…and this is a 
Let's go to church!
Category: Religion
Posted on: February 17, 2008 9:39 PM, by PZ Myers
One of the most common arguments against the New Atheists is to claim that they're railing against a straw man — that religion is benign and thoughful and rational. I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that, but religion itself is a poisonous nest that encourages lunacy. Here's one example: take a look at Steve Foss Ministries. In particular, watch the video titled "I-55 Revival explostion of POWER ", which has it all. Babbling idiots talking in tongues, people spazzing out in a frenzy, and worst of all, the minister and parents urging children to join in the insanity.
This crap is going on everywhere in this country. Maybe most moderate Christians aren't joining in directly, but they sure are good about closing their eyes to it.
I-55 Revival explostion of POWER
Comments
Posted by: Michael X | February 17, 2008 9:52 PM
Stomach churning. It reminds me of my youth. Nothing quite like babbling incoherently and falling down when someone touches your forehead to get you in the right perspective of reality, yeah?
Posted by: ChemBob | February 17, 2008 9:53 PM
It is indeed like half or more of the country is drugged and hallucinating. I, like you, am at somewhat of a loss as to why. At least you are actively combatting the irrationality in the public sphere. I hope that others, like myself, are working their personal networks to try to overcome this utter nonsense.
Posted by: Renacier | February 17, 2008 9:54 PM
Amen. In my South Georgia community, "liberal Christian" is an insult. These straw men are alive and well. And in the pulpit.
Posted by: ERV | February 17, 2008 9:56 PM
Yeah... I havent had 'pleasant experiences' at churches Ive been to in OK...
Yeah...
Here is a fun blog where a couple goes 'church hopping' in OK. They havent gone to the churches Ive been to, though...
Posted by: danley | February 17, 2008 10:02 PM
Twice the bullshit of the show Paranormal State on True TV. What in the living fuck is wrong with people? Don't they read?
Posted by: Alverant | February 17, 2008 10:02 PM
Who's making the "straw men" claims and don't they pay much attention to their own flock? CBS news in Chicago is doing a story called, "The Atheist Next Door" tonight in an hour where some Atheists state their lack of belief. I already have a bad feeling about this. It's like we have to defend ourselves and justify our beliefs. But this would probably happen to Wiccans, Buddists, etc. We're just the belief of the day.
Posted by: ChemBob | February 17, 2008 10:04 PM
As I watched this, and I only made it about half-way through, the thing that struck me most is that this is a truly profound form of child abuse. I kept wishing I could crash this disgusting spectacle and whisk the kids out of there.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 17, 2008 10:04 PM
I always want to ask this folks, "What tongue, exactly, are you speaking in?"
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | February 17, 2008 10:07 PM
There's always ifs, and ands, and buts;
It's always someone else who's nuts.
Posted by: Manjunath | February 17, 2008 10:09 PM
that religion is benign and thoughtful and rational. I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that, but religion itself is a poisonous nest that encourages lunacy.
Disappointingly, there are many atheists who would say, "I am myself an atheist, but I do respect any kind of religion,". It appears many atheists just like believers themselves fail to make a distinction between religion and its followers.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | February 17, 2008 10:10 PM
Don't forget the flaming loons at Coral Ridge Ministries. Here are a couple of samples: http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/connection.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301 and http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrdetail.asp?cat=other&pc=103626
Posted by: ChemBob | February 17, 2008 10:10 PM
Methinks it would require entirely too much effort for these loons to actually learn another language to speak. They think it is impressive to the impressionable to gibber in some sort of Middle Eastern sounding nonsense.
Posted by: SteveC | February 17, 2008 10:13 PM
"hat religion is benign and thoughful and rational. I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that, "\
Evidence please.
Might I remind you of the Courtier's Reply (of which you, PZ, are the author)?
This claim is made, but no religious person I've ever met or read about has any arguments worth shit. They have nothing. To call them "thoughtful and rational", might be fine, in regards to their day to day behavior, but when it comes to the beliefs of the religious, "thoughtful and rational" cannot apply, for their beliefs are obviously crap, obvious to even children. They are not thoughtful, they are not rational. Don't cut them that slack.
Fuck them with a lack of slack.
Posted by: ChemBob | February 17, 2008 10:15 PM
I no longer respect religion at all, making me a "militant," I suppose. Religion consists solely of varying degrees of self-delusion, from mild to extreme. But even in its mild forms it clouds judgement and makes the world a far more dangerous place, imho.
