Women Of The Western Wall

Jerusalem has seen the light
And said that women have the right
To worship at the wall.
To Ultra-Orthodox, this slight
Can’t be condoned at all.

And so, when women came to pray
Together at the wall today,
It seemed the worst of shocks!
The men have morals to obey–
So, pelted them with rocks!

No matter what the young men tried
The women wouldn’t be denied;
The men, despairing, moaned:
“It’s quite the same as genocide,
And cannot be condoned!”

Via the LA Times, the first day of equal right to pray at the wall. Yay, more people get to pray! That’s good, isn’t it? No, no, no, cos women have cooties, thus sayeth the Lord.

Dressed in black hats and coats, mobs of young ultra-Orthodox men tossed eggs, water bottles and coffee cups at members of Women of the Wall as their leaders led a group of 100 men and women in prayer. Several women from the group wore white shawls and other religious ornaments, such as black tefillin boxes on their heads, traditionally used only by men at the site.

Oh, come on, Jews have been through much worse than this…

Police, whom the youths called “Nazis,” arrested five men for disrupting the peace, said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld. As the women departed, some were pelted with rocks.

Well, yeah, I guess protecting women while they pray is pretty much exactly the same as committing genocide. Those Nazi cops.

Women of the Wall leader Anat Hoffman, who on Friday was being protected by the same police who once arrested her performing a similar prayer service, predicted that it was only a matter of time before women won expanded rights at the holy site.

“This train is gone,’’ said Hoffman, who has been pushing for religious equality at the Western Wall for 26 years. “Women are reading the Torah and praying out loud. This is going to happen. You are either leading it or you will be dragged by your hair.”

Nice turn of phrase there.

My question is, why on earth do these women want to be part of a religion that treats them like this? (Yes, that question terribly oversimplifies–we are not looking at one religion at all, but many that share a common ancestor.) And (conversely), if you have one group throwing stones at people who want to be part of a religion, and another group braving these stones to be part… which group loves that religion more?

Christian Bigots Claim Oppressed Minority Status

Pity the Christians who dare to speak out—
Who defer to the bible’s authority—
Three-fourths of the nation, we’ve lost all our clout,
And become the most hated minority

In our great country’s past—in our halcyon days—
When our Christian beliefs were shown deference,
Why, we Christians could say what we like about gays,
And condemn them for sexual preference

We could subjugate women, deny them the vote,
But no longer do Christians hold sway
And the nation has suffered, I think you will note,
In not asking what Jesus would say.

We used to be mighty! We used to be feared!
Our endorsement could sway an election!
But now… we’re ignored, and occasionally jeered—
We’re endangered; in need of protection!

When minorities labeled their treatment a crime
In the past, we said “don’t make a fuss!”
That was then; this is now, and it’s different this time…
This time, the minority’s us!

On CNN’s Belief Blog, an amusing bit on the perception by some Christians that they are now a hated minority:

We’ve heard of the “down-low” gay person who keeps his or her sexual identity secret for fear of public scorn. But Sprigg and other evangelicals say changing attitudes toward homosexuality have created a new victim: closeted Christians who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality but will not say so publicly for fear of being labeled a hateful bigot.

As proof, Sprigg points to the backlash that ESPN commentator Chris Broussard sparked recently. Broussard was called a bigot and a purveyor of hate speech when he said an NBA player who had come out as gay was living in “open rebellion to God.” Broussard said the player, Jason Collins, was “living in unrepentant sin” because the Bible condemns homosexuality.

“In the current culture, it takes more courage for someone like Chris Broussard to speak out than for someone like Jason Collins to come out,” says Sprigg, a former pastor. “The media will hail someone who comes out of the closet as gay, but someone who simply expresses their personal religious views about homosexual conduct is attacked.”

Yes, they are a persecuted minority. Like gays who risked being disowned by family, kicked out of apartments, losing jobs, and even injury or death, Christians risk… being labeled bigots, when they exhibit bigotry. This poor, persecuted three-fourths of the US population is up against a much more powerful, but mostly invisible, foe. In truth, Christians are an incredibly diverse population; the vast majority of the Christians I know personally are not bigots–I can think of two who are–but since the complainers are claiming the mantle of “Christian” rather than “older, white, male, conservative, evangelical Christian” (gee, I wonder why), I feel it’s only fair to grant them their full numbers. You can’t try to rally your fellow Christians to your side while denying that their numbers swell your ranks.

To the splinter minority of Christians who are playing this card: This is what it feels like to have your privilege reeled back in. You’ve had it so easy for so long, it feels like persecution when you only have it slightly better than the groups you hate.

And of course, if you treated your fellow humans with love as you claim your book dictates, perhaps minority status wouldn’t be such a big deal in the first place.

