…and this is a 
Good ol' Christian tolerance
Category: Religion
Posted on: July 13, 2007 4:00 AM, by PZ Myers
This is amusing in so many ways to an atheist. Christian activists tried to disrupt a Hindu prayer in the Senate.
It's absurd but so typical of Christian extremists that they would freak out at the imposition of a prayer that does not reflect their beliefs — welcome to my world, guys. We learn from an early age that the appropriate response is just to wait it out and not participate … and that any protests have to be made at an appropriate opportunity.
I'll also point out that while everyone is pissed at the crazy Christians, the Hindu prayer is a rather vapid bit of meaningless nonsense, too…something about a transcendental glory living in the soul of the heavens, bla bla bla. The only part I liked was the request to lead us from the unreal to the real, which is exactly what I say all the time. Only I don't address it to an unreal superman living in hearts.
Anyway, the only fair response to all this is simply to stop the magic incantations to any deity in our government. Let the senators who feel a need say a quiet prayer on their own, without dragging everyone into their personal superstition. And let's chide any senators who complain about that for the weakness of their faith, that they can't even pray without someone at the front of the room to help them out.
Comments
Maybe those senators and christians should all learn to read that damn book they keep babbling on about:
(Followed by the 'Lord's Prayer).
Seems like a pretty simple instruction to follow, if you ask me.
Posted by: JohnW | July 13, 2007 4:11 AM
Erm - WHY is there a prayer of any sort in the US Senate?
I understood that your constitution forbade any establishment of religion.
Couls someone please explain?
Particularly as the xtian loonies were also violating that constitutional dictum, were they not?
Posted by: G. Tingey | July 13, 2007 4:46 AM
I, um...*cough* nominated you to go open the Senate on behalf of atheists. I hope you'll hire me as the speech writer. :)
Posted by: possummomma | July 13, 2007 5:17 AM
"Couls someone please explain?"
They were violating the constitution. That's the explanation.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 13, 2007 6:24 AM
That falls under "very good question". Parliament sessions are never opened with a prayer anywhere else in the First World, AFAIK.
Posted by: David Marjanović | July 13, 2007 6:53 AM
I don't know why this reminds of the fundamentalist who now refuses to go to football games at the University of Hawaii because they open some of their games with a prayer to the native's Hawaiian gods. He had come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be opening prayers at football games.
I say bring in the Scientologists, the Wiccans, Shintoists, Asatru's and Buddhists and all the host of multi-theistic religions to do the invocation, so that the fundamentalists in the Senate finally decide it is ridiculous to open a secular government legislative session with prayer that "offends" some people.
I wish I knew for sure what the protestors were charged with; I sincerely doubt they were held because they are defenders of the faith on the order of Saul of Tarsus. I would guess they were held for disrupting a public proceeding, and if my mother were there they would get a dressing down for being rude and naughty.
I did find this article from an Indian news site. I find the quotes from members of the American Family Association illuminating, if not dangerously ironic:
Why, indeed, is the message needed?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 13, 2007 7:01 AM
Anyway, the only fair response to all this is simply to stop the magic incantations to any deity in our government. Let the senators who feel a need say a quiet prayer on their own, without dragging everyone into their personal superstition.
I can get behind that.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 13, 2007 7:11 AM
From the Guardian:
"The group said in a statement: "The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the one true god, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.""
At least they are right about one thing, the Founding Fathers believed in Freedom of (and from) religion, ESPECIALLY in politics.
"Police identified the protesters as Ante and Katherine Pavkovic and their daughter Kristen, members of a Christian organisation called Operation Save America/Operation Rescue.
I'm shocked.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2125680,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
Posted by: The Uppity Atheist | July 13, 2007 7:36 AM
Awww, bunch of WATBs.
"Erm - WHY is there a prayer of any sort in the US Senate?"
Tradition. So valuable, those religious traditions. Stonings, genocide, ostracization, genital mutilation bla bla bla.
Posted by: Bob | July 13, 2007 7:46 AM
We should definitely encourage hinduism. They have many gods to choose from. Xtians just have one mean-spirited tired old god, unless you are catholic in which case you have lots of minor gods in the form of saints you can grovel to, as catholics realize the futility of dealing directly with the one-mean-spiritied-vengefull-one. It has to be said too, they keep kicking out old ones and creating new ones, which keeps things fresh and the medallion makers in business.