Posted by: inkadu | February 17, 2008 10:30 PM
Alvarent - The show should be on in half-an-hour, so make sure you're turned into your CBS affiliate from Chicago. Here's a description of the program from their website:
I guess it's too threatening to consider that we actually don't believe, instead of having a belief we don't believe. Whatever.
Also, if speaking in tongues is a sign from God, does God prefer Tide stick?
Posted by: LisaJ | February 17, 2008 10:36 PM
I have also recently crossed the bridge to no longer having immediate respect for religious faith, and to trying to educate people instead of saying nothing. I had really my first experience this weekend, on a more general public chat forum, trying to reason with a group of people that religion (christianity, in this particular case) is dangerous and irrational, that evolution is a fact, and that there is no proof that we were created by an almighty being, but that there is ample scientific evidence for how we may have come to be. These people aren't even near being fanatical, as far as I can tell, some even say that they don't belong to a particular religion, but they are incredibly frustrating to talk to on this subject! I felt immediately like the lunatic and big bad guy, as I tried to show them gently that believing in a supernatural creator is ludicrous and totally non-sensical! I'm sure I'm just the crazy atheist now, haha. So so sad what most of the population believes. My favourite line was: "Lisa, I really appreciate all that you've said. But some of us believe in our faith in spite of scientific findings." That just sums the basic idiocy of religious faith right there!
Posted by: Molly, NYC | February 17, 2008 10:38 PM
I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that . . .
They're the same people who'd be kind and rational without religion.
Posted by: simian | February 17, 2008 10:44 PM
I had to stop watching about halfway through that video, I was so disgusted. I especially felt bad for the one boy who wasn't moving very much, whose father (or whoever that was) had his hands on the boy's head. He looked like he was frightened and confused by the pitiful spectacle he was being forced to participate in. These people are intellectual bottom-feeders and child abusers.
Posted by: foxfire | February 17, 2008 10:55 PM
Did anybody else notice the little boy (~10 maybe?) who was looking around at the adults in confusion? His (apparently) mom was next to him playing some sort of tambourine thing.
Whoops, sorry...was watching the first I-55 thing on the list.
WTF? Some video thingie just popped up in my viewer with some nutjob making up words - Oh Sh&t! This is beyond belief.
CAN WE SPECIATE NOW???
Posted by: Zeno | February 17, 2008 11:01 PM
Well, if he can convert an Interstate freeway to Christianity, I'm sure going to be impressed.
Poor I-55.
Posted by: inkadu | February 17, 2008 11:04 PM
ERV - Did you read the comments to the last post on the Church Hopping Blog? There's a great link to a Cowboy Church. I shit you not.
It is frustrating to read stuff from a "rational" religious person about other varieties of Christianity. God is just this really great guy who loves everybody, which is why he had to torture his own son for three days; there's an afterlife, and I guess it's for everybody, because that's so much nicer, don't you think? And you shouldn't take the bible literally, of course, except for all that parts that make me happy. Makes me want to punch infants. Hope Sarah ends up with the Unitarians.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 17, 2008 11:13 PM
This church-hopping talk reminds me of some of my conversations in class on Thursday. I was finishing up a conversation of this book. In it, the psychiatrists treat Santería and Espiritismo as superstitions and not as religions.
I moved from there to a discussion--basically, the point I tried to drive home in that context was that the difference between superstitions and religions is who's doing the defining, as well as their social distance from the practices. As an example, I brought up transsubstanciation. As I was describing the transformation of the host, one of my students, who's not from the US, got this disgusted look on her face. "Yep, I said, we're talking about ritual cannibalism (at least in a symbolic form)." From inside it might not seem that way (a point a christian friend tried to make to me on the phone that night), but it's eating a person--or the representation of that person (merely symbolic cannibalism).
After class, one of my students came up (her parents are from Sri Lanka) and she said, "I always thought the Catholic saints were similar to Hindu gods. I was fascinated with Catholicism in HS, and would even take communion. When I told one friend, he was like, 'You ate my god!'" So apparently some people inside are aware of their cannibalism.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 17, 2008 11:18 PM
Damn, I had a comment about class last week, (and religion and superstition) and for the first time since I've been commenting here, I got sent into moderation. I wonder which words set it off.
