Atheists in the Pub Dublin Meetup

Atheists in the Pub will be hosted today, Thursday January 21st, at 7.30pm in the Mont Clare Hotel, junction of Clare St. and Merrion Square, Dublin. It’s an informal social gathering of members of Atheist Ireland and any members of the public who want to drop along and meet some like-minded people.

We’ll be discussing ideas for the campaign to have the blasphemy law repealed and how to widen the campaign to take in the whole area of removing faith from the Irish Constitution. We have a Constitution in which rather than us having the right to worship god, god has the right to be worshipped by us.

So bring pen and paper so we can leave with a list of ideas and hopefully volunteers to carry those ideas out!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheist Ireland’s 25 Blasphemous Quotes

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we in Atheist Ireland begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

Publication of 25 blasphemous quotes

In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

Campaign begins to repeal the Irish blasphemy law

We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.

We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President of Ireland or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.

If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish this statement and the list of quotes yourself, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.

List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland

1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Talk Tonight at TCD Theological Society

I will be speaking this evening, Monday 12 October, to the Trinity College Dublin Theological Society on the topic of Reading the Bible as an Argument for Atheism.

The talk starts at 7 pm in the Chamber, GMB. Hope to see you there.

I will do my best to live up to the image that the Theological Society are using to advertise the talk.

€2 gets you admission to the talk, a reception afterwards, plus all future Theological Society events this year, including talks by Senator Ivana Bacik on atheism in Ireland and Trevor Sargent TD on environmental ethics.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Campaign for a Secular Irish Constitution

Today is the first International Blasphemy Day, run by the Center For Inquiry as part of its Campaign for Free Expression. Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group for an ethical and secular Ireland: see details in these Irish Times articles on the Irish blasphemy law and our first AGM.

Atheist Ireland is seeking your help today to launch and shape a new long-term campaign with two important aims: to repeal the new Irish blasphemy law and to attain a secular Irish Constitution. Specifically, we are asking you to do three things: send us a message of support, get actively involved in shaping this project, and lobby to persuade Irish politicians to pursue these policies.

We will soon be holding public meetings around Ireland to launch this campaign. We want it to include religious and nonreligious people working together, within Ireland and with international support. The campaign has one common aim that transcends any other differences we may have: that all Irish citizens, of all beliefs and none, can live together in equality, with the State being neutral on matters of religion.

In recent decades, several independent and all-party committees (most whose members were Christians) have repeatedly called for an end to discrimination against nonreligious citizens in our Constitution. Not only has this not been done, but a new religious crime has now been created. The blasphemy law is the final straw. We need a secular Irish Constitution, and we need it now. Please help to make this happen.

Our Immediate Aim: Repeal the Blasphemy Law

The Defamation Act 2009 makes blasphemy a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine, after the Minister for Justice signs the commencement order in mid-October. Blasphemy is defined as “matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion” with safeguards to make it harder to prosecute.

Regardless of the detail, it is wrong in principle for a modern democratic republic to have any type of blasphemy law. Theological thought-crimes belong in the past. Religious and nonreligious people alike should be protected from harm and incitement to harm, but religious and nonreligious ideas alike should be open to any criticism. That is how human knowledge progresses. Blasphemy laws discriminate against nonreligious citizens, by protecting the fundamental beliefs of religious citizens only.

This law also has serious international impacts. Irish citizens could face blasphemy charges elsewhere under the European Arrest Warrant. Also, Islamic States are lobbying at the UN to make defamation of religion a crime internationally. Ireland has voted along with the other EU States against this, because Islamic States can use blasphemy laws to justify religious persecution. These Islamic States can now point to a modern pluralist Western State passing a new blasphemy law in the 21st century.

Our Overall Aim: A Secular Irish Constitution

We have a blasphemy law because the Irish Constitution of 1937 says we should have one. And our Constitution also discriminates against nonreligious citizens in many other ways. For example, you cannot become President or a Judge unless you take a religious oath asking God to direct and sustain your work. So up to a quarter of a million Irish people cannot hold these offices without swearing a lie. This is contrary to Ireland’s obligations under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Preamble states that all authority of the State comes from, and all actions of the State must be referred to, the Most Holy Trinity. Article 44 states that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God and that the State shall hold His Name in reverence. This is not merely an assertion of the right of citizens to worship this god. It is an assertion of the right of this god to be worshipped by citizens.

The Constitution also contains many other references to this god and to religion generally. Our national parliament reflects this by starting each day’s business with a prayer explicitly asking the Christian God to direct all of their actions. Under this guidance, they have legislated for many public policies that are heavily influenced by religion.

We should be removing these 1930s religious references from our Constitution, not creating new crimes to enforce them seventy years later. A modern secular Constitution would allow all citizens, whether religious or nonreligious, to live together as equals with the State being neutral on matters of religion.

Our Request to You: Please Help This Campaign

The blasphemy law is the final straw. We now need a secular Irish Constitution. We will soon be holding public meetings around the country to shape this campaign for equality for and by all Irish citizens, of any or no religious beliefs. But we will be much more likely to succeed if we have national and international support.