Posted by: sailor | July 13, 2007 8:04 AM
Way back in the 1960s or 70s, when I was in college, a member of the California state senate nominated a Buddhist to be chaplain of that house of the legislature. Of course, there was a huge outcry from Christians, who were furious at the loss of their monopoly on the position. They tried to force the Buddhist's removal (all in the name of Christian charity, of course). The state senator in question wrote an essay in 1976 on religious freedom in which he recounted part of that story; the essay has since been dug up and posted on-line for the edification of the curious. [Link]
Posted by: Zeno | July 13, 2007 8:09 AM
Posted by: llewelly | July 13, 2007 8:09 AM
"One definitely wonders about the pragmatic side of it," Barton said, and asked, "What is the message, and why is the message needed? And will it actually communicate anything other than engender with folks like me a lot of questions."
I dunno. I guess the message is that Hindus are allowed to do stuff too? Ooh noooo, folks like Mr. Barton are engendered with questions now. Ooohhh nooeees.
Posted by: 386sx | July 13, 2007 8:10 AM
You know, I don't agree with the protesters, but I at least respect them. At least they're up front, honest, and direct about their purpose. "We don't like their god, we like our God." It's refreshing to see a Xian group with that direct a message.
I still think they are wrong, but at least they are honest.
Posted by: Brendan S | July 13, 2007 8:16 AM
They aren't that honest. The USA is not a christer nation, and the Founders probably wouldn't care that a Hindu gave a nebulous prayer - which he apparently didn't even commit to memory.
Posted by: Bob | July 13, 2007 8:20 AM
Erm - WHY is there a prayer of any sort in the US Senate?
During the Constitutional Convention, there was a 16 day deadlock over the power of small vs. large states (which was eventually resolved by the "great compromise" of two legislative houses). Ben Franklin, worried that the deadlock would never be resolved, introduced a motion to say a prayer asking for God's guidance; the motion was never voted on, and no prayer was said.
So, by uniquely American logic, there is now prayer in Congress.
Posted by: truth machine | July 13, 2007 8:23 AM
According to the Washington Post the protestors were charged with "distrupting Congress," a misdeamnor offense.
Posted by: Nan | July 13, 2007 8:32 AM
PZ: "The only part I liked was the request to lead us from the unreal to the real, which is exactly what I say all the time."
Geez, maybe we should all start praying to you, PZ. (It would be just as effective, right?)
;)
Posted by: Scotty B | July 13, 2007 8:32 AM
I agree that the Senate doesn't need an opening prayer in the first place, but . . .
. . . it strikes me as strange but typical that the idea of diversity is to bring in a Hindu guest chaplain who gives lip service to monotheism by referring to "THE deity supreme"! The information on Hinduism classes (given by that same guest chaplain, Rajan Zed) at the India Association of Northern Nevada, says:
"Hinduism-comprised of 330 million gods-has no founder, no single authoritative figure, no single deity worshipped by all, no single prophet or holy book."
http://www.northernnevadaindia.com/IA_articles.php
Posted by: JAW | July 13, 2007 8:34 AM
David Barton and his crew of historical revisionists are throroughly refuted in Chris Rodda's Liars for Jesus. She documents how time and again Christian apologists have distorted the historical record to make it appear that the U.S. is a "Christian nation". She cites original documents in detail to demonstrate how misleading (or dishonest?) Barton's writings are. Her book deserves to be better known. [Link]
Posted by: Zeno | July 13, 2007 8:36 AM
It's totally alien to see things like this-- or at least to try to imagine it from a religious person's point of view. I wonder about how hopped-up this Indian fellow probably was, getting to get all dressed for his big day on TV and in the Senate... he probably spent a lot of time making sure everything was just so, and got all stressed-out at his kids or something "where the heck is my scarf? I can't find it and I have to go lead a prayer before the senate and I can't find-- oh. here it is."
And then on the other hand, you've got these folks who... what? Are so up-to-date on their C-SPAN that they already knew a Hindu guy was going to be leading prayer. So they spent all night long, huddled around a bucket of KFC, holding this bitch session until dawn, where it might have finally been decided to "really DO something"... probably "for the kids," or whatever, and off they went!
And I'm imagining these Christian bozos just waiting for their moment to interrupt this guy, and I'm imagining him being all nervous, and getting that nervous tunnel-vision you get when you're in the spotlight...
