Old World Swine

The Cutting Edge of Pelvic Worship

Surprise! the Episcopal Communion in Los Angeles (otherwise known as "Let's Play Church!®") has elected another gay pretend Bishop. This must be a source of some conflict for Gene Robinson, who had the category all to himself for a while (look for a new book from Robinson soon, with a title something like "I Was First! Me! Gene Robinson! Meeeeee!!!!!").

They may as well just raise rainbow flags over all the Episcopal churches and get it over with. Purple vestments, year round! There may be some internal struggle, though, to see whether gay men or gay women will gain ascendancy among the Episcopal clergy. I guess it depends on who does a better job officiating at pretend marriages.

"Two different standards will appear in ordinary morality, and even in ordinary society. Instead of the old social distinction between those who are married and those who are unmarried, there will be a distinction between those who are married and those who are really married." G.K. Chesterton

Strange Bedfellows

Get ready to come to the aid and defense of the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). Their free speech rights may be under attack.

FOX News reports that the State of Commie-fornia will be investigating that group's financial support of the recently passed Proposition 8.

This may become a favorite tactic of the new, empowered Left... identify your enemies and investigate them to death via the State. The substance of the charges won't matter, it's the prospect of wrapping your opponent in miles of expensive legal red tape that counts.

Hey, it worked for e-harmony.

Why Believe in Air?

Fox News reports that a group of Humanists in Washington D.C. are falling all over themselves to copy the efforts of their British counterparts by placing ads on area buses designed to tweak the noses of religionists during the Christmas season.

Do you get the sense that maybe these folks don't get invited to a lot of parties and can't figure why?

The signs ask "Why believe in God? Just be good for goodness' sake." The point being, I guess, that one can be an ordinary decent guy without the help of all the deistic fooferah.

It's an odd argument, that believing (or disbelieving) in God makes no difference to one's moral life. It's odd first because it has nothing to do with the fact of whether God might or might not exist. It's like asking what benefit one derives from believing in "air". Presumably one can breathe and live just fine without believing that air is a gas made up oxygen or nitrogen and other molecules (for that matter, why believe in molecules?). Babies have no problem breathing, and they probably never think much about it. One - say a lunatic in an asylum - could openly reject and curse the idea of air as some kind of Illuminati conspiracy (hopefuly with some Jesuit albino monks thrown in) and still enjoy all its benefits.

There are a lot of things we depend on that we have no need to understand or even to think about. That we can get by without thinking about God has no bearing one way or another on whether he exists or not.

The argument fails in the area of practical experience, as well, especially right now. How many atheists do you know who oppose abortion? How many secular humanists are against euthanasia or experimentation on human embryos? How many draw the line at mixing human and animal DNA?

Belief in a creator God makes no difference in the area of morality? It might not much affect whether one recycles or opens doors for old ladies or agrees to pass the salt, but it clearly makes a difference in other areas, important ones.

Even atheists don't believe it makes no difference. Interestingly, though, these ads can't help but express in a pretty pithy fashion the circular reasoning of atheistic morality;

"Be 'good'."

 "Why?"

 "Well, 'for goodness' sake'."

"What is 'goodness'?"

"Whatever you say it is."

"Oh. And that's good?"

"Good enough."

Apparently, "being good" in this sense involves going out of your way to give the great majority of your fellow humans a poke in the eye during their holy days. It's so puritanical, really. These folks can't stand to see us enjoying ourselves with our creches and our menorahs and Christmas trees and colored lights. Bah! "There is no God! Nya-nya!"

But hold on! We're just doing what we like, and that's "good", right? Oh, I see. Tolerance for thee, but not for me.

Another area of life where belief in God apparently makes some difference is in the likelihood of suicide. Perhaps this humanist group could post a suicide hotline number at the bottom of their little posters, that would be helpful and appropriate. It would be "good".

You Are Probably Perfectly Safe

(AP Photo)

I find this story amusing on several levels. It seems, according to this AP story at Fox News, that atheists in London plan to buy advertising - in the form of posters - on thirty or so city buses, in order to promote their cheery and robust philosophy.

The signs are to read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.".

Probably.

They hope, I'm sure, to present the bright side of the idea that the universe is meaningless and empty. That is to say, since your life and your relationships have no ultimate meaning at all, you can do as you please and enjoy yourself. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you (and everyone) will be a mere sack of inert chemicals and will thereafter dissolve into your composite elements and that will be that... probably.

You can rest assured that there is no eternal judge, no one to pay out justice and mercy, no life after death, no heaven or hell... that is, very likely not.

At least these signs acknowledge, in a backhanded way, that this is the most that Science™ could possibly have to say against the existence of God... "we see no scientific evidence for it". Admittedly, Richard Dawkins (who contributed a good chunk of the money for this charitable enterprise) doesn't like the "probably" part, which was a qualifier more or less forced on the atheists by the bus company in order (in their view) to keep from positively offending religious folk. He sees no reason to place these kinds of limits on his philosophical hubris by leaving room for the possibility of being in error. He knows there is no God with exactly the same level of self assurance that Pierre Pachet had when he declared that Louis Pasteur's theory of germs was a "ridiculous fiction" or that Lord Kelvin experienced as he announced that "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.".