Posted by: Wyatt | February 17, 2008 11:18 PM
"Evidence please.
Might I remind you of the Courtier's Reply (of which you, PZ, are the author)?"
Fundamentalists who believe that the bible, or any other "holy" book, is literally true are clearly delusional. Of course, there are also serious problems with the belief that the bible, although not literally true, is still the "inspired" word of god. There are simply too many instances of barbarism, immorality, irrationality, and inconsistencies (both internal inconsistencies and inconsistency with observable fact) in the bible, or whatever "holy" book is at issue.
However, I agree with PZ that "some individuals within religion" are "benign and thoughful." Admitting that some individuals within religion may be benign and thoughtful is very different from the Courtier's Reply. The Courtier's Reply, IIRC, is a reaction to atheistic arguments that posits that the atheist has not reviewed enough "sophisticated" religious philosophy to really understand "true" religion; said "sophisticated" religious philosophy is, although perhaps well-reasoned, fundamentally flawed due to it's being premised on false assumptions. One can be thoughtful and benign, and still wrong.
Furthermore, there are some very intelligent religious people that I respect and admire, but the religion of such people is very unlike the religion we see in the "I55 Revival Explostion [sic] of POWER" video. Two examples of such thoughtful, intelligent religious people that come to mind are Thomas Paine and George F. R. Ellis.
Posted by: Kytescall | February 17, 2008 11:22 PM
Ok.... Am I the only one who thought the guy was having an orgasm?
The sobering thing for me is that I just moved into a new flat and one of my flatmates turns out to be what I think I'll call a fortune-cookie Christian. I think that's a fair description based on all the naive, feel-good phrases she's posted EVERYWHERE. Also, she has several DVD sets of a Jesse Duplantis (whose name sounds familiar, but for now all I can say is that I think he said that if you pray hard enough, you can get anything), and seems to watch them whenever she is home. I've also spotted a Benny Hinn DVD. Also, she seems to have Duplantis CDs and listens to them in her room AND her car.
Also, she talks to Jesus every night. And yes, Jesus talks back...
Save me....
Posted by: October Mermaid | February 17, 2008 11:30 PM
I showed this to a Christian just a few moments ago and while shaking her head and finding it insane, she also added "I do believe God DOES let some people speak in tongues, but this... Mm... This seems fake. But then again, maybe..."
Do you see the problem here? She was confusing something OBVIOUSLY STUPID with something God might do.
This is why even moderate religious people can be just one small step away from the "danger zone."
Posted by: Kytescall | February 17, 2008 11:36 PM
I think I know where all that convulsing and writhing comes from.
These people don't dance.
What a wretched scene.
Posted by: kellbelle | February 17, 2008 11:42 PM
SteveC #12:
How exactly are "I'll agree that some individuals within religion are [benign and thoughtful and rational], but religion itself is a poisonous nest that encourages lunacy."
and
"To call them 'thoughtful and rational', might be fine, in regards to their day to day behavior, but when it comes to the beliefs of the religious, 'thoughtful and rational' cannot apply, for their beliefs are obviously crap, obvious to even children."
fundamentally different statements? Indeed, they seem to be saying exactly the same thing to me. I fail to see how you're using one to rebut the other.
Posted by: wombat | February 17, 2008 11:48 PM
What is it with these people and spelling anyway? EXPLOSTION? Seriously?
Posted by: MAJeff | February 17, 2008 11:49 PM
I think I know where all that convulsing and writhing comes from.
These people don't dance.
Calling Kevin Bacon!
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | February 17, 2008 11:51 PM
PZ, you know, there's only so much that we can do. Speaking just myself, my first priority always has to be the stuff that either directly threatens science education or which attempts to sabotage the Establishment Clause.
But I'll tell you what, whenever you have a specific case that's important enough to make common cause with people like me, say so and I'll put the word out.
In solidarity.....SH
Posted by: Evolved | February 17, 2008 11:51 PM
Those fucking theistards sure need a spell-checker.
Jesus doesn't check their spelling, apparently.
Posted by: DJH | February 17, 2008 11:58 PM
@22 "Two examples of such thoughtful, intelligent religious people that come to mind are Thomas Paine and George F. R. Ellis."
Thomas Paine was a deist, and his pamphlet "The Age of Reason" bashed Christianity and the Bible pretty soundly. To include him as a religious person devalues the term, imho.