Here are three ways that you can help:

• One, please send us a message of support. Just a few lines will do. We want to be able to show that there is a wide support for these ideals.
• Two, please let us know if you would like to get actively involved in any way. You are more than welcome to help shape how this project evolves.
• Three, in whatever way you can, please help to lobby Irish politicians at national and international level to implement these policies.

This will be a lengthy campaign, but a very worthwhile one that you can be proud to have played your part in. We look forward to working alongside you to build an ethical and secular Ireland.

Michael Nugent
Chairperson
Atheist Ireland

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New Version of Angelus on RTE

RTE, Ireland’s public service broadcaster, schedules the Angelus at 6 pm every day before the main evening news. This week it has revised it to keep the bells, but to include less overtly Roman Catholic images.

However, this merely subsumes non-denominational or even secular images into a specifically Roman Catholic call to prayer. If they are going to do that, here’s an alternative version that I much prefer:

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Catholic Magic Tricks #2 – The Resurrection

Here’s another magic trick from The Catechist’s Magic Kit: 80 Simple Tricks for Teaching Catholicism to Kids. To repeat, this is not satire. It is from an actual book, published this year with the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Brooklyn, New York.

This week I am featuring some of my favourite tricks from this delightful book. Yesterday I showed you a card trick to encourage children to consider becoming Priests by lying to them. In today’s trick, you will learn how to persuade children that the Resurrection was real by showing them a faked illusion.

To perform this trick, you need a cutout of Jesus which is provided in the book, plus some crayons, an envelope and a pair of scissors. You start by asking a volunteer child to colour in the cutout picture of Jesus. You then put the cutout Jesus into the envelope, and cut the envelope in two with the scissors, before showing the children that Jesus has emerged unharmed from the cutting.

As before, you start by setting the scene: “When Jesus said that he would destroy the temple and, in three days, rebuild it, He wasn’t speaking about the actual temple in Jerusalem where the Jews would make sacrifices to God. Instead, Jesus was referring to His body, which would be crucified and then resurrected. let me show you an example of what Jesus meant.”

You now take the coloured-in cutout of Jesus, and slide it into the envelope. Or so the children think! Actually, you are sliding the cutout Jesus in and out of two slits that you have secretly cut in the back of the envelope. As the book warns: “Make sure that you don’t flash the back of the envelope or the illusion will be destroyed.” This is great advice, because who would want illusions about the Resurrection to be destroyed?

You continue: “When Jesus was killed, His body stayed in the tomb for three days,” and you illustrate the killing with the rather gruesome metaphor of cutting the envelope, inside which lies Jesus, in two with the scissors. Or so the children think! Instead, somewhat like Penn and Teller sawing a lady in two, you are actually cutting the envelope without harming the cutout of Jesus.

You then ask the children: “But do you know what happened after those three days?” And you show your delighted audience that the coloured-in cutout Jesus has not been destroyed. Lest they miss the theological significance of the parlour trick, you explain: “This is what Jesus meant. His body might have been destroyed, but He lives forever with us and the father.”

To convince any skeptical children that Jesus is really unharmed, you pass out the cutout for them to examine. But heed the final warning in the book: “And rip up the envelope to destroy any evidence of the trick.” Again, this is great advice, because if people have evidence that something is not true they are much less likely to believe it.

It’s a good trick, albeit with some practical and theological flaws. Based on the illustration, nobody would believe that the cutout Jesus has been put into the envelope. It is protruding from two ends where the envelope is sealed. And cutting Jesus in two is not really the same as crucifying him. But at least the book makes clear that, when Jesus talked of the temple, the temple that he referred to had nothing to do with those pesky Jews.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Catholic Magic Tricks #1 – Holy Orders

Warning: this is not satire. This is from an actual book, published this year, called The Catechist’s Magic Kit: 80 Simple Tricks for Teaching Catholicism to Kids. The book is written by Angelo Stagnaro, and has the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Brooklyn, New York.

The blurb reads: “Simple magic tricks for teaching spiritual truths to children are explained in precise detail in this distinctive compendium. The lessons faithfully follow the catechism of the Catholic Church… The strongest element of this book is the explanation of the theology and spiritual truths that underlie each trick in a simple and inspiring way.”

This week I will feature some of my favourite tricks from this delightful book, starting today with a simple mathematical card trick to encourage children to consider becoming Priests by lying to them.

To perform this trick, you need six profession cards, which are included in the book. Though the book does not refer to this, I assume there is no significance in the fact that the doctor looks slightly like Bono and the priest looks like a black Larry David. You also need an envelope, a black magic marker, and a photo of a small boy with a priest image glued on the back.

You start by setting the scene: “It is through the Sacraments that we principally experience God,” you tell the children. “Our Priests, our Bishops and the Pope get their authority from the Apostles, and they got it from Christ Himself. It is God that sustains our leaders.”

Now that you have set the mood, you place the six cards in a row, face down, on the table, placing the Priest card third from the left. You then ask a volunteer from among the children to pick a number between one and six.

If they pick three, you count out the number starting from the left, and turn over the Priest card. If they pick four, you count out the number starting from the right, and turn over the Priest card. If they pick one, two or six, you spell out the number starting from the left, and turn over the Priest card. If they pick five, you spell out the number starting from the right, and turn over the Priest card.