I’ll Take You At Your Word

You tell me you’re a Christian
And I’ll take you at your word
Though you’re quick to note, the bible
Has some bits that are absurd.

In your eyes, it’s not a science book;
No reason to believe
That there ever was an Eden
With an Adam and an Eve

And the flood is just mythology
Not literally true,
(the majority of Christians,
As you know, agree with you!)

And there isn’t any evidence
For Heaven or for Hell
Or an afterlife of any sort,
But hey, it’s just as well.

You don’t really think that Jesus
Turned some water into wine;
And you couldn’t care the slightest
If He really was divine.

If the miracles are hogwash
And the resurrection hype—
If your Christ is just a mortal man—
The magic all is tripe…

Is “Christian” just a label, then?
Is “Christian” just your tribe?
To which beliefs—if any—
Do you Christian folk subscribe?

If your faith makes you a Christian
But you tend to disagree
With the others of your label—
It’s confusing, don’t you see?

You tell me you’re a Christian
And I’ll take you at your word…
But the label you have chosen
Is, I’m telling you… absurd.

Yeah, so anyway… I know full well that most Christians aren’t young-earth creationists. I don’t actually know any young-earth creationists personally. I know a lot of liberal Christians; some of them are related to me (I do know one or two old-earth creationists who are also related to me). My parents, for instance, are Christians, but know full well the history of the writing of the bible, and are (as former science teachers) perfectly accepting of the evidence for evolution. They don’t even argue for the divinity of Christ; I honestly don’t know whether they believe in that or not (and yes, it comes up in conversation, as all of their siblings are very religious).

The truth is, not only are “theists” as varied in their beliefs as atheists, but frankly, any segment of believers–any small portion of the theistic spectrum–are themselves a spectrum (or, more probably, many spectra across many orthogonal factors). People are people, and they vary. It makes perfect sense that no two atheist need share the same beliefs–after all, atheism is negatively defined–but it should not surprise us that any two believers, even of the same sect, need not share the same beliefs. As important as religion is, it is not 100% of anyone’s belief system. Not to mention… the members of any one specific (no matter how specific) belief system do (and must!) differ from one another in the particulars of their belief.

So it should not surprise me at all, but of course there are Christians (I could say “self-described Christians”, but frankly that’s an insult) who don’t believe in Eden, in Adam and Eve. Who don’t believe in original sin (except as a metaphor). Who believe Jesus’s sacrifice was meaningless, if it happened at all. Who don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, in Heaven, in Hell, in sin or redemption. Who laugh at the notion of transubstantiation (this includes some Catholics). And yet, who are Christians, every bit as much as any other group can claim the name (I’m looking at you, Westboro Baptist Church).

Which, frankly, doesn’t surprise or bother me (like I said, I see it in my own family). But… Why on earth would they want to keep the name? Strange bedfellows, Christianity begets–people who disagree more than agree lay claim to the same name. People who make war with one another over these very beliefs lay claim to the same name. My goodness… I’ve known people who legally changed their names to cut ties to parents they disagreed with. Why would good people like my sister, like my parents…like hundreds of thousands or millions more like them… want to share a label with people who believe things they find ludicrous?

Yeah, I guess they’d rather the other folks change their label. And sometimes they’ll pretend that already happened–that those other people “aren’t real christians”. But the thing is, the whole spectrum claims that label. I’d rather not be caught in a “no true Christian” fallacy, so…

I’ll take them at their word.

Related Posts:
Historical Jesus

On Original Sin

God Is Pro-Choice (Just Anti-Woman)

When God created humankind
And said that they were free
He showed nothing’s more important than a choice.
He could save us from damnation
In a heartbeat, but you see,
It’s important that He’s given us a voice.

If eternity in torture
Is acceptable to God
As the risk you take for freedom while on earth
If the right to choose is sacrosanct,
I guess I find it odd
That the church would fight with women over birth

See, if self-determination
Is the most important fact—
More important than salvation of your soul
Why would women be disfavored
For a self-determined act?
Cos the goal is not salvation—it’s control.

Give me liberty, or give me death

Ελευθερία ή θάνατος (“Freedom or Death”–the national motto of Greece)

Live Free Or Die

Humankind has (as you can see) elevated freedom to an equal (if not greater) status with life itself. If this seems extreme, consider that [some of] Christian theology claims that the threat of eternal damnation is balanced by free will; that, because we have been given the gift of being able to choose to believe, it is acceptable to punish non-believers for all eternity.

Equating freedom with life is, it seems, a less stringent standard than it could be; we could easily make a biblical case for freedom being far more (infinitely more) important than life. The ability of human beings to make free choices is an important part of modern theology; if we did not choose our sinful path–if an omnipotent, omniscient God chose it for us–how could that God justify punishing us at all, let alone eternally? No, it is crucially important that humans have the ability, and the right, to choose.