And George Ellis is a Quaker, 'nuff said. ;)
Posted by: JNM | February 18, 2008 12:06 AM
I-55 Revival explostion of POWER, very disturbing. To me it was reminiscent of the Benny Hinn teenagers that did all manner of foolish things, if anyone remembers that. Apparently the 21st century is just a portal to 10,000 BCE or earlier.
Posted by: Dan S. | February 18, 2008 12:09 AM
Wikipedia on Glossolalia: Scientific Perspectives.
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 18, 2008 12:11 AM
Oh, FSM dammit, I hope we're not related. I'd rather have an orange in my family tree than this fruitcake.
Cheeses! CHEESES! FIRE! FIRE! Yeah, this is "what our children need," to be exposed to religious gibberish that's more gibbereshy than usual. No wonder people are so screwed up. Those poor kids never had a chance; even if they eventually figure it out, they'll never shake the kind of warping this'll do to them.
Posted by: Michael X | February 18, 2008 12:19 AM
MAJeff,
If you too would like to learn how to speak in "tongues," try my new beginners learning method!
Mix, match and repeat (often) these few syllables: "Ah" "Shun" "Day" "Cor" "Rolling R sound" "E" "Oh" "La" "Pa" and "Ta."
The pastors repeating of "Bo" as in "Bo-bo-bo-bo-bo-bo" is not as you might have guessed, a repeated request to be brought a clown, or monkey. Actually he is probably speaking in another tongues dialect, possibly "Lower East Side tongues."
(In case you're wondering, I get paid $1 every time I use "quotation" marks...)
Posted by: A Naismith | February 18, 2008 12:27 AM
One positive thing comes out of this, the band tuning up in the background, sounded like the Grateful Dead in one of their spacier moments. Otherwise the video was obscene.
Posted by: Wyatt | February 18, 2008 12:43 AM
DJH (#31), You wrote "Thomas Paine was a deist, and his pamphlet 'The Age of Reason' bashed Christianity and the Bible pretty soundly. To include him as a religious person devalues the term, imho." I guess it depends on what you mean by "religious." I understand why you think referring to Paine as religious may devalue the term, but I still think it applies.
Thomas Paine's bashing of the Bible and Christianity was part of what made him a thoughtful and rational religious person, IMHO. I still consider him "religious" because, although he forcefully rejected the existence of the Abrahamic god, he still firmly believed in a god. Paine wrote in the "Age of Reason," "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life....The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavouring to imitate him in every thing moral, scientifical, and mechanical." That makes him "religious" in my mind.
Regarding Ellis' Quakerism, Thomas Paine also wrote "The religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true Deism, in the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the quakers."
Deism and (liberal) Quakerism are, in my mind, examples of religions that do not exclude rationality and thoughtfulness as a prerequisite for belief. For example, Thomas Paine believed in a god, but he rejected any conception of god that was incompatible with the logic and evidence in front of him.
However, because so many "religious" people are wantonly ignorant and irrational, I understand why one might be uncomfortable using the label to describe someone like Paine.
Posted by: Alan C | February 18, 2008 12:58 AM
Hm. I've heard of speaking in tongues. For some reason, I thought this might be like, you know, actual speaking that would communicate. What I heard on the video as "speaking in tongues" could pass for my dog's vapid and ridiculously repetitive use of the same phrase, no matter how much I school her. (She has similar problems with Newton's Laws, whoops, scientific theory, of gravity, namely lean into the turn, stupid dog!) "Bark, bark". "Jesus saves." "Bark, bark, bark." "What's that? Jesus wants us to vote for Bush? We can't again, without violating the constitution ... oh, yeah" "Bark, bark, bark, bark, ah-oooh!" "Well, Cheney only gets another year of office (until the revolution creates the theocracy, don't tell anyone)" "Bark, bark, Ba-ROOK" "Hows Canada this time of year? Are they taking any immigrants? Can't we leave now?"
Silly dog.
Posted by: june | February 18, 2008 1:05 AM
the sadness of this video is overwhelming
our innocence, our country, our future
one can only weep
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | February 18, 2008 1:23 AM
When I was a kid my aunt and uncle took me to their church, Judson Baptist in mid-Michigan, and at one point this kind of lunacy broke out. I swear I almost shit my pants half believing that some kind of nerve agent was being pumped into the church. These people who babble and shake, run up and down the aisles in fits, who clutch at you like hungry zombies are referred to as "charasmatics" which is a polite way of calling them insane I guess.