You then turn over the other cards and tell the child: “You have chosen the Priest card. You could have chosen any of these others…” (technically, of course, this is a lie, but that’s not important and the children will hopefully trust that you are telling them the truth).

You then say: “let’s look at my prediction,” and you open the envelope. The children are surprised to see a picture of a small boy. Has the catholic magician got it wrong? You then say: “Ah, this is a photo of a Priest long before he was ordained…” and turn it over to reveal the image of the Priest glued to the back.

Then comes the lesson of the trick. You say to the children: “Does anyone here know a Priest? Who here wants to be a Priest? Being a Priest is an important job in the Church. WIthout them we wouldn’t be able to experience the Sacraments. The Church community needs Priests. Always keep Priests in your prayers.”

Finally, and again I stress that this is not satire, the explanation ends with following advice: ”TIP: When looking for volunteers for this trick, it’s best to ask a boy to assist you rather than a girl as only males are allowed to become Priests in the Catholic Church”.

One threat that the book does not mention is that you have to make absolutely sure that you get this trick right. If you mistakenly turn over the wrong card, a child might end up wanting to become a doctor or a fireman or a teacher or an artist or a chef, which would of course be a disaster for society.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New Hitchens Vs D’Souza Debate

This is Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza debating in Orlando last week. In part one, they debate God, Christianity, and Science and Reason. In part two, they respond to questions from each other and the audience.

(If you can’t see the videos, go to this page.)

Part One: Topics

On God, Hitchens argues that the idea of God, unlike philosophy and science, provides only guesses and undeliverable promises based on faith. D’Souza responds that science answers the question of how, and God answers the question of why. Hitchens responds that these are linguistic superimpositions on things we don’t understand. D’Souza says he is arguing on reason alone, not on Biblical revelation, for intelligent design.

On Christianity, D’Souza argues that Islam is unusual among religions in creating suicide bombers. Hitchens responds by citing Christianity’s links with European fascism, and says there is no link between virgin births or resurrections, and preaching the truth. D’Souza argues that freedom is at the heart of Christianity.

On Science and Reason, Hitchens argues that scientists throughout history could be great scientists while also mistakenly believing in gods. D’Souza argues that we can infer that the play Hamlet was designed, even though we do not see Shakespeare today, and we can also infer that the universe was designed.

Part Two: Questions

Hitchens asks D’Souza would he rather that Hitchens stayed as an atheist, or became a non-Christian religious person. D’Souza responds that he feels safer debating him as an atheist.

D’Souza asks Hitchens if he has ever had any doubt about his atheism, and if so, what caused it. Hitchens responds that Pascal’s Wager is immoral, and that if he is honestly mistaken he is proud of that mistake.

In audience questions, Hitchens is asked about Stalin’s murders. He responds that Stalin was connected with the Russian orthodox Church, and that a fair comparison would be with a society that followed values from greek philosophy to Thomas Paine. D’Souza replies that if the Muslims are blamed for Bin Laden, and Christians for the Inquisition, then Atheists should be blamed for Stalin. Hitchens responds that Stalin did not act in the name of atheism.

D’Souza is asked whether god was not invented because of fear of the unknown. He responds that religions do not provide wish fulfillment, because Hell is the ultimate fear. Hitchens responds that not all of our wishes are benign, and that some people fear being free.

D’Souza is asked why God won’t heal amputees. He responds that amputees still have life, and that paraplegics and lottery winners are both as happy a year later as they were before their changes. Hitchens responds that D’Souza missed the point of the question, which was that miracle healers make untestable claims, not testable ones. D’Souza responds that miracles are spiritual ministry, not physical healing.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Richard Dawkins on Late Late Show

Richard Dawkins was interviewed on RTE’s Late Late Show this Friday about his new book The Greatest Show on Earth.

Strangely, RTE invited a Catholic priest to make the only audience contribution. I am not suggesting that Father Brendan Purcell should not have made a contribution, but when RTE next interview a Catholic author, will they invite an atheist to make the only audience contribution?

Here is a YouTube video of the interview in two parts, with each part followed by a transcript.

Why did Dawkins write this book?

Ryan Tubridy: My next guest is a man known for his controversial views. He says for example that if you believe in God you may as well believe in fairies. His latest book is about evolution, which he calls not only the only show in town but also the Greatest Show on Earth…. Richard Dawkins, welcome to the Late Late Show. Another book, another day, another chat show. Why did you write this one?

Richard Dawkins: It’s about just about the most important thing you could imagine a book being about. It’s about why we are all here, why we exist, why animals and plants, just about everything we see, exists. That’s the most rivetingly exciting subject. It could have been written at any time. I take it, though, that you mean why write it now?

Tubridy: Why now?

Dawkins: Less interesting question.

Tubridy: Well I’ll take the answer, and if you can make it interesting I’d appreciate it.

Dawkins: Well, it is true that there is poll information which suggests that in the United States, somewhat more than 40% of the population thinks that the entire world is less than 10,000 years old. Now that is a bizarre circumstance, that 40% of the population of the major industrial nation in the world should have a view which is so incredibly out of tune with reality. And that is one reason I felt it was necessary to write the book.

Tubridy: What would they feel about your writing? Do they think its just that you’re being unfair to them, that you have it wrong?

Dawkins: They think that everything in the book of Genesis is literally true, if science contradicts the book of Genesis, science must be wrong and Genesis must be right.