Human beings. Not women. For some reason, the theology all seems to fall apart when it comes to women being able to freely choose. Not because life is important–if that were the case, God could choose to infringe on the freedoms He grants to all of us. An omnipotent, omniscient being could easily make it such that men would not choose to rape, or that parents would not disown girls, or that birth defects would not happen. An omnipotent, omniscient God could easily make every pregnancy wanted. But of course, He did not. Because human choice is more important.

Unless, of course, a woman chooses for herself. Because even more important than humankind’s ability to choose, is… what? A woman’s inability to choose?

God is clearly pro-choice. But it seems equally clear that God is anti-woman.

I wonder why anyone would be pro-god.

Where Are The Honest Believers?

Where are the honest believers?
The ones who know life is a shell?
Who know that this life
Is just struggle and strife
Till we cross into heaven or hell?

Where are the moaners and groaners,
Condemned from the start, by The Fall?
Those who don’t find it odd
That, unless there’s a god,
Their lives hold no meaning at all?

Where are god’s empty meat puppets?
Where can such creatures be found?
They just stumble along
Terrified they are wrong…
They’re everywhere! Just look around!

Obviously, the bookend to my “where are the honest atheists?” from yesterday. The difference is, the honest believers are everywhere. They were the ones who inspired yesterday’s verse, after all. Most of them don’t realize the implications of their question, when they start their “if I were an atheist…”

And in any major story that even tangentially mentions religion, you’ll find them in the comments threads, reminding us that this life is nothing compared to the eternal one to come. And there is Rapture Ready, if you want an extreme caricature. No, I am not going to link to them. Life’s too short, and it’s a sunny day!

Public Cross Chucked In Duck Pond

A cross was seen
On the village green
As we’re nearing the Easter season
They’ve done it for years
As spring appears—
It’s a beautiful symbol, they reason—
Though they think it’s fine
There’s a civil line
They have taken a few steps beyond
And so, one man
Took the matter in hand
And he chucked the cross into a pond.

He admitted his act
As a matter of fact
And he said that he’d do it again
If the church put it back
That’s a form of attack
Treating non-Christian folk with disdain
If they put back the cross
He’ll just give it a toss
Till it’s floating again with the ducks
I’d suggest that they pray
On the matter, all day…
But the gentleman won’t give two fucks.

Here’s another link to another paper’s coverage, as well. Basically, an 82-yr-old former solicitor saw the cross erected in the village green, as it has been for years each Easter-time, and decided to remove the unwanted litter from public property. He chucked it into a nearby duck pond.

Reaction has been… mixed. The first story notes that “an angry parishioner and her husband” sent out an email to village residents, and that 82 yr old Alan Pickard replied, owning up to the act and stating outright that if the church replaced the cross, he would re-dunk it. Six others expressed objections to the cross’s placement on the green, while 21 reported it did not bother them. Some of the quotes are just delightful. From the second link:

“To fling it into the pond is an unacceptable, wanton act of violence. It’s tantamount to religious hatred in my book. It must have been quite heavy though, so it’s not bad going for an 82-year-old.”

Hey, respect given where it is earned.

Comfort: Calling All Christians!

It’s a target-rich environment, with atheists galore!
So it’s onward Christian soldiers, we’ll be marching as to war!
There are lots of you on Facebook, but I’m asking now for more,
Cos my comment threads are being overrun.
I’ve got godless by the thousands—it’s an atheist attack,
Every time I post a message, there are hundreds talking back
While I’ve got a truthful message, it’s the numbers that I lack
So I’m asking if you’d like to have some fun.

They believe in evolution, and they don’t believe in God
So it’s best that you should pity them—their brains are rather odd—
They are driven by desire, once you see through their façade,
Seeking darkness, and withdrawing from the Light
You can read through past discussions for the games that they have played
How they cursed and raged and taunted, while we turned a cheek and prayed
(Though that wasn’t too effective—I’m a little bit dismayed,
And it’s time to call crusaders in to fight!)

They will mock the Holy Bible, citing scripture for their sakes
They will twist the gospel passages and call them our mistakes
They’ll dismiss the Fall of Mankind as a tale of talking snakes
And deny the death of Jesus on the cross
There’s a time for contemplation; there is also time to act!
We must fight the godless heathens, but with dignity and tact
As we show the truth—the bible is uncontroverted fact—
Yes, we’ll humbly show the atheists who’s boss!

In a press release this past Sunday (I only saw it this morning), Ray “Bananaman” Comfort is putting out the word:

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 24, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — Hundreds, if not thousands of atheists have become “followers” on Ray Comfort’s Facebook page, and he says that he needs help to reach them. There has been an influx of 80,000 followers in the last two months, and according to Facebook statistics the page has a “weekly total reach” of over a million people.