But the bus company (apparently afraid of running afoul of their own advertising guidelines) insisted on some kind of qualifier, which turns out to be the only sane or entertaining bit of the entire sentence in which it appears. The second sentence is simply inane and could have been tagged on by any group; Buddhists - "Life is an illusion. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."... Muslims - "There is no God but God, and Mohamed is His Prophet. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."... Insurance companies - "ABC Insurance is rated #1 in customer service. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.".

There is entailed in this also the curious idea that atheists now find evangelism and missionary work - that is, assertively trying to convert people out of their own presently held beliefs - to be quite commendable. Given that this has been a favorite charge against the Church - that we don't respect others' right to their own beliefs and culture, that we won't let things be - this is quite a step for atheists. They now give tacit assent to the importance of "spreading the good news", and it is refreshing and comforting that we now enjoy their understanding and sympathy, at least on that point. Truth is truth, after all, and sharing the truth with people is a good thing in itself, apart from concerns about cultural niceties or hurt feelings.

The campaign was conceived, appropriately enough, by a comedy writer, Ariane Sherine, who the article states

...came up with the idea after seeing a series of Christian posters on London buses. She said she visited the Web site promoted on one ad and found it told nonbelievers they would spend eternity in torment in hell.

"I thought it would be a really positive thing to counter that by putting forward a much happier and more upbeat advert, saying 'Don't worry, you're not going to hell,'" said Sherine, 28. "Atheists believe this is the only life we have, and we should enjoy it."

She goes on -

"A lot of people say trying to organize atheists is like herding cats. The last couple of days shows that is not true"

This concept of organized atheists made two things spring to mind; for one thing, I wondered if later generations of young free-thinking atheists will be fond of saying to their exasperated atheist parents, "I believe in atheism, just not organized atheism".

Secondly, I tried to remember what organized atheism has looked like in recent history and couldn't get out of my head images of the disciplined, assembly-line columns of Hitler's stormtroopers, the gulags of Soviet Russia and the killing fields of Pol Pot. They kept appearing behind my eyes, like a cloud of gnats that won't be waved away. But then, history has never been my field, and I'm sure I must have overlooked the numerous benevolent regimes of the more kindly organized atheist states.

There are some sensible London theists who are responding, I think in an appropriate way to the hubbub;

The religious think tank Theos said it had donated $82 to the campaign, on the grounds that the ads were so bad they would probably attract people to religion.

"It tells people to 'stop worrying,' which is hardly going to be a great comfort for those who are concerned about losing jobs or homes in the recession," said Theos director Paul Woolley.

"Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity."

P.Z. Myers; The Fred Phelps of Atheism

I haven't said much about P.Z. Myers, and I won't after this, either, because a temper tantrum by an overgrown schoolyard bully isn't worth the ascii. I don't consider commenting on his stunt to be a very good use of blog space. My main part has been over at Jimmy Akin's blog, where I have felt compelled, not so much to deal with Myers' rage issues, but to swat the flies that were leaving their little, sticky footprints of sophistry all over the combox. Others could do a better, more thorough job of it without losing patience as I do, but I have a hard time letting nonsense have the last word.

Bottom line; God doesn't need Myers or anyone else to believe in Him or approve of His activities. In a few years the world will go back to saying "P.Z. Who?", and the Catholic Church will be doing battle with (perhaps) abler and more mature intellects.

NewsWeak - "Well, That About Wraps It Up For God"

As always, the rumor of God's demise is a tad premature. The journalist (and I use the term only in the driest academic sense) of this piece is all a-twitter because an upcoming experiment might provide evidence of a particle that might lead to more experiments that might one day lead to a Great and Glorious Unified Theory that permanently consigns God to the dustbin of history, and she wants to be there with a dustpan.

Archimedes is once supposed to have said something like "Give me a lever long enough, and a place to stand, and I can move the world". Journalist Ana Elena Azpurua is all giddy over the mere rumor of a "lever long enough", but fails to consider the lack of any place to stand.

Her problem is this; How does she expect scientists to mathematically disprove the existence of God, when they can't prove the existence of mathematics? I'm puzzled how she hopes Science will go about proving that faith is unreasonable, when it can't begin to demonstrate even that reason is reasonable. All Ms. Azpurua's faith is in Scientism, her chosen religion, and she is on the verge of a religious ecstacy, overtaken by mysterious utterances that sound a great deal like gibberish;

"At some point will it be possible to find proof that God or the Ultimate Designer does not exist?" or, "What about possible contributions toward finding a final theory? Would that upset religious believers?"

I don't care how many theories and equations you stack on one another, explain "2+2=4". For that matter, explain why "2" is not just a private concept to which you have some inexplicable sentimental attachment. Face it, madame, the first and fundamental action of Reason is an unreflective leap of blind faith. Faith in our senses, first, and in our ability to rely on reasonable guesses after that. You (and your interview guest) are as thoroughly religious, in your fashion, as any cloistered nun.