When did humans arrive on earth?

Tubridy: What’s your take on what happened vis-a-vis humans arriving on the scene in the state that we’re in? When did that happen?

Dawkins: When did humans arrive on Earth? Well, it was a gradual process. It’s a bit like saying when does a child become an adult? You know, by convention we say that happens on the stroke of midnight on the 18th birthday, but we know that it’s actually a gradual process. So there never was a moment when the first human was born. The first human looked exactly like the last ape, so to speak. But if you put a figure of about 100,000 years, by about then you would be getting humans that looked exactly like us, as far as their anatomy was concerned, but probably not as far as their culture was concerned. They didn’t have painting and things like that.

Tubridy: And how different are we from other animals then, broadly?

Dawkins: We are hugely different from other animals in that we have language, we have art, we have mathematics, philosophy. We have all sorts of emotions that other animals probably don’t have.

Where does God fit into all of this?

Tubridy: And what about the notion of God? where does God fit into all of this?

Dawkins: Well, God as I see it has very little to do any more. There was a time when God had a lot to do in people’s minds. He made to the world, he made a life, he made humans. That’s all out now. We don’t need God any more to explain anything. And I think that pretty much means we don’t need God at all.

Tubridy: Yes, but who are ‘we’? Because pretty much everyone watching the, well, many people watching  the tv, watching us tonight would say I don’t belong to that ‘we’. That God is very much in their thesis.

Dawkins: No doubt it is. And no doubt there are people who get plenty of consolation from the idea of God, and there are people who think they talk to God, and who think God talks to them, but that doesn’t mean he’s really there.

Tubridy: So where is he?

Dawkins: He doesn’t exist.

Tubridy: Not in the slightest?

Dawkins: I would have thought not. There’s certainly no evidence that any sort of god exists, no.

Tubridy: So what is the Vatican then? Toy Town?

Dawkins: Yes. A gigantic and very expensive and very rich waste of time.

Tubridy: There will be many people watching tonight who will say that much of their lives have been lived based on a belief system that involves God very much being in existence, and that this is what they’ve lived their life based on. What do you say to them?

Dawkins: But that of course is true. There are many people who think exactly that. It doesn’t mean that they are right.

Tubridy: And your thoughts on their beliefs?

Dawkins: Well, they are misguided. Mistaken.

Tubridy: Do you feel sorry for them?

Dawkins: Yes.

Tubridy: Why?

Dawkins: Well, because if people have really sincerely lived their lives under a delusion, and feel that they needed it for support and for living a full life, if you suddenly pull it out from under them they are naturally going to feel somewhat bereft.

Tubridy: Where does the notion of God come from them?

Dawkins: Oh, well, I think it goes back a very long way. I think it partly comes from the desire to understand. We look around the world and we see what an incredibly elaborate and complicated place that it is. We’re used to the idea that complicated things must be made by something or someone. So it’s very easy to see why the idea of God should have grown up. And it took a very long time, it took until the middle of the 19th century, until people realised that there was another, better, more economical explanation for all that.

Tubridy: Do you see God as believable as the Easter Bunny?

Dawkins: Pretty much, yes.

Tubridy: Would you equate them?

Dawkins: Yes, pretty much. That sounds facetious, because of course nobody believes in the Easter Bunny, and lots of people believe in God, but if you actually examine the amount of evidence there is for either, it’s equally sparse.

Tubridy: God fills a space for a lot of people in their lives, as you probably know from talking to people who believe in God. I mean spiritual, soul and so on. And people who have religion and believe in God might believe that the road you travel is a very lonely one.

Dawkins: Not at all lonely. I have great friends and I have a wonderful life with human companionship. That’s real. Warm human companionship, it’s really there. That’s not imaginary. That’s really there. By the way, this has nothing to do with the new book. You’re asking me questions about the previous book, the God Delusion.

What happens when we die?

Tubridy: I’m also asking questions that are interesting to us. I’m not being smart about it, I’m just telling the truth. So what happens, as you see it, when we die?

Dawkins: Well, some of us get buried, and some of us get cremated.

Tubridy: And where do we go, as you see it? If that is? Game over?

Dawkins: Game over, but the game while it lasts is pretty wonderful. I mean, what happens when we die is the same as before we were born. We didn’t know anything about it when Henry VIII was alive, and we won’t know anything about it in 500 years time.

Tubridy: Do you fear death?

Dawkins: No. I fear dying.

Tubridy: Why?

Dawkins: Because I’m not, unlike my dog, allowed to go to the vet and be painlessly put to sleep. Because I belong to this privileged species, Homo Sapiens, which is the only one that is not allowed to be painlessly put out of its misery. I would like to die under a general anaesthetic, just as I would like to have my appendix out under a general anaesthetic.

Tubridy: Have you thought about, at the risk of being morbid about you, have you thought about your own funeral?

Dawkins: Yeah, I have. I thought I might like to ask for the music from the, you know, the Elephant March from Aida… do do do do, di di di do do do, di di di do do do… very triumphant trumpet music to see me out.

Tubridy: Why?

Dawkins: A triumphant exit?

Tubridy: But why do you want a ceremony to see you off?