I had no use for church before this incident but I never felt in any physical danger - at least until that day.
Posted by: Sigmund | February 18, 2008 1:59 AM
I think its time again for that old Benny Hinn classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI
Posted by: silentsanta | February 18, 2008 2:05 AM
Muhahaha, my field of expertise!
I've been lurking on Pharangula for a year or two now..
I happen to have met Steve Foss on various occasions when he came to New Zealand, on one (or perhaps two) occasions, having dinner with him, and also seeing him preach in person on a several occasians, and being prayed for by him (yes, it had a similar effect on me as in the videos) My family is quite heavily involved in our local church. Also, I have read two of his books- (the spelling and grammar are predictably atrocious).
While I no longer follow Christianity nor any other religion, he did come across very well; he certainly has charisma. Also, he upsets me less than some of the better-known american preachers as I am pretty convinced that Steve is sincere in his beliefs. The hypocrisy that is so prominent among many religious figures didn't seem to be there.
However, with strongly-held, sincere but rigid beliefs comes great danger. I vaguely recollect him having dominionist tendencies, etc, believing that the government should conform to the christian worldview, and thereby disregard preferences of citizens who do not follow his firebrand version of christianity. In his mind, all competing religions are false and/or of the devil, therefore making concessions to them is never the right course of action..
The same principle holds for concessions to gay marriage, abortion, etc
I strongly disagree with him, but I don't have any emnity for the guy.
Posted by: Cephus | February 18, 2008 2:29 AM
It's just sad to see people so goddamn pathetic that believe in crap like that. After watching the Foss piece and re-watching the Benny Hinn video that was mentioned later, I'm even more firmly convinced that these people are all utterly and completely insane.
There's no other way to put it.
Posted by: mothra | February 18, 2008 2:31 AM
It is way past time to hold religious moderates responsible for their lunatic fringe elements- which is not to say that those very same moderates can be held up as examples of rationality. After 'Jesus Camp', this video was milquetoast.
Maybe the zelots along I-55 could be conscripted into construction crews to repair some of this country's failing infrastructure.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 18, 2008 2:36 AM
After 'Jesus Camp', this video was milquetoast.
Just watched that for the first time a couple weeks ago. Frightened and angered me.
Posted by: Janine | February 18, 2008 2:45 AM
I like to think that attending a similar type of service was one of mine first steps towards becoming an atheist. I was thirteen when I went with a friend to charimastic service. Watching all of the adults around spazzing out freaked me out. It is not as if I was not used to some of this type of action, my father was an alcoholic. But I could not believe that god wanted his followers to act like out of control children. And I was a barely controlled child.
It would be an other four years before I became an atheist. In that time, I was a teenage lay member of the methodist church committee.
I guess my main point is this, this type of display does not appeal to everyone. I guess it appeals to those who think themselves so insignificant, they might as well act like idiots for their master. Besides, prefer spazz dancing at concerts. I would rather give in to the music.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | February 18, 2008 2:58 AM
Marjoe
Posted by: robert mcbean | February 18, 2008 3:27 AM
The fifth estate, a cbc program, just did a really good video piece on benny hinn. it's worth watching. what a creep.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/amazinggrace/
Posted by: Kytescall | February 18, 2008 3:42 AM
#48, I think I saw that. I think I mentioned above that I now live with someone who owns a Hinn DVD, and no doubt watches it with awe and reverence.
Sigh...
Posted by: davem | February 18, 2008 4:37 AM
So what exactly is happening here? Auto-hypnosis? Mass hysteria? Knowing a bit about self-hypnosis, some of it looks a bit like that - the meaningless chants, and the auto-suggestion, especially of children (more suggestiblel subjects), but I can't explain all of it.
Posted by: Poster | February 18, 2008 4:38 AM
did you notice the absence of hot bunnies in these videos? that's for a reason ... church is for ugly, sexually frustrated chicks ...
Posted by: Beelzebub | February 18, 2008 4:50 AM
A well-placed lawsuit might do some good, but seeing as the law is hopelessly in bed with religion...
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 18, 2008 5:13 AM
PZ,
"One of the most common arguments against the New Atheists is to claim that they're railing against a straw man -- that religion is benign and thoughful and rational. I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that, but religion itself is a poisonous nest that encourages lunacy."