And then it all goes south. Christians end up being questioned for the next 5 hours in the Senate brig by an over-zealous security officer, and the Indian guy probably rushes his prayer, forgetting some important line in the middle, which he wife will console him-- "don't worry honey, they didn't even notice, you did GREAT."
At least that's how I guess it all went down. For me, it's just a lot of QUACK QUACK QUACK-- hard to believe so much effort gets put into this nonsense. Like I said, totally alien.
Posted by: DaveX | July 13, 2007 8:44 AM
[quote]David Marjanović: Parliament sessions are never opened with a prayer anywhere else in the First World, AFAIK.[/quote]
Try The UK - House of Commons and House of Lords. In our case though, it's more antiquated custom than any real religious significance.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers.cfm
Posted by: Kat | July 13, 2007 8:48 AM
DaveX, you reminded me of Marsw Attacks - aliens chanting ACK! ACKACKACK! ACKACK!
Posted by: Bob | July 13, 2007 8:52 AM
Re: the online essay by the person who nominated a Buddhist to be Senate Chaplain:
Problem is, people have found that not all the roads lead to the same destination. And there isn't a San Francisco after all.
So where does that leave you?
Posted by: Caledonian | July 13, 2007 8:57 AM
#14:
It's refreshing to see a Xian group with that direct a message.
"Refreshing" is not a word I would use to describe Operation Rescue extremists.
And don't even get me started about their "direct message(s)".
You may like the idea of living in a theocracy but I don't.
And make no mistake, when they talk about "saving America", that's exactly what these christianists have in mind.
Posted by: The Uppity Atheist | July 13, 2007 9:15 AM
JohnW @ #1: Wow, you rock. That was the first thing I thought of when I read this! Verily, the dingbat disruptors have had their reward for their actions.
I really do like it when the Fundies just let their "compassionate conservative" masks slip and show everyone what they're really about. Nice way to win friends and influence people!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | July 13, 2007 9:17 AM
It turns out that the author of Liars for Jesus and the state senator who nominated a Buddhist chaplain have the same last name. For those who asked: I have no idea if they're related to each other.
Posted by: Zeno | July 13, 2007 9:22 AM
Trackback: http://tinyurl.com/27pzjj
I cannot get trackback links on any of the ScienceBlogs sites to work. I've contacted them repeatedly with no luck.
Posted by: vjack | July 13, 2007 9:33 AM
The fundies are so cute when they are mad. What do you think they will do when a Wiccan preistess gets up to say the prayer some day?
Druids, Raelians, Scientologists, Moonies,
Heaven Gaters, so many religions so little time. LOLPosted by: raven | July 13, 2007 9:35 AM
No they weren't, The First states that:
seems the senate opens with a prayer as a matter of custom and personal appreciation from the senators, but invites speakers from many religions for this prayer (such as this Hindu priest), they don't pass laws, they don't really favor or suggest one religion over the others, I see no problem with that. It's as problematic as students praying to themselves in an empty classroom: not at all.
Apart from the fact that it means they're religious of course, which is another matter, but an opening prayer in the senate seems perfectly legal to me.
Posted by: Masklinn | July 13, 2007 9:52 AM
I want to see a voudou incantation in front of Congress. Kill a chicken, splash its blood around Congress, invoke Elegua... and they can light those cool saint candles.
Posted by: The Countess | July 13, 2007 9:55 AM
@#19: Some Hindus believe that all the gods are just manifestations of a single overgod or Cosmic Spirit, Brahman. (Apologies to PZ for nasty Wikipedia link.)
Hinduism doesn't have a central authority to enforce orthodoxy, but seems to have snowballed a myriad local variant mythos into one big stickle-brick doctrine that often contradicts itself (like some other religions one could mention).
Posted by: NC Paul | July 13, 2007 10:03 AM
Posted by: obscurifer | July 13, 2007 10:14 AM
So why do any of them need to pray in the first place? Doesn't their god already know what they want, and how sincerely they want it? Isn't that the point of omniscience?
Posted by: aiabx | July 13, 2007 10:15 AM
So why do any of them need to pray in the first place? Doesn't their god already know what they want, and how sincerely they want it? Isn't that the point of omniscience?
Because it makes them feel like they can cause something to happen with their thoughts. It's just superstition. If they just let their god sit around and just do it's thing then they wouldn't have the pleasure of feeling as though they can make their god do stuff, despite all the (hypocritical) lip service they pay to the omniscience thing.