Dawkins: Well, I have organised ceremonies for deeply loved colleagues, funeral ceremonies. I have organised readings of their favourite poetry, their favourite music, eulogies from friends who have known and loved them. I think it is important. I think that humans do need rituals, they do need rites of that sort, and when somebody dies I think it’s right to give them a proper sendoff, some sort of a wake which remembers them, and which makes you feel that you’ve somehow fulfilled something.

Audience contribution from Father Brendan Purcell

Tubridy: I want to talk to a member of the audience here, Father Brendan Purcell, a man of the cloth. Brendan, the Vatican is Toy Town, God is the Easter Bunny, and you as a priest have been wasting your time.

Father Purcell: Well, I wouldn’t exactly put it like that. I would go back to the things that Richard was saying earlier. I have no problem with science. I mean my mother left school at 16, and she read the origin of species at breakfast time. It was the only time she had free in the morning. And she followed that by reading the Bible, things she had never done in her life. I think in Ireland we don’t have the problem that you mentioned in the States. In my first year at university we did a book I’m sure you’re familiar with, All John Maynard Smith’s theory of evolution. That was taught by a priest. in other words, it isn’t a problem in Ireland, the reason that you wrote that book. I mean we never thought, I never thought there was any conflict between science and evolution and my belief at all. But I do feel, I’ve read a lot of your work and I have to say that my favourite book of yours is The Ancestor’s Tale. I think it’s totally brilliant.

Tubridy: Do you like what he writes?

Father Purcell: I like some of what he writes more than others.

Tubridy: What is your contention with what he writes?

Father Purcell: The contention I would have is, I have two or three of them, but the first and most obvious one would be science. I think, I’m not trying to annoy you, Richard, but I think he believes in science, in the sense that he thinks that science explains everything. But I mean the one thing that science doesn’t explain is science itself. I’m talking about the natural sciences, including biology. So I think there really is a problem here because the word science comes from the Latin word meaning knowledge, and I think there are other forms of knowledge that are just as well grounded as the knowledge from the natural sciences. There are questions that are not asked by the natural sciences. So I’ve always felt, in a certain sense, that you shouldn’t give answers to questions you haven’t asked.

Tubridy: Richard Dawkins, you might argue that with your theory and evolution and so on, there’s evidence to look at, to point to. Brendan, what do you point to when it comes to God?

Father Purcell: I would say that one of the good things when it comes to his book, I’ve read the reviews but they haven’t had time to read it yet, but one of the good things is that part of it is written like a detective story, and there’s clues, and you’re spotting the clues. And I would say one of the obvious clues to the existence of God, remember we’re not talking about the God of Christianity, of the Old Testament, we’re talking about a God at the level of pure reason. Effectively, the fact that you have a reality, namely the big bang, you have a question there that cannot be answered by physics or astronomy. And if you read the big guys, like Stephen Hawking, the famous guy, you’ve seen him in his wheelchair, a book that he wrote with another guy way back in the 70s, George Ellis, it’s quite clear, he said we have come to a singularity here, a singularity is a thing that we can’t repeat again and again. It’s the start of everything, which we cannot explain by physics or astronomy. and is not to jump in and say now we have a challenge. I think the classic question to ask here, which I’m sure Richard has been asked many times, is why have we something rather than nothing? And biology isn’t meant, my equivalent of biology is something like, if I can make a parallel between a farmer and a supermarket, a farmer produces the stuff, the supermarkets are selling it, the biologist deals with the stuff as its presented, it doesn’t explain where the blinking fruit came from.

Who in the audience believes in God?

Tubridy: Anyone else want to come in here on what Richard Dawkins is saying? because I would be curious to know, just looking at the audience here, hands up everyone here in the audience who believes in God. Okay, Richard what would you call that, about 50, 60, 70%?

Dawkins: I would say more, if anything.

Tubridy: 75%?

Dawkins: Let’s see those who don’t.

Tubridy: Hands up those who do not believe in God? it’s just a sprinkling. Which is quite interesting. I mean what you think of that?

Dawkins: Oh yeah, I mean that’s the kind of result I would have expected.

Tubridy: So are all the hands who went up the first time deluded?

Dawkins responds to Father Brendan Purcell

Dawkins: Look, why don’t I just come back and answer that? (referring to Father Purcell’s comments) First, I’m glad you brought the subject back in a way to the topic of this book, rather than the previous book, which was the God Delusion. Now, when you say that I believe in science, and, you know, why do I believe in science, it’s really because it works. I mean, the evidence is there. It’s a kind of self validating process, because as a result of science, these television cameras work. Planes fly. Cars go. Day after day we see that the evidence of our eyes is that science works. Now when you are asked about the evidence for God, you used my analogy of the detective coming on the scene of the crime, and you infer it from all the clues that are lying around. That’s what I use to say how we know how evolution happened, because we can’t see it, because it happened mostly before we were born. But I don’t actually think it’s right to say that the world is littered with evidence for God. I think when you look at it carefully, it turns out that this particular detective has got it wrong. You think that the evidence is there, but I think if you look is really carefully… I mean, before Darwin came along, you would, as any intelligent theologian would, believe in evolution, but, before Darwin came along, most people didn’t. Now, Darwin changed our mind on that. And I suspect that we will find that other people are going to come along and change our minds about the other clues that you think you’ve seen.

