “mysterious ways” Jesus, cos He might get mad, and pull out the Divine Noogies.

Strangely, the show being only half an hour long, the sermon was cut off in the middle of “God’s time (cheiros) vs our time (chronos)”, so I’ll have to wait until next week to see if Jesus turns out to be the good guy or the bad guy.

I think I’ll sleep in.

Edit: Mysterious Ways…

Narendra Dabholkar

His name’s not familiar—not here in the states—
And we don’t know the things he’s said
But his work made him someone a fraud really hates
He was good; he was right; now he’s dead.

Although the interwebs make it possible for us to peer in on the entire world (or nearly), we generally don’t. It’s strange; we are in an information age, where we could stream the news from virtually anywhere, we so often do not take advantage of that. We are still creatures of our local communities (sometimes literal and geographically defined, sometimes virtual and defined by shared interests), and when something seismically huge happens just outside of our (real or virtual) field of vision, a world that waits at our fingertips might just as well be on the other side of the world. Which, in a pre-internet world… it is.

Narendra Dabholkar has been assassinated. In a technological age where I could know who he is… I mostly don’t. I remember hearing about his death, thinking it tragic… and, yeah, moving on. But the thing is, Dabholkar was a giant. He was known by millions… just not in the US. His assassination, for saying things I take for granted I can write any day, would be on par with the killing of any of the top tier names in atheism here… but he’s not here.

Anyway. Go read Greta’s piece on his life and his death. Please. Because you live in a world where it is possible to be moved by great people anywhere. And because all the good we can glean from a world of information at our fingertips is tempered by the knowledge that someone who thinks as we do… was killed for what he thought, and was bold enough to act on.

I just wish I had heard of him long before… and I have to wonder, who am I missing out on right now, that our technology gives me access to, and that bigotry, hatred and ignorance will steal from me before I have the opportunity to read?

*sigh*

Go read Greta’s piece.

Why Don’t You Just Believe?

No one can see Him
No one can hear Him
He’s beyond our mere, limited scope
He exists beyond matter
Beyond space, beyond time
Where mortal man never may grope
His Mind is omniscient;
His reach is so vast,
Our senses just cannot conceive
The least of His traits
Is beyond comprehension…
So why don’t you folks just believe?

Back on August 1st, PZ linked to my post on presuppositional arguments for god, and disagreed with it slightly. In that disagreement, I think he (again, slightly) misrepresented some of the believers’ claims. I commented there, “But if we presuppose that the apparent natural order of things is the result of a god who keeps things looking like there is no god, the inability to detect some supernatural glitch in natural order is absolutely consistent with the god you have presupposed.“, to which PZ commented:

If you postulate an invisible god whose machinations are completely undetectable and further, are completely indistinguishable from natural, unguided processes (angels are very careful and precise in their steering and acceleration of apples that are detached from tree branches) then sure, we can’t argue against such a god experimentally. But we can argue against such a god epistemologically. How does the person who claims such a god exists know it? What tests did that person carry out to obtain this knowledge of the perfectly invisible god?

While I agree with this, completely, it misstates the believers’ view once again. So Imma try one more time, and then point out that it really doesn’t matter.

First, the try. It is not that the angels are behind each instance of apple-falling, but rather that the whole reason gravity (and other observable physical laws) are seen to have order, is that God made it so. Without a God, the argument goes, we’d have utter chaos, and no physical laws at all for us to observe (meaning, of course, that we would also not be here to observe them). So it is not necessarily the case that God is constantly intervening (yes, there is no shortage of those who claim this–their claims are completely testable, and to the extent that they have been tested they have failed resoundingly), but rather that the ordered physical world we are able to observe is the result of God’s past actions (back before we were there to witness, of course). No current intervention is necessary. Such a god, of course, cannot be falsified, but also cannot be proved by observation or evidence. If one assumes this God, one cannot disprove him. If one assumes no God, one does not need him.

But of course, the bulk of PZ’s comment is what matters, and where he is dead right. “How does the person who claims such a god exists know it? What tests did that person carry out to obtain this knowledge of the perfectly invisible god?” There is no reason whatsoever that such a god should ever have been assumed–at least, no reasons that can be credited to that god. We can look to history and see the anthropology, sociology, and psychology of religion–as a form of government (that is, a means by which to control people), as a tribal identifier, as a costly signal, as any number of functional, worldly things. All the reasons for belief in god are in the real world. Which means, none of them have anything to do with this god, which must necessarily first be assumed to exist, to have any hope of logically existing.

