Richard Dawkins, and the Failure of the Faith and Atheism Debate

I was motivated to write this article by two conversations I over-heard in a cafe. The first one took place between a group of Christian students who were busily ‘denouncing’ evolution – it was the word of Man, meaning that it must be flawed; the Bible, they all agreed, had the right answers about how life came to be.

The second took place between two stern middle-aged men, who both agreed that the various kinds of head-gear that Muslim women wear ‘ought to banned’ because they were ‘barbaric’.

For me, the two opinions shown by these two groups of people sum up a general trend for over-simplicity, aggression and other failings in our (by which I mean at least the English-speaking world’s) current discourse on religion – a trend found on both ’sides’, at least outside of the academy and among the popular press. This bothers me as an atheist but more over as a human being:

I have always had friendships with people from the whole spectrum of religious belief, and I have a firm conviction that much of what is said against religion today misrepresents the values which these people hold, at least as much as the claim that atheists are all like Hitler (or Stalin, or take your pick) misrepresents me.

I myself won’t attempt to say what the religious really do believe, but I will use this opportunity to point out some common platitudes and slurs employed – disappointingly, given their own history of persecution – by some of those with whom I share the quality of atheism.

So who am I talking about? Read More »

Two Thoughts in the Prado Museum, Madrid

I. Guards, sentries, guides, they stalk the halls like silent wraiths clad in their dead blue blazers and knee length skirts. To speak to them is to encounter monotony made woman: instructions enunciated with the indifference usually associated with divorcees.

The majority of them are aged, infirm, with bloated ankles, using the numerous rocking chairs provided to them out of the kindness of the administration. The presence of these women, if they can really be called this, in this palace of art, is anomalous. Their presence does not give affirmation to the things they so jealously guard.

They represent change, age, wrinkles, flaws, sweat, and disfiguration – imperfection. Some are, undoubtedly, beautiful – with fine Castillian features, small angular noses one would pay to trace with his tongue, the pert neck of a swan, curly hair springing with life. Still, their staid standoffish conservatism weighs against the dance, the mirth, the laughter, the flowers, the cherubs, the saints, lechery, hedonism, and lust on display in so many paintings.

In a place where so much is given over to celebrating the glorious sacrifice of Christ, the desensitized omniscience, the ossified haughtiness, the indolent emptiness of these women is a slap in the face. In comparison to the affirmation around them, their lifelessness gives the impression that beauty doesn’t exist today; that it is only a purview of bygone times.

I would like a museum to be dedicated to nurturing every kind of beauty; a place where the mix of divine and human perfection is not just on display upon walls – but found in a more perfect, timeless, eternal form among the living. Why does immortality only belong to the dead? Read More »

Yearning For Answers: Fundamentalism, Polygamy, and the Role of Women

When I heard about the raid on a fundamentalist Texas compound called Yearning for Zion, I got to thinking about polygamy (well, my initial thought was more along the lines of “wow, I really want to hurl my coffee cup at the wall,” but that should probably go without saying).

Although the raid was part of an ongoing child abuse probe (hence my desire to destroy a perfectly innocent coffee cup), the issue of polygamy once again took center stage as Americans and everyone else who watched the news coming out of Texas began a new round of debating the subject.

Let me put this as succinctly as possible: If you advocate for the legalization of polygamy in the States, I will only take you seriously if you advocate polyandry as well. Now for the caveat: Read More »

God, Diabetes, and Death in Wisconsin

A few days ago, in Wisconsin, 11-year-old Madeline Neumann died from undiagnosed diabetes. Her parents prayed over her as she deteriorated, instead of taking her to the hospital.

According to most reports, the Neumanns are a normal American family. They are not members of some weird death-cult. They didn’t show up at military funerals with signs that read “God Hates Fags.” This is, in a way, all the more troubling.

My initial response to this story cannot be published here on account of the vast number of obscenities it involved. I was shocked, and outraged, and demanded immediate removal of the Neumanns’ other children from their home. While breaking up a family in the wake of a tragedy is grim business to say the least, one does hope that law enforcement will keep an eye on the Neumanns. Imposing probation and ordering counseling is the least that can be done.

The fact that the Neumanns’ other children have indeed, for now, been removed from their home may ultimately serve to educate the parents on the fact that their actions, or, rather, their inaction, was indeed wrong.