What is the future of humans?

Tubridy: Okay. Let’s talk about, another element of the book that I would like to ask you about, is the future of evolution. Where do we go from here? What is the future for humans as you see it?

Dawkins: In evolution?

Tubridy: Yes, where do you see it?

Dawkins: Well, remember that when we’re thinking about the future, we are used to thinking in a historical timescale, which is centuries. You’re not going to see much evolution in centuries. So we’ve got to look forward, say, a couple of million years in order to give that question an interesting answer. In a couple of million years, the chances are we’ll be extinct, because most species do go extinct. But, on the other hand, there is something rather special about the human species. If any species could protect itself against going extinct, the way that the dinosaurs did, it might be ours, because we do have the technology to do that. So let’s suppose that we do manage to survive through 10 million years, what are we going to look like then? Nobody has the faintest idea. But in order for any particular hypothesis to be true, like you might say perhaps the brain will go on getting bigger. The dominant trend in the last 3 million years of our evolution is that the brain has swollen up from the size of a chimpanzee’s brain about 3 million years ago, Lucy’s brain was about the size of chimpanzees brain, to now, is it going to be much bigger again In 10 million years time? Well, only if it is true that the cleverest or the brainiest, or the individuals with the biggest brains, are the ones who have the most children. So is there any evidence that the people have the most children are the brightest or the cleverest or the ones with the biggest brains? I don’t think so. But it would have to be so in order for natural selection to favour the enlargement of the brain. It must have been so during the last 3 million years, otherwise brain size would not have increased the way that it has since the time of Lucy 3 million years ago.

Tubridy: Okay, well, thank you for coming to see us this evening.

Dawkins: Thank you very much.

Tubridy: The book, by the way is there. It’s The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Nice to talk you. Richard Dawkins, ladies and gentlemen.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Ten Funny Anagrams for Rational People

Creationism = I’m so certain

Intelligent design = Deleting listening

Evangelical Protestantism = Plainest, lamest overacting

Roman Catholicism = Criminal homo acts

Islam = I slam

Homeopathy = Empty hoo-ha

Alternative medicine = Tame evidence in trial

Faith healer – Hail the fear

Transubstantiation = Stuns brain to attain

The Rapture = Pure threat

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Fly Vatican Airlines for a Lourdes Miracle

Last year Pope Benedict gave Catholics a special time-limited promotional offer: if they visited Lourdes during 2008, they would get a free plenary indulgence that would get them early release from Purgatory, and get them faster to heaven, after they died.

This unsubstantiated sales pitch for Lourdes is not an extreme example of primitive cultist belief. Encouraging seriously sick people to travel great distances, in the hope of a miracle cure, is very much part of mainstream Catholic practice.

Did I say that, just a few months before this special offer, the Vatican had started its own official airline, with the launch slogan ‘I’m Searching for Your Face, Lord’, and Vatican logos on the headrests and air hostess’s uniforms?

Or that the inaugural flight just happened to travel to Lourdes? Or that they now offer thirty tour packages to Catholic pilgrims, including a blockbuster $3,000 tour to Rome, Fatima, Lourdes and Spain?

The Miraculous Business of Lourdes

Lourdes is big business. About five million people travel there every year, and it has more hotels than anywhere else in France except Paris.

And all because, 150 years earlier, fourteen-year-old Bernadette Soubirous was one of a spate of French and Spanish children who claimed to have seen the virgin mother of the Catholic god.

In Bernadette’s case, she thought she saw a small young lady, standing on a niche in a rock, wearing a white veil and blue sash, with a yellow rose on each foot, holding a set of rosary beads. Within a year, people were claiming to have been cured of illnesses at Lourdes, and in 1862 the Catholic Church officially recognized seven of these cures as being miracles.

Since then the Church has added another sixty alleged miracles to the list.

For those who believe this, the virgin mother of their god seems to have paced her interventions somewhat randomly: seven cures in 1858 alone, then none until she cured a fractured leg in 1875, a leisurely four in the next 15 years, then a feast of 27 cures in 21 years, followed by a famine of just two in 36 years, then a steady 22 cures in the next 23 years.

Since 1960, the virgin mother has cured only four people in almost half a century, and she seems to have vanished in the twenty years since 1987, her strike rate coincidentally dropping as medical science is improving.

What type of people are cured at Lourdes?

She seems to have cured mostly younger people, who are arguably more capable of being healed naturally anyway. Half were under thirty, the youngest a baby suffering from malnutrition, three-quarters were under forty, and since 1950 she has cured only one person aged over fifty.

Also of interest is the sequence in which the Church has officially recognized the 67 cures. They started with seven in 1862, added 32 more in a flurry of activity from 1907 to 1913, then seemed to forget about it for thirty years, added 24 more from 1946-1965, but just five in the last forty years.

In the same pattern as the alleged cures themselves, the Church is recognizing less of them as being miracles as medical science is improving.

Unethical behaviour exploiting vulnerable people

Just to be clear, I believe that everyone has right to believe whatever they want to believe, however absurd those beliefs may seem to others. However, when those beliefs cause people to behave in way that unfairly exploits vulnerable people, then others have a right to challenge them to justify that behavior, and to justify the underlying beliefs.

