Science is not your merkin

The Vatican has announced that they are having an evolution congress, and that no creationists or intelligent design creationists will be invited. Isn’t that sweet? They’re still inviting a swarm of theologians, though, so their exclusion is all window-dressing, a transparent attempt to sidle medieval peddlers of superstitious nonsense up next to some serious science for a photo op and a little propaganda. And they aren’t even trying to hide what they’re doing.

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers “wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific” and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

Right. Strictly scientific. With theology.

He said arguments “that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite” supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

What an out — they’re only going to allow arguments critically defined as scientific, oh, and theology. Those are two different things, you know.

I eagerly await the announcement of the associated banquet for the participants. They will only be serving the highest quality food, made by master chefs of Europe, using only the freshest, best ingredients, oh, and there will be dollops of runny, rancid fecal material splattered over the tables and dishes. But the meal will be a magnificent gourmet experience, and the world will know that Vatican shit deserves to be served to the greatest minds of science.

I’m sure they’ll get some good smart people to go along with this, because there is no shortage of competent scientists willing to compromise the public face of science by associating it with wishful thinking and the supernatural. And the Vatican will, of course, throw buckets of pomp and money and somber news quotes at this, all to decorate the rotting flesh of their decrepit dogma with the jewels of science.

And look! Their exclusivity runs the other way, too!

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate — proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection — also were not invited.

“Overly scientific conception of evolution”? What the heck? So the problem with evolution, to these Catholics, is that there’s too darned much science in it? I guess Richard Dawkins won’t be pining by his mailbox, hangdog with disappointment that his papal invitation hasn’t arrived yet. Why, the whole problem with evolutionary biology is that we don’t have enough religion in it, to poison and distort and attenuate the science. But not just any religion: it seriously needs more Catholicism.

Phillip Sloan, a professor at Notre Dame, told the press conference the evolution debate, “especially in the United States, has been taking place without a strong Catholic presence … and the discourse has suffered accordingly.”

My usual position is that we need a diversity of approaches to getting science across to the people, and I’ll normally hold my nose and say that those who want to accommodate their religious beliefs to evolution and reach out to people of faith are a necessary part of the process, and that they should be encouraged (but always, also, criticized!). I cannot say that of this conference. Scientists who willingly participate in this obvious game of propaganda are not helping science at all — they are simply selling sectarian Catholic dogma by adding a false luster of rationalism to a body of rank nonsense. The Vatican is asking for a façade of superficially presented science and an illusion of selectivity to make their lies and fantasies look specially favored by the scientific community … and they have even admitted that scientists who reject their teleology and their doctrines and their lunatic beliefs will not be permitted to question.

The conference is a lie. It’s an attempt to pad religion’s résumé. It will get only a sneer of contempt from me, but watch: some scientists and the media and the public, all the people who really, really want transubstantiating triune gods and inherited sins that damn all to hell to be true will lap it up. The Catholic Church will frame it masterfully to serve their corrupt and dishonest ends.

Other people get email

Clemens Bittlinger wrote and performed a song that mildly rebuked the Pope … and you can guess what happened. Death threats! Wild accusations! Now he needs police protection! It’s insane, but familiar.

“When a newspaper prints a Mohammed cartoon, entire cities burn,” read another. “But when the Holy Father is ridiculed in blasphemy, we are supposed to just accept that? No, not like that Mr. Bittlinger – you will surely receive the justice you deserve.”

I suppose it was inevitable that while the vast majority of Christians condemned the outpourings of violence after the Mohammed cartoon polemic, some found such determination to respond to perceived offence something to admire.

Fatwah envy is going mainstream. I think at this point the Catholics can stop protesting that they are harmless, while Muslims are murderous monsters. The Catholics certainly seem to be louder blusterers and equivalent haters.

(via Tony Sidaway)

Non-priests too opulent, declares Pope

The Pope has berated selfish secularists:

Pope Benedict XVI condemned unbridled “pagan” passion for power, possessions and money as a modern-day plague Saturday as he led more than a quarter of a million Catholics in an outdoor Mass in Paris.

But…this is from the Mr Fancy Pants in silk clothes with gold stitching who lives here:

i-8007d533ad9054f6c43844156964c62e-vatican.jpg

The pope has already hit the max in flashy clothes and overly elaborate residences, so the only way to increase the glitz is to pose against a backdrop of dreary people in dun clothes living in shacks, I guess. More poverty, please! We need to make the papacy look more posh!

That explains something

After a pleasant period of my mailbox cooling down a bit, I’ve recently seen a significant surge of howling mad Catholics shrieking at me. I was wondering what prompted the resurgence, and here it is: apparently I made the cover of the Catholic League’s newsletter, The Catalyst, and am even the subject of a frothing mad editorial by Billy Donohue, a complete timeline of the Great Desecration, and various requests for the faithful to howl for my job.

It’s kind of cool, in a perverse way. Cry, babies, cry.

“There’s an underground church that the world has no idea exists”

That’s a quote from Lou Engle in this video — and it’s actually kind of true. He thinks it will be a wonderful thing when people see this, and there probably are a lot of Americans who think the events portrayed are perfectly ordinary, and even commendable.

I see nothing but madness.

By picking Sarah Palin for a running mate, John McCain has turned over a rock to expose a festering, primitive insanity in our country. Look on the squirming horror, world, and learn that it does exist!

A further indictment: Juan Cole sees Palin through the lens of his expertise on the Islamic world.

John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the “transcendent challenge” of the 21st century, “radical Islamic extremism,” contrasting it with “stability, tolerance and democracy.” But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God’s will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

Lying for Texas and Jesus

Texas now has a law that requires all public schools to offer an elective course in the Christian bible, thanks to a bill authored by Warren Chisum, who will for all eternity be remembered as the “Bible-thumping dwarf from Pampa,” a phrase by Molly Ivins. This is a tricky one; I’m not opposed to teaching the bible as an example of literature, since it is, and is a rather widely used source in addition, but there’s more here than a Texas hick acquiring a sudden and previously unexhibited appreciation for literature. He may have to be remembered for something else — a palpable knack for dimwitted irony.

You see, it has to be the Christian bible, not one of them upstarts like the Bhagavad Gita or the Torah or the Quran or the Book of Mormon, ’cause none of those have historical or literary value. Really. He said that.

And Chisum said the legislature specifically addressed the Bible, not the Quran or any other religious writing, because “the Bible as a text … has historical and literary value.”

“It can’t go off into other religious philosophies because then it would be teaching religion, when the course is meant to teach literature,” he said.

I am amused. So you must teach the bible because it’s literary, but if you teach any of those other books, why, you’re just trying to sneak religion into the classroom.

Palinanity

This is a terrifying video. It’s Sarah Palin going on and on in front of her Assembly of God church, talking about the war in Iraq as “a task that is from God”, promising the congregants the gift of prophecy, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus…it ought to make any rational human being ill.

But that’s not the scary part. The truly frightening prospect, and the thing that we must not forget lest we underestimate Palin, is that huge numbers of people in this country will find that blithering speech uplifting and wonderful. We atheists view it with alarmed horror, that an idiot like that could be considered vice-presidential material, but there are people in your neighborhood right now who will watch that and say that she is obviously a good person, they will identify with her, and they will vote for her.

While most of her positions are outside the mainstream, this flavor of Jesus-talk is not. While her hypocrisy of talking small government and detesting federalism while expanding government and raking in pork may grate on people who look at her record, all most are going to see is that she is pretty and upbeat.

I know. She sounds like a moron. But get ready, she’s also a walking advertisement for the corrupting power of religion to mask substance and elevate superficialities and lies to the status of perceived truth.

McCain/Palin could still win this election, unbelievable as that may sound.

Looking forward to 28 September

Why? Because that is the day of the Pulpit Initiative, when brave and idiotic right wing preachers will defy the IRS and lose their tax exemptions.

The Pulpit Initiative
Reclaiming pastors’ constitutional right to speak Truth from the pulpit

On Sunday, September 28, 2008, we are seeking pastors who will preach from the pulpit a sermon that addresses the candidates for government office in light of the truth of Scripture. The sermon is intended to challenge the Internal Revenue Code’s restrictions by specifically opposing candidates for office that do not align themselves and their positions with the Scriptural truth. By standing together and speaking with one voice, it is our hope to recapture the rightful place of pastors and churches in American life.

This really isn’t that hard to understand. If you are an organization that has a tax exemption, you pay for that privilege with some limitations: you don’t get to use your economic advantage to campaign for politicians. It’s not just churches, but also organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the NCSE — talk to them and you’ll discover that they are scrupulous about avoiding any entanglement with elections. Why, if Ken Ham were running for president against Ken Miller, the NCSE would not try to even hint at who you should vote for … to do otherwise would be to jeopardize their legal status.

I think it is fine that wingnut churches should be able to speak freely and endorse candidates, as long as they think it’s so important that it is worth setting aside their tax-free status. These kooks, though, want to be able to both act as power brokers in politics and not pay for it.

By the way, if anyone out there detests the political content on this blog, one solution would be to arrange a major tax exemption for me for shutting up. I’m paying tuition bills for two kids in college this week, so I’d take it readily.

“Our tribal custom”

Whenever you hear someone defend an action with the excuse that “it is our custom,” “it is traditional,” “we’ve always done it that way,” “it is written so in our sacred texts,” or variants thereof, slap ’em down and spit in their eye. Those are not excuses for anything but the perpetuation of bad old dogma rather than taking the useful step of actually thinking about causes and consequences — it’s the common fallacious shortcut that allows ancient evils to thrive. Case in point in Pakistan:

[Read more…]