I am not Christopher Hitchens, and do not wish to use this death to score a point. Let’s put it this way, most parents, religious or not, would take their child to a hospital at the first sign of serious trouble. When it comes to religion, the Neumanns are the exception, not the rule.

As a person of (some) faith, I find that the Neumanns are the perfect illustration to the saying that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Clearly, the Neumanns “knew” certain passages from the Bible concerning God’s omnipotence and power to heal, etc. And yet did they also not realize that if God allowed His or Her children to create life-saving penicillin, He or She might just want us to use it? Considering that life is a gift and all? Read More »

Words from a Lame Man at his Pew

Here in GC land, we thought this poem was especially pertinent considering the recent brouhaha over Barack Obama’s minister.

Please remember to enjoy the genius of Sim Stafford responsibly.

Sincerely,
The Editor

We sat in our seats awaiting His return,
“In the meantime, a word from out pastor.”

It’s the same thing every Sunday, man:
What the devil are we here for?
When the collection plate goes by I remember
Why I leave my wallet at home: Sitting on it
So long throws my hips out of line. Good thing
We kneel, stand, kneel, stand, kneel, stand, but
Not before setting our tongues on autopilot
To reaffirm our ability to memorize and recite
In the drone of unison. Man, I can’t wait—
Oh! There they go, robes and all: Damn, Read More »

Hearting Huckabee: A Story of Woe

Election 2008 is bound to be somewhat of a disappointment, regardless of the possible outcome. This isn’t meant as an insult toward the candidates, many of whom are interesting people, but toward our so-called democratic process in general.

Let’s see here: The two-party system stifles diversity of thought in one of the most diverse countries in the world. The Electoral College is undemocratic and an insult to every single one of my fellow American citizens. And the soundbite-driven media provides us with a 24-hour sideshow circus wherein deep, provocative issues such as “OMIGOD Hillary showed cleavage” are somberly discussed. Despite some much-needed new blood (*cough* Obama *cough*), this is still a popularity contest in a dingy school lunchroom, not an election.

If I were to pick one element of Popularity Contest 2008 that, above all else, makes me want to despair, it would be former Arkansas governor and Iowa Caucus golden boy Mike Huckabee.

I know, I know, you’re all waiting for the standard screed of “OMIGOD he’s a religious nut-job, burn him!” Yet, I believe things to be more complicated than that. For me, Mike Huckabee represents the ultimate flaw in the way that political identity is shaped in America: the false dichotomy between religion and secularism, the immaturity of the discourse on what it means to be an American politician in the first place.

Let’s get one thing out of the way first: I do, in fact, heart Huckabee, or would like to heart him, as the case may be. I am a woman protective of my right to choose an abortion, a liberal Christian bewildered by conservative Protestantism, and an immigrant horrified by the dehumanizing language used against illegals, and yet I find this particular presidential candidate to be weirdly likeable. Huckabee was not propelled into politics as the result of being born into a wealthy family. He’s a gifted, charismatic speaker. He is straightforward; he eschews all slickness. He isn’t self-aggrandizing (*cough* Giuliani *cough*), and he strikes me as a genuinely intelligent human being.

It is my belief that the Huckabees of America, talented individuals from comparatively humble backgrounds, are crippled by a simplistic political system that substitutes televangelism (the love-child of Cotton Mather and big media) for faith, and infantilizes officials and electorate alike. Huckabee has stated that his initial involvement in politics stemmed directly from his opposition to abortion. Why? Probably because his community was encouraged to mobilize around an issue whose very nuances make it impossible to effectively discuss it in a group setting without first turning it into a kind of grim joke, an orgy of splattered-fetus imagery that does not begin to address modern anxieties over gender, ethics, and autonomy.

Abortion, and other topics of discussion, have become meaningless rallying points in a society where one’s political identity is shaped by a clutch of buzzwords. “Abortion!” We shout. “Economy! Iraq! Israel! Gay Marriage!” - hardly ever stopping to consider what these words really mean to us. Read More »

Power, Faith, and Fantasy: A Review

This is a review of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present by Michael Oren. W.W. Norton, 2007

It is believed that America only began to get involved in the affairs of the Middle East after the Suez Crisis in 1956, which caused the decline of the influence of the British in the region. For most people, America intensified its influence after the Yom Kippur war, when Richard Nixon agreed to export American weapons to help Israel defeat Egypt and Syria.