I believe that it is unethical, in the early twenty-first century, that wealthy organizations like the Catholic Church can promote commercial ventures using unsubstantiated sales pitches like these.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

LUAS Tram Crashes into Dublin Bus

I was in O’Connell Street in Dublin yesterday when a LUAS tram crashed into the side of a double-decker bus.

These two photos show the aftermath of the collision. The second is a close-up of the cabin of the LUAS tram, which has smashed through the side of the bus and is literally inside it.

It shows how flimsy the side of a bus is when it is hit head-on by another vehicle, and how important road safety is. Three people were seriously injured in the crash, and are now in hospital.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The False Flow of the Biblical Jesus Stories

Imagine you have never heard of the Bible, and you are given the 27 books of the New Testament and asked to put them in order.

You would probably come close to the order they appear in today: the four Gospels that tell the story of Jesus, then the Book of Acts that tells how the early church developed, then various letters by Paul and others, then the Book of Revelation that tells how the world will end.

If you did this, you would have created a continuous narrative, each book being a chapter, each building on the previous one, to create one grand story. You would also have created a false impression of how and why these books were written. And you would have obscured the sequence in which different writers gradually introduced the various elements of the Jesus legend.

Written in a Different Sequence

Firstly, these books were written in a very different sequence. Paul wrote his letters first, about 48-62 CE, and he wrote almost nothing about the earthly life of Jesus. Starting maybe in the 50s CE, someone compiled sayings attributed to Jesus into a text called Q, which probably became one source of two of the later Gospels. The book of Revelation, with its violent avenging Jesus, was written in stages between about 60-95 CE.

The Gospel called Mark was written about 65-70 CE, and it has no virgin birth and no detail of the resurrection. These stories first appear in the Gospels called Matthew and Luke, which were written about 80-85 CE, as was the Book of Acts, some of which contradicts what Paul earlier wrote about himself.

The Gospel called John was written about 90-95 CE, and it is the first book that suggests that Jesus was actually God, as distinct from a human being who had a special relationship with God.

Written as Standalone Books

Secondly, these books were not written as part of a grand meta-story. They were never intended to be read as continuous chapters of the same book. Their writers wrote them as standalone books, at different places and times, to convey different political and theological beliefs, for different audiences and reasons. This is one reason for the many contradictions in the New Testament.

And so, over a period of fifty or more years, these different individual writers separately created the apocalyptic apparitions of Paul, the eloquent quotations of Q, the raging ruler of Revelation, the marginalized messiah of Mark, the Moses-like messiah of Matthew, the all-inclusive leader of Luke, and the Jehovah-like Jesus of John.

The writers of those contradictory stories did not foresee that their texts would become part of a book centuries later. Indeed, many of them believed that the earthly world would have ended within their own lifetimes.

Written Alongside Rival Books

Thirdly, these books were only some among many rival Gospels that early Christians wrote and read. As well as political and practical differences, there were many theological arguments among early Christians about the nature of Jesus.

The Ebionites believed Jesus was totally human and not divine, and that the Jewish God had adopted him at his baptism. The Marcionites believed Jesus was totally divine and not human, and had come to save people from the Jewish God. The Gnostics believed that one of many Gods had used Jesus to convey special knowledge to save human souls from the material world. And the faction that eventually won out argued that Jesus was both totally human and totally divine.

This policy of Jesus being “both totally human and totally divine” enabled this faction (which evolved into today’s Christianity) to include contradictory versions of Jesus into what has become the New Testament.

How Jesus Gradually Became God

To help understand the New Testament stories better, read them in the sequence in which they were written, instead of the sequence in which they appear in the Bible. Doing this may change your beliefs about not only the Jesus of history, but also the Jesus of theology.

You will see how a human Jewish preacher gradually evolved into being part of a newly-invented Christian God, and how his relationship with this God gradually started earlier and earlier as time went on: from his resurrection in the letters of Paul, to his baptism in the Gospel called Mark, to his conception in the Gospels called Matthew and Luke, to the start of time in the Gospel called John.

For a comprehensive analysis of these and similar themes, read the work of Bart Ehrman and other academic textual critics of the New Testament.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Top Ten Kinky Quotes by Pastor Anderson

Steven Anderson is the Phoenix Pastor who recently asked his parishioners to pray that God would kill President Obama, by giving him brain cancer so that he would die like Senator Ted Kennedy.

Anderson has since followed this up with a radio interview in which he calls for gay people to be executed, and insists that the host of the show Michelangelo Signorile, must be molesting children because he is gay.

(If you can’t see the video, go to the original article here.)

Anderson’s church website provides endless amusement in the form of transcripts of his sermons and essays.

Here are my Top Ten Kinky Quotes by Pastor Steven Anderson:

10. Pastor Anderson on perverted male gynecologists

“Because of years and years of looking at and touching scores of women inappropriately, the male gynecologist no doubt has a seared conscience and a perverted mind… Any doctor that looks upon and touches a woman’s private parts in his office “hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”  Sir, if you let your wife go to a male gynecologist, you need to get right with God.”