Posted by: 386sx | July 13, 2007 10:26 AM
Maybe Barton and the like should take Reverend Lovejoy's approach:
Marge: "Thanks for doing this, Reverend Lovejoy. I know you've never done a Hindu wedding before."
Lovejoy: "Well, Christ is Christ."
Posted by: MAJeff | July 13, 2007 10:41 AM
"Plus, once you sell all of the relics of one, you need another revenue stream."
Hey kids, collect them all!!
Posted by: Bob | July 13, 2007 10:49 AM
Wouldn't it be neat if the church could swing a deal with McDonalds? Put a different saint toy in the happy meal every week - heck, that's a promo that could keep going for YEARS!
It amazes me how many relics there are floating around. Just how many foreskins did Jesus actually have? And if you put together all the pieces of the true cross, could you build an Ark?
Posted by: Heather | July 13, 2007 10:59 AM
Lemon v. Kurtzman is a major Supreme Court decision in that area. It said that any legislation has to pass a three-pronged test (the "Lemon test") in order to fit with the Establishment Clause and be constitutional:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
Employing a congressional chaplain, or even inviting a guest volunteer, fails on all three counts.
Perhaps one reason congressional chaplaincies haven't been found unconstitutional is that they're not actually laws, just traditions. The House Chaplain's website cites only Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers." Nothing there specifically names a chaplain among the officers, so the Constitution itself is not unconstitutional (!).
Meanwhile, the Senate chaplain is a little bolder:
Posted by: Epistaxis | July 13, 2007 10:59 AM
Uppity Atheist - Nice clip, but read more:
The "leader of the group" thought it was just swell that the Pavkovics got arrested, but (needless to say) had better things to do than join them.
He's the religious equivalent of a chickenhawk.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | July 13, 2007 10:59 AM
Posted by: Chris | July 13, 2007 11:02 AM
M
Posted by: MartinDH | July 13, 2007 11:17 AM
Aiabx,
Well, you see, their god isn't REALLY omniscient. He can't, for instance, create something so heavy that he couldn't lift it. Knowing what his little darlings want (because he gave them free will) is just one of those things he can't do without help. It's all very simple to understand if you just shove an icepick above your eyeballs and go with the flow(not advocating this of course, but it seems to work with some people).
Posted by: Dahan | July 13, 2007 11:21 AM
Like a fuckin' Norman Rockwell painting. Prayer n' shit.
Posted by: John Danley | July 13, 2007 11:21 AM
Sorry, forgot to make the move from omniscient to omnipotent in the last comment. Damn, oh well. Still holds true.
Posted by: Dahan | July 13, 2007 11:24 AM
Hinduism is total crap, like all other religions. Here is an archive page of a Hindu group active in California.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803191007/http://thevedicfoundation.org/communities/do_you_know.htm
A couple of beliefs:
Indian Civilization has unceasingly existed for 1,972 million years ago as the fully developed Ganges civilization
Sanskrit has been in its perfect state since its origin millions of years ago
Hindu religion was first revealed 111.52 trillion years ago
Is that enough for you? This is from archives because apparently these nutcases found out it was very good for their image and changed their discourse.
Heaven forbid that you be born a Dalik, i.e. untouchable.
Posted by: bernarda | July 13, 2007 11:25 AM
Well! We've come a long way since the days when Caesar was stabbed on the senate floor for striving to be emperor of the republic, huh? (Hmmm...no, I'd better not say it.)
Rajan Zed should have invoked Kali. But I say, why limit Senate prayers to current religions? Offer up sacrifices to Athena or Serapis. Burn some incense for Anubis, I always liked him. Plus, the Senate could use a few Vedic statues in complex sexual positions, especially since Madame is opening her little black book and the first lamb to slaughter is a Louisiana Repube Senator whose wife claimed that she would act like Lorena Bobbit, with the implication that Hillary should have, if her husband ever acted like Bill Clinton! (Mrs. Vitter, you made a promise, and we're waiting.)
As for me, I think every Senate session should be opened with an interpretive dance. Then the religious and I can have a shimmy-off. Et tu, booteh?
Posted by: Kristine | July 13, 2007 11:25 AM
If I had to lead the opening Senate prayer how would I do it?