Michael Oren has some different ideas wherein America’s role in the region is concerned. Oren is a historian and author whose latest book aims to help readers understand the motives driving American politicians, Christian leaders, and members of the media, to get involved in Middle Eastern affairs. He also concerns himself with the eternal question of whether or not American involvement is positive or negative.

Modern scholars suggest that the first direct conflict between America and the Islamic world, barring the Hizbollah attack that killed 240 American troops in 1983, was the attack against Saddam Hussein in 1993. Oren challenges this notion. The first conflict between the two civilizations took place from 1776-1815, he asserts. Barbary pirates from Morocco, Libya, and Algeria attacked American business ships and held sailors captive. Oren believes that the decision of James Madison to send dispatches to attack ports in North Africa affirmed American status as a global power. Success in stopping the attacks also boosted American confidence in using force to protect overseas commerce, Oren claims.

The book also rebukes what Oren calls “the myth of the Israel lobby”, which has become a much-debated issue. Oren believes that the American support for Israel is not simply tied to Jewish lobbies, which have been accused of using millions of dollars to influence Washington D.C to establish a pro-Israel policy. Neither, he says, is America pro-Israel due to the work of John Hagee, Pat Roberston, and other right-wing Christians.

The influences of the above preachers and lobbyists are real and cannot be ignored. Yet Oren ultimately offers a different explanation for the seemingly unconditional American support to the Jewish state: which is what Oren describes as a grown-up, realist view of the right of Israel to exist, stemming from American desire to protect Jews from persecution following the pogroms and the Holocaust.

Oren also suggests that the Arab attacks against Jews, militarily or rhetorical, further serve Israeli interests on the ground. Arab assaults, Oren says, are portrayed as a fundamentalist Islamic jihad against people of different faiths and civilizations, creating an image of Arabs as a people who do not desire peace.

Oren only devotes one section to the history of American attachment to the Middle East after the Second World War. He focuses on a general interpretation on the nature of the U.S - Middle East relations. He is right to predict that the United States will have much more challenges ahead, especially from Iran, as well as the al-Qaeda terrorist network. Overall, Oren finds years of American involvement positive in that modern education and health care are funded and/or encouraged in the region, and in the belief that America is a nation that strives for peace and security for the Middle East.

Praise for America’s good intentions is obviously Oren’s most controversial statement. America’s intentions may be as good as Oren claims, but so far, the results are rather mixed (as evidenced by poor political, economical, and educational conditions in many Muslim countries); Oren could have done a better job addressing the present situation.

This book drew upon a wealth of materials from various archives and literature. However, these materials were all written in English, which may have limited the author’s scope. In addition, the book suffers from a lack of source materials on more recent events. Oren claims that it would have been difficult to obtain diverse resources, but the book would provide a more multi-dimensional view of how people in the Middle East perceive American involvement if at least secondhand resources in French, Arabic, or Hebrew were consulted.

Despite such shortcomings, my ultimate pronouncement is that this book is terrific. It is a must-read manual for diplomats and peacemakers who have been puzzled by the “seemingly irrational actions” successive American governments have displayed when Israel-related issues appear at the UN Security Council. It provides a great deal of explanations for the continuous American vetoes on resolutions demanding Israeli withdrawal from West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Oren’s highlighting of the fact that American involvement in the Middle East can be traced back to 1776 is by itself an invaluable reminder of how short our memory can be wherein American foreign policy is concerned. People interested in a refresher course would do well to pick up Oren’s book.

Jon’s Story - a Brother’s Forgiveness

“Miss, I don’t believe in God, but can I talk with you for a minute?” He held his red bandana in his hand with a sense of awe and reverence not typically observed in our simple, one-room chapel on the first floor of the shelter. Jon was a tall, muscular young man whose quiet confidence instantly commanded my respect. I may have been older, but I could tell he was much wiser than I.

“You don’t have to believe in God to sit in the Chapel and talk. Tell me what’s on your mind,” I offered him a chair and some chocolate to share while we talked.

“Miss, I don’t really want to believe in God. I guess you could say that I got angry at God a while ago, and I can’t believe anymore.” Jon proceeded to tell me a story that I can’t forget. Read More »

The Season

“Omigod, Brianna, my neighbours have an inverted Christmas tree just like this one! Who do they think they are?”"I know. Some people just try to be different for the sake of being different. It’s totally stupid.”

“Seriously.” Read More »