But of course, billions do assume their god exists. And, overwhelmingly, they call him Him (thus the gendered language in my verse, against my wishes). Which allows us a bit of a test, since this puts us back in the realm of the empirical. And the test is simple: Do these believers agree? They are positing universal truths about an omnipresent being (well, at least some of them are); are they converging on a common answer?

Well, there, at least, should be an answer we can agree upon fairly easily.

It’s Just A Bloody Cracker!

The flesh of our savior—
A wafer, or host—
Is a part of the Eucharist rites
And a miracle happens
Or so goes the boast
With each of the sav(i)ory bites

No longer a cracker,
It’s turned into flesh
(and the wine’s turned to blood, as you know)
Not rotted and nasty
But perfectly fresh
And we gobble it down, even so!

Some call it symbolic,
But we know it’s real—
It’s a truth that cannot be ignored
And once in a while
The blood will congeal
So we’re sure we’re consuming our Lord!

Via Doubtful News, a miracle! A communion wafer is apparently bleeding. I forget–is it believers or atheists who insist on literal interpretations of scripture, and of transubstantiation, and such?

I expect PZ to face charges, now that the wafer has so definitively been shown to be Jesus Himself.

Believers, Uniting

The religions of the world, it seems, are largely in agreement;
They’re seeing different facets of one God
Not long ago, faiths disagreed on what, exactly, “we” meant
So this putative agreement just seems odd.

Religions had their enemies (and likely always will)
But their foes are vastly different now (we checked)
While interfaith “believers” have one message to instill
Through their histories, they’ve battled other sects!

Why, the Catholic’s bitter enemies were Methodists, at first,
Till the Baptists formed a bigger, badder foe
While today we see the atheists among the very worst
Were the godless problematic then? Well, no.

Cos the Christians fought the Christians (and the Muslims and the Jews)
And the atheists were folks you never met
But what could hammer unity from once-opposing views?
Is it possible the godless are a threat?

I’ve written before of my personal experience with what once appeared to be a bunch of separate religious views seeming to change over time to come together in a common cause (whether for political gain or to oppose atheism, I can’t say). Today, my aggregator throws at me an essay describing the same phenomenon over the past centuries of American religions. The essay speaks of the phenomenon as the effect of a religious free market, where competition among producers of religion for the limited consumers of religion was fierce:

The nineteenth century saw a fervor of religious inspiration, entrepreneurship, and frantic competition. In 1800, most Americans belonged to no church or denomination; many others were only nominally committed to the stuffy and stern established churches of several states.

But now, a host of young, energetic, and plain-speaking preachers evangelized all across the country for new denominations like the Methodist Episcopalians, Disciples of Christ, and dissident Baptists.

The Catholic Church, rooted in a continent where people were born into a faith and never left it, was shocked by the competition. One priest dispatched to Maryland complained in 1821, “There are Swarms of false teachers [Methodist preachers] all through the Country, in every School house, in every private house—you hear nothing but night meetings, Class meetings, love feasts &c &c.”

Historian of religion Martin Marty described “a competition in which the fittest survived,” one in which backwoods ministers found that their “first enemy was neither the devil nor the woman but the Baptist” – or any number of evangelists. (Later in the century, even atheists came together in formal association.)

I won’t quote more–it’s a really nice read, though, and while not a huge surprise (given the Bartonian mythology of America’s early years, though, it’s probably a huge surprise to someone), it’s refreshing to see.

Only just last week I was reading something about “the overall message of all religions”, which seemed a bit of a desperate attempt to gather allies, at the expense of historical accuracy. I guess it always seemed to me a bit of an insult, to have the Jehovah’s Witnesses at my door claim common ground with other Christians, with Muslims, Jews, and others, when trying to show how reasonable and commonplace belief is. I mean, if there is such agreement, why the various sects? These are differences that once merited banishment from a state, or discrimination in the workplace, or war–how is it that now you all believe the same warm, fuzzy things?

I don’t have an answer. If wishing worked, I’d find indisputable evidence that the great coming-together was a reaction to the growing threat of atheism. But it could be simple political pragmatism, and the functional equivalent of coalition-building. Or maybe each religion is evolving… Nah.

God Did It

I don’t know how the flowers bloom
Or how the spring rains fall
I don’t know how the seasons change
I don’t know much at all

There’s lots of stuff I do not know
And though it may seem odd
Let’s please not call it ignorance—
I’d rather call it God. [Read more…]