"Oh Invisible Sky King, that these people tell me exists but frankly I think they are yanking my chain, With your' magical powers witness us assembled here together correctly performing the required ritual. With this ritual we ask you Invisible Sky King to ward off and invisible bad men from spreading dissent among us and other such improbable and absurd things. So do we all buy into this collective nonsense, so do we all insist it is the truth no matter how unbelievable it sounds or how utter disproved it becomes."
I suppose I will never be asked to lead the opening prayer.
Posted by: Bob L | July 13, 2007 11:26 AM
Too early, MartinDH - okay, now. ;-)
Posted by: Kristine | July 13, 2007 11:28 AM
If they were honest they wouldn't have gone all militant batshit insane in the first place.
I see a great deal of aggressive, headstrong energy here in these fanatics, but no honesty.
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 13, 2007 11:29 AM
Dang. I should have known this would come up as a separate thread. X-posted from the "mean and picking on me" thread:
This isn't the first time a Hindu invocation in Congress has caused a stir. A Hindu invocation was delivered before the House of Representatives on September 14, 2001. Americans United reports:
Utterly incredible, indeed. Can we file this under "Not Even Wrong"?
The FRC speaks out on today's Hindu invocation in the Senate: Prayer to Whom?
I have to wonder if the Franklin quote in today's FRC piece is one of David Barton's fabrications. A quick Google reveals that that passage is attributed to Franklin. And Washington. And John Adams. Many of the Franklin attributions cite Barton as a reference, generally via WallBuilders. (Oh, and look who else has apparently leaned heavily on WallBuilders as a reference. Heh.) However, I can't find the passage in Rob Boston's list of Barton's questionable quotes.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 13, 2007 11:41 AM
LOL!
Naw, there would still be a bunch of arguing over whether to allow the Hindus to participate.
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 13, 2007 11:45 AM
I mostly agree with PZ's conclusions, and I think the hecklers legitimately exercised their First Amendment rights. They just need to shut up when non-Christians do the same.
http://gnashq.blogspot.com/2007/07/horror-false-god-in-senate.html
What they disrupted was not a legitimate part of Senate business, so I don't think they should be charged.
Posted by: bullfighter | July 13, 2007 11:49 AM
(reviewing thread)
Ah, Zeno! It pleases me to see that Barton's name came up before I got here. The Myth of Separation is a sore spot with me. Lying for Jesus, indeed.
Yet somehow Barton is not well-known outside of xtian dominionist/revisionist right-wing GOP circles. This is unfortunate, because his influence is not insignificant. Barton was employed by the RNC in 2004 as a political consultant. As reported by Deborah Caldwell on beliefnet.org back in '04, Barton "has been traveling the country for a year--speaking at about 300 RNC-sponsored lunches for local evangelical pastors. During the lunches, he presents a slide show of American monuments, discusses his view of America's Christian heritage -- and tells pastors that they are allowed to endorse political candidates from the pulpit."
Posted by: Kseniya | July 13, 2007 12:06 PM
Maybe the Senate was trying to be multicultural, not religious - could be considered in a positive manner. The Xtians, though - no positivity there.
Posted by: lobsterlily | July 13, 2007 12:36 PM
That supposed Franklin quote bothered me, too. This is the same man who said these things...
"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason. "[Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard, 1758]
And this: "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." [Benjamin Franklin, in _Toward The Mystery_]
And had this said about him: "It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" [Priestley's Autobiography, p. 60, on Benjamin Franklin]
Really?
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 13, 2007 12:37 PM
RambDude: Yeah. People change, though. Perhaps Ben at 81 was looking into the void with a bit more apprehension about the possibile outcomes. :-)
Still, Barton's fabrications are insidious and ubiquitous. Consider the following:
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments." - James Madison
Even Barton now admits the quote is "questionable" but it's propagating around the Web as truth. Many people now believe Madison was a staunch supporter of founding the United States as a Christian Nation, and cite that quotation as evidence. They want to believe it so they do. Unquestioningly.
Of course, the primary reason they want to believe it is that it indirectly supports their belief in the unfailing accuracy of an oft-translated and heavily-edited 1900-year-old transcription of a 100-year-old oral tradition...
Posted by: Kseniya | July 13, 2007 12:51 PM
No prayer is "meaningless nonsense", just as no blog entry or conversation is "meaningless nonsense" to the people involved. It is this kind of arrogance that the right wing LOVES to exploit.
Every time a lefty atheist puts down religious believers, Bush gets another undeserved vote and another collection plate is passed. You and Ingrid Newkirk deserve each other.