Comfort said, “I have looked at a number of other Facebook pages, and have seen an average of 30-40 comments from followers, however, it is not uncommon to get over 1,000 comments on one post on my page (one had over 1900 comments). With six posts each day we can’t possibly answer all their questions, and so I’m asking Christians to come and help–because this is a very real battle for a generation.”

Mind you, Comfort warns that good Christians might be tempted to take offense, at first blush:

You will need a lot of patience because many show up as though they are God’s intellectual gift to the world. They are extremely arrogant, very condescending, they say things that aren’t true, and they use worn out arguments.

He said, without a trace of irony.

But, of course, a more thorough understanding of these atheists will help you to pity them, rather than to take offense. You have to understand atheists, as Comfort does:

Christians need to keep in mind that atheists’ worldview allows them to lie and twist the Scriptures. They mock creation, say that God commands murder and the rape of women, and that the Bible is full of mistakes. However, the issue here isn’t about evolution, or even the existence of God. It’s about the pleasure of guilt-free sexual sin. Christianity threatens that freedom by saying that fornication and lust are morally wrong, and that God will hold them accountable. They love darkness and hate the light, and so they fight it with all their might and will hold back at nothing in their attempts to extinguish it. This is a wonderful opportunity to reach a Hell-bound world with the gospel of everlasting life. Please help us.

They do need help.

On Belief

There is a group of people
(they’ll be named before too long)
Who are likely to believe a thing
They’ve just been shown… is wrong.

They’re wrong, it seems, quite often,
But in truth, it brings no shame;
The errors are so commonplace
We’ve given each a name!

There’s type 1 and type 2 error—
The distinction here is this:
The former is a false alarm;
The latter is a miss.

Suppose you find significance
(and do a little dance)
There’s a certain probability
It’s only random chance

Or maybe you find nothing
And you’re pulling out your hair
It’s possible you missed it
But there still is something there!

Belief opposed to evidence
Is faith—or so they say
But scientists (I’ve named the group!)
May do it every day!

At the risk of being misunderstood and quote-mined, I need to address something. I was reminded, by a really bad attempt at taking down “the new atheism”, that there are people who don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to belief. These people exist among the faithful, but also among us godless sorts. And, in part, slight misunderstandings on one hand are jumped upon by opportunists on the other hand (see the really bad attempt for an example) to misrepresent the process of science.

You see, the weird thing is, scientists are not immune to all the belief heuristics that everybody else falls prey to. Scientists want to be right, and will (or may) pay more attention to confirming evidence than disconfirming (when it comes to their own pet theory), will (or may) fall prey to predictable ingroup-outgroup biases, and will (or may) be far more eager to tear apart a competing theory than their own.

The difference between scientists and non-scientists, and the difference between believers and non-believers, isn’t so much in how individuals believe. (I mean, yes it can be, but this is a result of what I am about to say, not a cause.) Rather, it’s a difference in the structure that surrounds them.

The scientific community does not deny the effects of these biases. Rather, it harnesses them. A structure that systematically lets people support their own and tear down others’ ideas (call it “peer review”) harnesses our individual biases for the long-term good of the community. We don’t really need to be self-critical (though some certainly are) when we can set up an environment that will do that for us, systematically and more effectively.

So, yeah, when you are dealing with data that are probabilistic in nature, and when you intentionally and systematically make falsifiable predictions, there will necessarily be times when the data don’t play out the way you expect. And sometimes you will just know that you are right and the data are wrong. And sometimes you will be wrong. And sometimes (the cool thing is, for some of these values, an understanding of probability can let us know fairly well just how often) you will be right, and yes, the data are wrong (the bad news, of course, is that an understanding of probability won’t tell us which times you are right and the data are wrong.

But the scientific community doesn’t care about your pet theory. You can be biased all you want; so are your peers, and some of them want nothing more than to prove you wrong. And you want nothing more than to prove them wrong (and you right). And in the long run, you are crash-testing ideas, and only ideas that can survive the process will survive. In the long run.

There is a similar (well, functionally similar, but not similar in result) structure you can find in religion. Seriously. It’s called “apologetics”, and it is the system’s response to disconfirming data. Rather than rewarding and encouraging the refutation of an apparently bad idea (by others within the scientific community, at least), finding excuses for why the idea actually works is encouraged. (And if you can’t make it work… start a new religion!)

So… people are people. It’s the structures we are part of that allow us to rise above our biases to achieve more collectively than we ever could singly. It’s also the structures we are part of that can fortify our ignorance and make a virtue of non-questioning faith.

Scientists need not be anything special. But science is. And there is no reason to suspect that religious individuals are particularly prone to cognitive biases. But my goodness, religion as an institution (or set of institutions) seems to elevate the bias to an art form. The environments we have created, and which shape us, make us better, or worse, than we would be without them.

And that (as Frost said) has made all the difference.