So you don't think that there are people (like me) who believe that some aspects of religion are benign, and others encourage lunacy. Its' either Religion is benign or Religion is evil. Take no prisonners.
Well, that's the argument against the New Atheists then. "You are either with us, or against us" does that ring a bell ?
Then, " Maybe most moderate Christians aren't joining in directly, but they sure are good about closing their eyes to it."
And what's the reason for that ? That there aren't any moderates ? Or because they don't want to take sides as they're getting the impression, perfectly warranted in my honest opinion, that you are attacking them.
What's really going on is that because the New Atheists are systematically attacking ANY form of religious belief or practice, religious moderates such as Collins, Miller, etc... are encouraged to defend their, maybe irrational, but benign per say, forms of beliefs and practices.
Jeebus, the enemy is clear, it's religious fundamentalism , intolerance and anti-science. Why not attack that one FIRST ? That'd be a good start. Instead you are lumping everything together and attacking any form of God belief and religious practice.
Sorry to disagree. Still like you very much PZ.
Posted by: Andrew | February 18, 2008 5:25 AM
Those poor fucking children. I can't describe how upset that video makes me.
It's mass hysteria, insanity acceptable by majority. Disgusting.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 18, 2008 5:58 AM
I seem to recall having a vaguely similar discussion with you about this very topic negentropyeater and although the outcome of that discussion seemed to be that we are on similar pages I have to disagree with you here. If moderates want to be regarded as such then they need to condemn this kind of thing unconditionally first.
In my experience when this kind of thing is mentioned they kind of go all red and mutter something about Stalin (or Hitler depending on their level of education) being nasty - see Alistair McGrath in debate with either Hitchens or Dawkins as a primary example of this. Where is their outrage an the inhumanity of the way the nutters act or, for that matter, the insult that their behaviour implies to the "true", fluffy bunny view of religion that the moderates have? If they don't show this then in my opinion they deserve a certain amount of criticism.
These forms of religous belief and practice are benign largely because these particular people are benign, moderate and generally rational people. However when they volunteer to debate with atheists (and they do volunteer remember, they aren't put upon victims, they have set out to provide a defence of their position so it is not unreasonable for us to examine the intellectual strength of that defence and point out the flaws) it becomes pitifully clear that the rationality that they bring to other areas of their lives has not been applied to their religious beliefs so they tend to wind up looking rather silly. This is not our fault and it is not beholden on us to pretend it isn't so and cover their blushes simply because they are the "right sort" of religious person.
Posted by: Matt | February 18, 2008 6:04 AM
One is pretty sure that if something ends in 'Ministries', it's going to be a nutjob institution.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 18, 2008 6:43 AM
Yeah, kind of like any organisation with "decency" or "family" in the title - it's kind of like a sign saying,
"Heath Warning: This Organisation Contains Nuts."
Posted by: maxi | February 18, 2008 6:46 AM
I'm going to Praiseland!
Posted by: Steve T | February 18, 2008 6:58 AM
Man, I have GOT to stop readng these threads early in the morning before my eyes actually function. I was reading "Benny Hinn" as "Benny Hill," and trying to figure out what the hell everyone was talking about!
I got it now, though, and am fully on the bus. Still, the image of Benny Hill leading people to Jeebus may haunt through the rest of the day.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 18, 2008 7:03 AM
LOL - it made my day so thanks for sharing!
Posted by: vjack | February 18, 2008 7:04 AM
The good news is that most Christians I've encountered are nearly as quick as I am to dismiss this speaking-in-toungues crap as utter nonsense. As you point out, the bad news is that few will speak out against it for fear of offending those who engage in it or somehow diminishing the value of religion.
Posted by: antaresrichard | February 18, 2008 7:06 AM
"Speaking" as a former Pentecostal: "Glossolunia!"
Tongue in check,
or it should be,
antaresrichard
Posted by: James | February 18, 2008 7:08 AM
God is pseudo-epilepsy! Praise the Lord!
Shimabalabalalalabalala babababababababababa!
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 18, 2008 7:23 AM
As an epileptic I object - I am reliably informed that I look far less silly mid-fit than this bunch of nutters!