Chalk me up as one (lefty) Christian who believes the Hindu prayer is the beginning of a positive trend. Time to share, folks. Ain't no thang.
Posted by: Daisy | July 13, 2007 1:09 PM
Daisy, you are completely wrong. See, your blog comment created this real actual comment back, from a real human being. Your prayers float around in your head, or temporarily disturb the air. After which nothing happens. No response, no wish fulfillment, nothing. Besides, for every prayer a lefty christer makes, it is equally countered by a righty christer prayer, to the same invisible skypappy.
Grow up and quit believing in the tooth fairy.
Posted by: Bob | July 13, 2007 1:15 PM
Speaking of Christian extremists and their schizophrenia toward lumping and splitting (Lump with me. I'll split with you if you don't.):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2125395,00.html
The comments are especially good.
Posted by: Hal | July 13, 2007 1:15 PM
I agree with that, but I suspect you're speaking to the wrong crowd, particulary if you choose to invoke Newkirk. The people of Operation Save America desperately need to hear your message.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 13, 2007 1:17 PM
Daisy, you are completely wrong. See, your blog comment created this real actual comment back, from a real human being. Your prayers float around in your head, or temporarily disturb the air.
Like songs or poems? Okay, I'm fine with that.
Mozart's Requiem Mass is also prayers, as is Jimi Hendrix's THE WIND CRIED MARY, the Grateful Dead's ST STEPHEN or the poetry of Wallace Stevens or Walt Whitman.
If you can't hear that, sorry. Take my word for it, then.
After which nothing happens. No response, no wish fulfillment, nothing.
See above.
I enjoy it and it makes me feel wonderful, and that IS something. Although I understand that it is not important to you how I feel, or how most believers feel. (That's the arrogance part.)
You want to show me the light, just like the rightwing fundies want to show me the light. Honestly, I can't tell either of you apart without a scorecard. ;)
Besides, for every prayer a lefty christer makes, it is equally countered by a righty christer prayer, to the same invisible skypappy.
That sounds like a totally unscientific statement. Can you prove it?
Grow up and quit believing in the tooth fairy.
Why?
Posted by: Daisy | July 13, 2007 1:35 PM
A prayer is not a conversation; it's a monologue. And a blog entry can certainly be nonsense, just like the lyrics to a song or a conversation for that matter. One can use words to evoke a particular feeling, without conveying any particular actual meaning.
Evidence?
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 13, 2007 1:42 PM
What is funny and ironic in a pathetic way, this country was founded and settled in part by people fleeing Europe to avoid RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AND BE FREE TO WORSHIP
The Flying Spaghetti Monstergod any way they wanted.The cultists rewriting of history is another in their constant stream of lies.
The fundies have an excuse, that voluntary ignorance thing. But most must remember the story of the Pilgrims-Mayflower, and the Puritans. Since then, other persecuted groups have immigrated to escape one disaster or another.
The wingnuts are either unaware of US core values and history or they don't care because they don't like them.
Posted by: raven | July 13, 2007 1:43 PM
Kseniya, I am pissed at Newkirk right now for trashing Michael Moore. Remember the old joke about the formation of the leftist firing squad? (A circle) I think it's time to band together, not trash each other. So, I reacted.
Here in the south, I am treated to constant right-wing drivel about the atheists who have no respect for us and want to make sure Christians have no cultural influence. This line is especially effective with the teenagers who don't know any better yet.
I just wish all of you wouldn't pile on. Probably too much to ask.
Posted by: Daisy | July 13, 2007 1:44 PM
Daisy,
True enough. But so does this: "Every time a lefty atheist puts down religious believers, Bush gets another undeserved vote..."
If you demand proof of Bob, you must also please produce a list of voters (or statistics that effectively summarize the list) who were going to vote for Gore or Kerry but changed their minds because a lefty atheist put down religious believers. Thank you.
Ooh. I like that one. Is that a prayer? Really? I thought it was just a song lyric. I guess I should consult the annotated Dead lyric site, eh? Well, later. I've got a wedding to go to. Peace.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 13, 2007 1:47 PM
Every time a lefty atheist puts down religious believers, Bush gets another undeserved vote and another collection plate is passed.
Warning, it's awful:
http://christianexodus.org/
Right in my backyard, people! I mean, RIGHT in my backyard.
Yes, I do stealth and spy on them, or rather, their churches. They say stuff like this. They read from blogs in Sunday School.