Add to that the fact that we learn absolutely nothing of scientific interest from the interview, and you begin to understand how such science groupies as Ms. Azpurua are doing more to destroy real science than any tub-thumping fundamentalist preacher could ever hope to. She's too busy salivating (over the prospect of mankind handing God his pink slip) to actually ask any questions that have to do with, you know, science. It makes the article not only silly, but mind-numbingly dull.

Way to go, Newsweek.

What If They Gave A Global Environmental Disaster and Nobody Came?

Laughter is a grand thing, especially when it arrives unexpectedly. A solid, explosive belly-laugh is not only enjoyable but is supposed to be good for one's health, too. That being the case, I owe National Public Radio a debt of gratitude for the great, spontaneous "HAW!" I enjoyed this morning. It's a mercy I wasn't drinking anything.

The "HAW!" was, I'm afraid, at the expense of some of the news professionals there at NPR. I know they probably work hard and hold some impressive credentials, and I do fear that laughing at their work may be a sin against charity, but I couldn't help myself. As I said, the laugh was quite spontaneous.

The confusion and perplexity of others is often the raw material of humor, and so it was nearly impossible to maintain my composure in the face of a headline such as this;

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

Keep in mind, also, that I was driving and listening to the story, rather than reading, which made the situation that much more entertaining.

The story concerns... well, I'll let you read it in their own words;

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

Now, as I suspect you know, this is what strikes me as funny... note that there are only two (2) possibilities in the NPR universe; either Global Warming has "taken a breather" (whatever that means) OR there is something screwy with the data. Period. The third possibility - that Global Warming may not, in fact, be occurring - is apparently too horrible a prospect for them to wrap their brains around.

If you listen to NPR with any regularity, you know that Global Warming is no theory to their editorial staff. It is a fact, it is happening every day - right now! - and it is responsible for, oh, all kinds of things. Wildfires in California (never mind that Johnny Carson joked about them when I was a kid), a proliferation of deadly hurricanes (or a mysteriously average hurricane season), record snowfalls (or lack of adequate snowfall). There is no narrative into which Global Warming can not be made to fit, either as cause or effect.

So it is with deeply profound puzzlement that they receive data that does not fit the narrative. My, what are we to make of this? Obviously, Global Warming is - er - taking a break. Perhaps it is in the restroom, or on the phone. It is happening, though... that has been determined, and is not to be questioned, even if our robot drones are sending back confusing messages like "There has been a very slight cooling" of the oceans.

I'm not even arguing here whether Global Warming might or might not be taking place, I'm talking about turning the scientific method on its ear. Sifting and re-sifting the data to find support for a predetermined conclusion. I'm just asking; if (stay with me, now) Global Warming is not happening, how long would it take for these folks to see it, given their obvious bias?

There has been a spate of silly public-service ads lately, warning; "Ignoring Global Warming won't make it go away". I would ad, "Fantasizing about Global Warming won't make it real".

GET THE STORY.

A Christmas Gift from U.K. Religious Leaders

I actually began to tear-up a little at THIS STORY, sent by my sweet wifey.

According to the article, religious leaders of all different stripes in the U.K. are coming to the defense of Christmas and the right to celebrate it publicly without, ya know, being accused of Gross Religious Bigotry and Insensitivity, or something;

Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims joined Britain's equality watchdog Monday in urging Britons to enjoy Christmas without worrying about offending non-Christians.

"It's time to stop being daft about Christmas. It's fine to celebrate and it's fine for Christ to be star of the show," said Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

More eye-moistening excerpts;

"Hindus celebrate Christmas too. It's a great holiday for everyone living in Britain," said Anil Bhanot, general secretary of the UK Hindu Council.

Sikh spokesman Indarjit Singh said: "Every year I am asked 'Do I object to the celebration of Christmas?' It's an absurd question. As ever, my family and I will send out our Christmas cards to our Christian friends and others."

Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Shayk Ibrahim Mogra said "To suggest celebrating Christmas and having decorations offends Muslims is absurd. Why can't we have more nativity scenes in Britain?"

See, the careful planning of the social engineers will always be undermined by such common sense from common people. They are saying to the hyper-sensitive PC enforcers what Jed Clampett once said to Jethro - "Stop helpin' me, boy.".

Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and everyone else of genuine good will will not be offended at my public displays of faith for the same reason that I won't be offended by theirs... because we are not jerks. People who are offended at the mere sight of perfectly ordinary religious symbols or behaviors are the ones who have a problem with intolerance and bigotry. They are jerks, they are rude and they are the ones trying hardest to shove their beliefs down the throats of others. This is just becoming more and more evident as these bitter, carping, politically correct foot soldiers endeavor to push any display of religious faith further and further out of public view. The intention and unavoidable result of this kind of thinking is to eventually confine all religious behavior strictly to the private thoughts of the individual. Ironically, it can only end in forced education (or "de-programming"), book-burning and the like. Tyranny in the name of "tolerance".

A hearty "Thank you!" and Merry Christmas to all those U.K. religious leaders who had the spine to stand up and tell the anti-religion busybodies to take a flying leap.