9. Pastor Anderson on the Beatles as God-hating communist devils

“If music without drums, syncopation, or a rock beat is acceptable music, then “Yesterday” by the Beatles would be suitable for a Christian. This song has no drums, syncopation, or rock n roll beat – so what’s wrong with it? It doesn’t talk about drugs, illicit behavior, or violence – so what’s wrong with it? What’s wrong with it is the source. It was written by God-hating communist devils. Rock n roll music was pioneered by ungodly sinners like Little Richard, a sodomite filthy animal, and Ray Charles, a heroin addict. The source of rock n roll music is ungodly.”

8. Pastor Anderson comparing Letterman and Leno unfavourably to Jesus

“God, please just help it to be real to us. Help us to realize that David Letterman and Jay Leno just aren’t that funny.  The sitcoms and the TV shows and the movies just aren’t that cool.  The rock music just isn’t that great anymore when we realize that there is a far greater purpose for our lives; to win souls to Jesus Christ.”

7. Pastor Anderson on sinful sports heroes

“Other Christians only use the television to watch sports, but are the typical athletic superstars of our day the role models we want for our children? Aside from the numerous beer commercials, not to mention the scantily clad cheerleaders at half-time, they are also being taught to idolize whoremongers like Coby Bryant and Michael Jordan, freaks like Dennis Rodman and Magic Johnson, and drug-users like Jose Canseco and Mark McGuire.”

6. Pastor Anderson on married sodomite perverts who molest children

“Every Sodomite in the Bible is a rapist or molester… A common misconception is that homosexuals are only attracted to and only prey on men. It is clearly seen in the Bible that homosexuals are perverted in other ways and are always bisexual… Just because a man is married and has children does not rule out the fact that he is a sodomite pervert. This is one reason why small children should not be left alone with a man that is outside their immediate family.”

5. Pastor Anderson on the evils of The Odd Couple

“Consider the show “The Odd Couple” from the 1960’s. Aside from sinful content, we are being exposed to an alternative lifestyle of two men living together as roommates. Genesis 2:24 tells us God’s normal plan, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Although neither man in the show is a homosexual, this show was obviously a forerunner of the sitcoms of today which feature homosexual characters.”

4. Pastor Anderson on Ellen Degeneres and other perverts

“I am not a fool. Don’t tell me that Sodom is not on the TV because it is. I mean, don’t tell me that there is a prime time show that doesn’t have these filthy sodomite queer characters, because it does.  I remember when I was in high school.  I was 17 years old. The show came out Ellen. Ellen, the first… was going to be the first lesbian sitcom. It was ripped off the air. That was in 1999.  That was 1998 or whatever it was.  They ripped it off the air.  And they said, “No.  People couldn’t handle it.” Twelve months later it was back on the air.  And twelve months after that, every prime time show had sodomite characters.  That’s how fast it happened.”

3. Pastor Anderson on the bunch of queers on the cooking channel

“You say, “Well, I don’t watch that stuff.  I just watch the weather. I just watch the cooking channel.” Those guys cooking on the cooking channel are a bunch of queers.  You know they are. “Oh, you know, I just throw in a little bit of this.” Good night.  Be a man.”

2. Pastor Anderson on his desire to beat Christopher Lowell

“You say, “Oh, I just like…I just watch the home decorating show.” Oh, good night.  What’s that guys name? This guy was on when I was a teenager.  Christopher Lowell.  And who has ever heard of that guy?  Is that what his name is?  I got the name right?  Christopher Lowell. That gay little piece of trash.  I would like to beat the fire out of him. Somebody needs to beat him with the ugly stick.”

1. Pastor Anderson comparing hell to being locked in a closet (Hmmmmm….)

“And this is what thought entered mind. I thought to myself… I looked over at the closet and I thought to myself, “What if I were locked in that closet for 100 years, nothing to do, nothing to see, the closet is dark.” … And then I thought, “What if you never get out of that closet.” That would be awful, wouldn’t it, just locked in a closet forever and you knew you were never going to get out.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Gods and the Morality of Society

It does not make any difference to the collective morality of society whether gods exist, or whether morality is absolute or relative. This is because, in each of these cases, we still as a society have to agree together what we collectively consider to be right and wrong in order to live together ethically.

To oversimplify, there are four broad possibilities:

1. There is a God or gods, and there is an absolute objective morality.
2. There is a God or gods, and morality is relative and subjective.
3. There are no gods, and there is an absolute objective morality.
4. There are no gods, and morality is relative and subjective.

If options 2 or 4 are correct, then we have to collectively agree what is right and wrong. If options 1 or 3 are correct, then we have to collectively identify what is right and wrong. Since the various religions that exist believe that their gods have given them competing definitions of what is right and wrong, then (from the point of view of society collectively) identifying together what is right and wrong is in practice identical to agreeing together what is right and wrong. So, for society as opposed to for individuals, the task is the same regardless of whether or not there are gods.

The existence of a God or gods, and the existence of absolute morality, are two distinct issues. Both could exist, and be unrelated to each other. Certainly the Christian God, as portrayed in the Bible, does not convey absolute morality. At times, this God advocates loving other people, and at times he endorses slavery and orders genocide, as well as petty injustices such as killing people for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Overall, he conveys the varied morality of Bronze Age and Iron Age tribesmen at the time those books were written, much of which most Christians today would reject as being inappropriate for our age. That is the essence of relative morality.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »