The Wall Street Journal editorial pages are a very silly place

The United States has some serious problems: an ugly war, a shaky economy, a bad government (on the way out, at last). It’s been a rough eight years. So of course it must be someone’s fault, and Daniel Henninger has a simple explanation: blame the atheists. Especially blame the atheist’s successful war on Christmas. He says, “A nation whose people can’t say ‘Merry Christmas’ is a nation capable of ruining its own economy.” You see, we’ve all lost the important values of “responsibility, restraint, and remorse” that Christianity inculcates.

It has been my view that the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous. That danger flashed red in the fall into subprime personal behavior by borrowers and bankers, who after all are just people. Northerners and atheists who vilify Southern evangelicals are throwing out nurturers of useful virtue with the bathwater of obnoxious political opinions.

The point for a healthy society of commerce and politics is not that religion saves, but that it keeps most of the players inside the chalk lines. We are erasing the chalk lines.

Feel free: Banish Merry Christmas. Get ready for Mad Max.

Wait, what? The country has been run for the last eight years by a gang of amoral atheists? Bankers are atheists? All those people who borrowed money unwisely are atheists? Christians don’t default on loans, don’t exploit lax banking rules, don’t start wars, don’t torture?

I would like to visit Mr Henninger’s alternate dimension.

Here on my planet, of course, this country has been run by the evangelical wing of the Republican party, the vast majority of the population are Christians, it’s almost impossible to get elected to positions of any power without being a professing theist, and the religious right has been deeply tangled in political decisions, while atheists do little more than write books. Nobody has banned “Merry Christmas” — militant atheists like Dawkins (and Myers) happily put up Christmas trees every December, although of course we do regard it as an entirely secular holiday.

I’m not at all concerned about people who say “Merry Christmas”, and don’t really think whether you say the magic mantra or not has much of an effect on the economy. I’m much more worried that the editorial staff at the Wall Street Journal, who all seem to be delusional loons, might be influencing the management of our economy.

Maybe Mr Henninger needs to read Kathleen Parker, who at least has noticed that the Republican party has become the god-walloping know-nothing party, and that maybe that has something to do with the state of the nation.

Turnabout

The Mormons have this arrogant practice of posthumous baptism — one of the motivations for their huge genealogical libraries is to help them go through the old records, find the names of dead people, and ‘convert’ them to Mormonism. It’s silly and pointless, but it can also be insensitive and offensive, such as when they start baptizing Jews killed in the Holocaust.

So here’s brilliant reversal: convert dead Mormons to…homosexuality. I love the idea. It really doesn’t matter what their sexual orientation in life was, it doesn’t even matter if they were raging homophobes…death changes a lot of things, so let’s simply declare them to have found joy in same sex relationships in the afterlife.

I hope there is an official roster being maintained somewhere. I’m pretending that Brigham Young is a squealing poofter right now, having a wild party with Joseph Smith, dressed in a dusting of sequins and nothing else. That’s an image the elders of LDS need to keep in mind when they’re playing their sanctimonious games with the memory of other people’s revered dead.

Liveblogging Janet Browne

I’m attending a lecture by Janet Browne at the University of Pennsylvania, and the organizers asked me if I’d be willing to do something a little bit unusual — if I’d be willing to blog the talk. Obliging as always, I said yes, so here I am in the front row with a borrowed laptop typing away.

I’m practicing my art in public…should I ask for an honorarium? Tips from the crowd afterwards? At least I expect to be so boring that I won’t detract from the Janet Browne show.

The introductions are going on. As many of you know, Dr Browne is a distinguished historian of biology who wrote what is probably the best biography of Darwin ever. Tonight, she’s talking about “The Many Lives of Charles Darwin”.

[Read more…]

Foraging in Philly

I’ve got a rather laid-back schedule here in Philadelphia, and I took advantage of it this morning — I took a little walkabout around the neighborhood. Unless you’re from Los Angeles, cities are great places for walking, and it was very pleasant to idle along.

Then, of course, I was required to get lunch at a truck. And, of course, I had a cheesesteak. Wow. They only make these greasy confections right in this particular city, I’ve found: onions and peppers and chopped beef all fried together and slathered onto a slightly chewy roll, with a little cheez-whiz and ketchup (not mustard, Sidaway — you’ll catch me putting mustard on a cheesesteak on the day you put ambergris on your spotted dick). It is to die for, and you can’t have too many or you will die.

The rest of my afternoon is going to be spent tweaking my talk, then off to have tea with graduate students and Janet Browne — you are allowed to be jealous — then to Browne’s talk and Drinking Skeptically. It’s going to get a bit busier the rest of the day.

God speaks up

At first, I was a bit put off by the awesome hubris of someone filing an amicus brief on behalf of god, especially since it was a brief in favor of California’s proposition 8. Who would have the gall to declare that they speak for a deity, and use that false authority to promote intolerance and hatred? Oh, wait … that’s rather common, actually.

But then I read further, and discovered that this was something special. The author isn’t just speaking for god, she is god!

I solemnly declare that I am both fully God and fully human in nature, and currently I am on earth dwelling among the human race. My fully God nature is Messiah’s sibling in the Holy Trinity’s family. I am the third Person and youngest person in the Almighty Eternal Creator’s family. I currently reside on earth and I am the sole heiress of the Almighty Eternal Creator. My declaration is based on the Genuine Holy Bible, especially the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelations that are full of revelations regarding the truth of my identity and my authority over humans on earth, given to me by the Master of the Universe, who is Almighty Eternal Creator!

Well, that’s all right then. I guess D. Q. Mariette Do-Nguyen does have the authority to file.

The battle rages on in Texas

The Texas State Board of Education is holding hearings right now on their science standards, and by all reports it is an embarrassment to the state: on the one side, we have the educated teachers and scientists, and on the other, a coterie of ignorant ideologues. Martin has been attending the meetings (it doesn’t sound like much fun), and he cuts to the heart of the creationist strategy:

This cannot be understated: Just as the anti-gay contingent of the Christian right sells its opposition to gay marriage as a “defense” of “traditional” marriage that can in no way be compared to opposition to interracial marriage or anything of that sort, so too are the creationists now abandoning the overt, lawsuit-bait language of “intelligent design” for “academic freedom” language that makes them seem like the ones encouraging students to use their minds to think about and evaluate ideas that are presented to them in class on their merits. Conversely, the pro-science side wants to shut this kind of inquiry down, and just require students to be obedient little sponges soaking up whatever the textbooks say.

Why this is a misrepresentation and gross misunderstanding of the opposition to such terms as “strengths and weaknesses” was, to his credit, appropriately explained by Texas Citizens for Science spokesman Steve Schafersman.

I suppose you could argue that “strengths and weaknesses” is a smart slogan to deploy when the evolution side has all the strengths, and the creationist side has nothing but weaknesses. It’s a way to pretend that they’ve earned a place in the curriculum, because the bad science is currently underrepresented…if you think the role of science education is to toss every failed idea in history at students.