;-)
Posted by: Bharat | February 18, 2008 7:39 AM
I would very much like to put the people who say this down in the middle of the next riot between hindu and muslim mobs (which are the two biggest religions in the parts I live in). And believe me, such riots are pretty common quite often result in the death of scores of people.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 18, 2008 7:53 AM
Bharat:
*Applause*
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 18, 2008 8:39 AM
Lilly,
"If moderates want to be regarded as such then they need to condemn this kind of thing unconditionally first."
Here's one of my favourite quotes :
- However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D" Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Who said this ? Barry Goldwater, Episcopalian himself and former US Senator from ... the republican party. Yes the republican party !
So when, for example, Obama (another, fairly important, religious moderate), in all his speeches on faith, is always very careful to mention that all believers, AND non believers deserve tolerance and respect, then what do non believers think, ah he's pandering to the faith communities. Yes, he is, and I'm sure he knows that, but he has no choice, he unfortunately cannot say the same thing as Barry Goldwater for the time being. He has to be a bit more careful, because things have gotten way worse than in those days. He first needs to get elected, in order to have a chance to reverse this disastrous trend.
In this context, are, "The God Delusion", "The end of faith", and "God is not great" helping to foster an alliance between religious moderates and non believers against the rise of religious fundamentalism and intolerance ?
In my view, their efficacy is very limited, first because they appear, at least to a large proportion of religious moderates, to be intolerant, of their beliefs and other benign irrationalities. Second, and it is an obvious crying observation, why hasn't it encouraged new religious moderates â la Goldwater to speak out ?
Just try to ask yourself this question, in this current climate of hyper-polarization, what would you do, if you were a moderate ?
And also, in order to at least try that they do condemn unequivocally, fundamentalism, why not organise constructive debates between New Atheists and Religious Moderates, on that specific subject ?
Why no debates on the following subjects :
- How to counter the rise of religious fundamentalism in the USA ?
- Religious moderates and Non believers. An impossible alliance ?
- etc...
Instead we get things like :
Debate between Al Sharpton (a moderate) and Christopher Hitchens (New Atheist) on the subject of his book, "God is not great". Give me a break. Outcome predictable.
It seems that in America, for a debate to be interesting, it must result in a blood bath. No constructive debates allowed. Only debate subjects that will result in a clear opposition between the parties involved, be it moderates and non believers, otherwise, it wouldn't be fun to watch. And make sure the books that go with it clearly demonstrate this opposition. Otherwise, they won't sell.
(Exception to the latest PZ / Loyal Rue debate which I thought was pretty good)
What I'd also like to see happening is a debate between a New Atheist, a religious moderate, and a fundamentalist.
Like a Ben Stein / Sharpton / Hitchens debate on the rise of fundamentalism. Would love to see that one.
And then, didn't the religious moderates help to get a positive outcome for the Dover Trial ?
Posted by: J-Dog | February 18, 2008 8:45 AM
Benny Hill = YES!
Benny Hinn = NO!
Posted by: LisaJ | February 18, 2008 9:13 AM
negentropyeater:
In my personal experience, I grew up as a religious 'moderate' and it wasn't until I reached my twenties that I really began to ask myself what I actually believed, and why I just couldn't believe what the church was telling me. For a long long time I just didn't buy it, but didn't know how to reconcile my possible non-belief with living a morally just and fulfilling life (as of course, I believed that this really wasn't possible with god). Today I am a very proud atheist, living a much happier, confident, and more morally and intellectually fulfilling life than I ever did before or even thought possible. I give a lot of credit for the life I have now and my 'clear mind' to non-believers who did challenge my beliefs and who really told me what I needed to hear to get over my religious delusions. Granted, I know I still live with a fair amount of that damn catholic guilt that's so hard to get rid of, but I really am thankful to those atheists who gave me the right information to start thinking about life the way I do now, without the need for god and a supernatural creator. So, I think a big reason as to why we challenge even religious moderates is that, and I am speaking from personal experience here, they do harbour delusional ideas about life (practical and moral issues) and how we got here, and this makes them susceptible to become less moderate in some situations, and/or to not always recognize when religion has gone to far and people need to be protected. From my own previous personal experience and by interacting with other religious moderates that I know, these people are often confused as to what they believe to be true, and I know that I sure appreciate now those people who open my eyes by 'attacking' my beliefs.
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 18, 2008 9:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GjNSUatTc4
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 18, 2008 10:01 AM
Then he's selling his principals down the river (assuming you are correct about what his ulterior motives are). Seriously someone religious does need to talk like Barry Goldwater did, now more than ever, precisely because the nutters are so much more powerful. Otherwise you have a situation where (to quote WB Yeats) "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" and guess what? The worst win.
What we need are more moderate religious people standing up and saying, loudly what Barry Goldwater said and when there is a strong movement of the religious that does this loudly and often I will gladly celebrate it (I've already said that I don't have problems with this type of believer whatever I think about the status of their beliefs).
However the problem that we have is the believers who fall fairly into the "I'm a moderate but I'm not going to do or say anything about the nutjobs" camp. Since they aren't calling out the nutters why shouldn't we criticise these believers for their silent compliance (the Barry Goldwaters of this world are surely more of a rebuke to such believers rather than an affirmation - this is what they should be doing) and why, in the absence of anyone else doing so, should we not call the nutters to account if no-one else will?
Actually I think they are - they provide a counterbalancing voice and point out, loudly and insistently, that there is an alternative to religion out there. I would also point out that frankly, if a religious moderate is more offended by any of these books than they are by the antics of the religious right then I have to wonder how "moderate" they actually are in any case. Moderates are generally not offended by an alternative point of view being put to them in an unapologetic way - when, for example did you hear atheist say that they were mortally offended by Alistair McGrath or Francis Collins's attacks on the athiest position (we might think they are rather weak but we don't take offence at their existence).
Posted by: psycholalia | February 18, 2008 10:06 AM
Speaking in tongues has been pretty thoroughly investigated. One of the earliest studies is still one of the best:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w023125824v8q504/
Glossolalic speech from a psycholinguistic perspective.
Osser, Ostwald, MacWhinney & Casey
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
Abstract This is a psycholinguistic study of glossolalia produced by four speakers in an experimental setting. Acoustical patterns (signal waveform, fundamental frequency, and amplitude changes) were compared. The frequency of occurrence of vowels and consonants was computed for the glossolalic samples and compared with General American English. The results showed that three of the four speakers had substantially higher vowel-to-consonant ratios than are found in English speech. Phonology, morphology, and syntax of the four glossolalic productions were analyzed. This revealed two distinct forms of glossolalia. One form, which we called ldquoformulaicrdquo tends towards stereotypy and repetitiousness. The second form, which we called ldquoinnovativerdquo shows more novelty and unpredictability in the chaining of speech-like elements. These contrastive forms of glossolalia may relate to dimensions of linguistic creativity. Precise correlates with personality patterns, educational backgrounds, psychopathology, and other sociolinguistic variables remain to be employed.
Posted by: psycholalia | February 18, 2008 10:11 AM
Apologies (and this was a genuine error, not a tongue-in-cheek effort . . . though I wish I'd thought of it):
From the abstract above, the two distinct forms of glossolalia are, respectively, "formulaic" and "innovative."
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 18, 2008 10:23 AM
You are in good company -- the vast majority of Christian denominations agrees with you. After all, it is written in the Book of Acts:
(Elamite was still spoken that late? Cool.)
Posted by: Robbie Taylor | February 18, 2008 10:33 AM
When I saw the name of the ministry, I thought for a minute that it was Bob Fosse Ministries, which would have at least had a little style and flair...
Posted by: MAJeff | February 18, 2008 10:47 AM
Jeebus, the enemy is clear, it's religious fundamentalism , intolerance and anti-science. Why not attack that one FIRST ? That'd be a good start. Instead you are lumping everything together and attacking any form of God belief and religious practice.
Because it's all nonsense.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 18, 2008 11:05 AM
LisaJ,
I'm not disputing the fact that the New Atheists are helping some moderates to get rid of some of their delusions. It worked for you, as it did for others.
Prior to becoming an Atheist, as a moderate Catholic, you said you were already doubting your beliefs, and you were probably not spending your time trying to convince others that they should believe the way you did.
But obviously, not all moderates react the same way. And I also personally know some who reacted the opposite way. When they heard of all these books, and remember they were more or less in the same place as where you were, doubting and tolerant, they didn't read these books, they got stuck at the titles, were scared, and started defending their faith, they started saying more and more silly things, they started becoming more and more virulent and intolerant towards non believers.
So, for all the people who went your way, we should also count those who went the opposite way.
Of course, I'm not saying that the rise of fundamentalism was caused by the New Atheist movement. It started way before then. We've got to blame the education system for th