Posted by: Daisy | July 13, 2007 1:48 PM
Daisy: You're confusing 'enjoyment' of art, with prayer....
I love good music.... and I have to admit to enjoying Mozart's & Bach's religious music... I love the 'feel' of good gospel music (who was it said that 'jesus got all the good songs'?)
I just don't think that you & I understand the same thing...
When you hear those pieces of music - you hear a call to the sky fairy. When I hear them - I hear music.
And the same goes for poetry, prose, and other art forms.
I'm not saying that you should stop believing in *your* interpretation. Just don't impose it on me.
Unfortunately *that* is the impositional mindset of every evangelical proselytizer in the world today.
Have *you* been saved? I'm not, and don't want to be, thank you *very* much!
Posted by: tony | July 13, 2007 1:52 PM
Ah! I see. I think. (I know nothing about the Moore-trashing to which you refer. I'll try to catch up, later.)
Given Newkirk's history of pulling stunts, I figured the group that "deserved" her the most was Operation Save America, not Pharyngula.
Anyway. Gotta go. But not before I quote-mine myself:
"I think... I know nothing." ~ Kseniya, 2007
Posted by: Kseniya | July 13, 2007 1:52 PM
Let me expand my statement, so that it is more explanatory:
HOSTILE atheists (e.g. NOT Stephen Jay Gould, more like Christopher Hitchens) are used by the wingnuts to shore up support for their cultural influence. Michael Medved (not a Christian, I realize, but great example) has catalogued this kind of thing and made a living from it in his book Hollywood vs. America.
The argument to the working class religious people goes like so: The atheist liberals hate you and think you are stupid! They make fun of your beliefs! (as you are all doing in this thread) We speak for you, we're your friends and we'll stick up for you! THEY DON'T! As the Temptations put it, vote for me and I'll set you free!!!!
And it's been working wonderfully. That's how someone can get a rock-bottom approval rating and still be in charge. (my opinion of course)
I would hope that all of you would SUPPORT liberal and leftist Christians (and people of other faith traditions) and their/our attempts to liberalize from within. I believe we are in the best position to deal with the pernicious Christians, if we have back-up. Attack mode is totally the wrong way; the fundie preachers live for it. They LOVE it.
Why are you giving them exactly what they want?
Posted by: Daisy | July 13, 2007 1:59 PM
I enjoy it and it makes me feel wonderful, and that IS something. Although I understand that it is not important to you how I feel, or how most believers feel. (That's the arrogance part.)
No, the arrogance part is when practitioners of certain beliefs or traditions feel the need to FORCE their beliefs onto others. It becomes ESPECIALLY arrogant when they ridicule the beliefs and traditions of OTHERS while insisting that their way and ONLY THEIR way is the right/true/perfect way.
Posted by: flame821 | July 13, 2007 1:59 PM
I'm sorry, Daisy, I ASSumed that you expect something from your prayers, more than good feelings. If all you expect is warm cuddly feelings inside, bravo. Because that's the most you can get, and is to me an unfamiliar stance for prayer defenders.
I am not showing you any light. I note that it is dark, yet you claim there IS a light. The only differences among your fellow religios is the claimed color of light. It's still dark, despite all those claims of light. Yet religions will murder each other because the color of light is different. Peace, love, and understanding, eh?
You are correct with my unscientific statement. As a self-proclaimed "Christian" you are very accustomed to accepting, without question, all sorts of unscientific statements. Can you explain why you need evidence for my unsensational assertion? It's not like I claimed some guy rose from death now, did I? ;)
Perhaps I am arrogant, but much less so than any public prayerer - do they care of my feelings? So we are supposed to sit back and enjoy it? That's BS. Religion intrudes on my life up, down, left, right, inside, outside, and every other dimension. So like most polite atheists, I say nothing and try to be patient. I'm getting pretty sick of that. Just today, WAPO editorial claims I cannot have morals. Arrogant much?
I will not argue against your right to indulge yourself whatever fantasies make you feel wonderful. Just keep them personal. I will argue against anyone who thinks this is a christer nation, or proseletyzes me.
And last, because it's your parents trading coin for teeth, that's why. All gods die, because we learn facts. God is another way of saying "I don't know". When we learn, and we do know, that god dies. Witness sun gods, moon gods, water gods, earthquake gods, volcano gods, harvest gods, bla bla bla.
Now the reason I am riled up has nothing to do with your tolerance remarks. If the Senate must have some invocation, they should spread the wealth. It's your note that prayer is not meaningless nonsense. How meaningful is prayer? What does it actually accomplish? Right, a warm fuzzy. So great, booze, drugs, meditation, long walks on the beach are then equally meaningful and effective as prayer.
Now I must go. It's my turn to bring the beverages (puppies' blood) to the Evil Atheist Conspiracy picnic.
Posted by: Bob | July 13, 2007 2:04 PM
Daisy: You're confusing 'enjoyment' of art, with prayer....
No, you are.
See how easy that was. :)
I love good music.... and I have to admit to enjoying Mozart's & Bach's religious music... I love the 'feel' of good gospel music (who was it said that 'jesus got all the good songs'?)
Where do you think that "feeling" or spirit (root word of INSPIRATION) came from? Exactly where in the brain is it located? WHY did Jesus get all the good songs?
What would the authors of the music and poetry say?
I just don't think that you & I understand the same thing...
And why can't we agree to disagree, non-overlapping magisteria and all that good stuff?
I am not into convincing you. I AM into you respecting me as an equal.
When you hear those pieces of music - you hear a call to the sky fairy. When I hear them - I hear music.
That's nice. Go on with your bad self.
And I wouldn't refer to it as a "call to" but rather, "expression of."
You hear nothing of the transcendent, in that music? I daresay, you are missing the core of it, in that case.
And the same goes for poetry, prose, and other art forms.
See above.
I'm not saying that you should stop believing in *your* interpretation. Just don't impose it on me.
Unfortunately *that* is the impositional mindset of every evangelical proselytizer in the world today.
That wouldn't be me, I am not evangelical.
There are also moderates, liberals and leftists in EVERY religious tradition, and there always have been.
Have *you* been saved? I'm not, and don't want to be, thank you *very* much!
Saved from what?
Posted by: Daisy | July 13, 2007 2:09 PM
"I would hope that all of you would SUPPORT liberal and leftist Christians (and people of other faith traditions) and their/our attempts to liberalize from within. I believe we are in the best position to deal with the pernicious Christians, if we have back-up. Attack mode is totally the wrong way; the fundie preachers live for it. They LOVE it."
Your described approach is a recipe for loss. This is the same approach Kerry took when he got swiftboated. If you are a lefty christer, you can't quietly and from within change the religious reich. The right wingers steamrolled Kerry, and he sat there all kind and polite, and it got him jack, maybe less. I know there are some christians that recognize how anti-christian the fundie frothers are. But if you don't show up in the public square, and say how screwed up they are, you might as well stay home and pray that they stop being so mean. If you get out there and get in their face, and tell the world what liars they are, I will support you. But I'm sure that approach is too Hitchensy.
Posted by: Bob | July 13, 2007 2:12 PM
I'm sorry, Daisy, I ASSumed that you expect something from your prayers, more than good feelings. If all you expect is warm cuddly feelings inside, bravo. Because that's the most you can get, and is to me an unfamiliar stance for prayer defenders.
You might look up the Carmelites and St Teresa of Avila. It is known in the Catholic tradition as "contemplative prayer." (Also, the Benedictines, Trappists and Cistercians.)
I am not showing you any light. I note that it is dark, yet you claim there IS a light. The only differences among your fellow religios is the claimed color of light. It's still dark, despite all those claims of light. Yet religions will murder each other because the color of light is different. Peace, love, and understanding, eh?
And 3 of the 5 biggest mass murderers in history were atheists, too. So? Do you really wanna go there? Judging people, in the Hopi phrase, by the sins of their fathers?
I can do it too, but what would that solve?
You are correct with my unscientific statement. As a self-proclaimed "Christian" you are very accustomed to accepting, without question, all sorts of unscientific statements. Can you explain why you need evidence for my unsensational assertion?
I was being sarcastic.
It's not like I claimed some guy rose from death now, did I? ;)
Perhaps I am arrogant, but much less so than any public prayerer - do they care of my feelings?
I don't know what they think, but of course I do, that is why I am talking to you.
So we are supposed to sit back and enjoy it?
Enjoy what?
That's BS. Religion intrudes on my life up, down, left, right, inside, outside, and every other dimension.
How?
I take it that you would exterminate all references to religion in public life? (Didn't the mass murderers I listed above already try that?)
Would you not allow refer