Time Immortal

Aspentroll writes back, after a lengthy hiatus, with a response to my previous reply to him (which dates back to May of this year). I’m thinking that I will break this one up and answer it piece-by-piece, since he jumps between topics in a manner that might make for a distracting response if approached as a whole. Rest assured, O Reader, that all of the text of Aspentroll’s message will appear below, in un-edited form, and in the same order in which it arrived.

Hi I’m back. I know it’s been awhile, but, all we atheist require would be some acknowledgment from theists.

I’m not completely sure what possible relation could exist between Aspentroll’s 5-month silence and the lack of theistic acknowledgement that atheists (some? all?) apparently perceive. I’m also curious why theists — including myself — owe it to atheists to grant them any kind of acknowledgement, apart from the Christian mandate to acknowledge all people as fallen creations of God in need of salvation from sin and death? No such entitlement, apart from the mentioned caveat, exists…at least, not to my knowledge.

Former President Geo. Bush Sr. once said that he didn’t believe atheists had any place in government and went on to say that he believed they shouldn’t even be considered citizens of the US.

It would be interesting to see a source for this claim, but Aspentroll does not provide one. These days, sorting out urban legend from actual fact is becoming increasingly difficult, especially thanks to the internet. It was reported that George Herbert Walker Bush once said: “No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God,” while still Vice President. Ostensibly, this was uttered at Chicago’s on or about August 27, 1987, at some kind of press conference.

But no video or audio recordings exist which corroborate the quote, nor have other witnesses confirmed it to be a legitimate quotation. Indeed, the only known source for the quote is an atheist activist, one Robert I. Sherman. The Reader will, I trust, forgive me if I find no reason to assume that Mr. Sherman is being wholly, or even partially, truthful in his attribution of the above quote to the then-Vice President.

That very statement is exactly what atheists are angry about.

It would seem, then, that most atheists are angry about a highly dubious statement. Given Aspentroll’s previously stated dismissal of religious people as delusional, I have to wonder how inflamed anger over a potentially imaginary quotation can be equated to reason and rationality?

Or perhaps it is the case that atheists are simply angry people in general, and who prefer to use things like this false quotation as a kind of focal point for their frustration, until a different focal point can be found. If it’s not a 21-year old quotation, it’s Sunday schools (which seem to make Richard Dawkins fairly angry). If it’s not Sunday schools, it’s Sarah Palin (we’ll come to her in a minute or two). If it’s not Sarah Palin, it’s the Church or the Pope, or…something. It’s always something, and (to me, at least, atheists seem to always be angry.

Atheists are constantly being blamed for the actions of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin.

Well, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin, yes: both men are excellent examples of what can be expected to transpire when atheism becomes an explicit policy of the state, as well as examples of what happens when strongman leaders apply a “morality” derived from the mere “is”-es of atheistic philosophy to a human population. Vox Day — in his book The Irrational Atheist — goes into great detail on this subject, and his conclusions paint a very bloody picture of atheism’s “Red Hand.”

At any rate, because Stalin and Pol Pot are such excellent examples of the murderous nature of state-endorsed atheism, Aspentroll will ignore them from here on in, and focus on the Godwin-bait instead.

Hitler was historically a Catholic in good standing with the Pope of the day.

Now, one is used to the occasional bit of historical fallacy when one debates atheists, but this particular example takes the cake, given that it manages to encapsulate two distinct historical errors in one convenient sentence.

The issue of Adolf Hitler’s religious beliefs is a complex one, and one that has been explored to great length. But let’s look at the raw facts of history. Hitler was raised by a Catholic mother and a nominally Catholic, “freethinker” father (Adolf Hitler: His Family, Childhood and Youth, Bradley F. Smith, Stanford/California, 1967 pp. 27 & 42). Hitler himself began to reject Catholicism and the Church in his youth. As an adult, he never attended Mass, nor did he participate in any of the Sacraments. (Hitlers Gott. Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators, Michael Rissmann, Zürich München: Pendo, 2001, p. 94-96)

As attending Mass on Sundays is generally considered a minimum requirement for being a Catholic, let alone one in “good standing,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2041-2043), it can safely be said (I think) that Hitler was about as Catholic as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time.

Which brings us to the second historical inaccuracy, because the Pope of the day — Pope Pius XII — was no friend of Hitler, or of Naziism. Indeed, Pius XII was often openly critical of the Nazi regime, and of the many evils perpetrated by them. In one encyclical that he drafted for his predecessor (Mit brennender Sorge), he denounced anti-Semitism as un-Christian. In that same writing, Hitler was denounced as insane and arrogant (A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Bokenkotter, (2004), pp. 389–92) — this document, then, led to several rather brutal repressions being launched by the Nazi regime against Catholic priests, monks, and congregations. (A History of Christianity (1995), Chadwick, pp. 254–255)

It is true that during the formal duration of the Second World War, the Church — under Pius XII’s guidance — adopted a policy of strict neutrality. That didn’t prevent more than 2500 Catholic priests from being imprisoned at Dachau, nor did it stop Pius XII from turning the Vatican into a sort of aid centre, missing persons agency, and coordination centre for the evacuation of thousands of Jews — many of them children — from German territory during the course of the war. Indeed, at one point, nearly 500 Jews were hidden in the Vatican proper.

So let’s review: not only was Hitler a nominal Catholic at best (it is more likely that even by the time of his ascent to power, neither he nor any Catholic official would have considered him a part of the Church), but his relationship with the Pope of the day was anything but friendly. And, in fact, the Pope of the day, despite guiding the Church to adopt a neutral stance as far as the war was concerned, worked against Hitler’s machinations and policies to a great extent. The concept of “Hitler’s Pope” is a myth.

Indeed, if Hitler had any Religion, it was Positive Christianity, a rather esoteric concoction that attempted to re-cast Christ as an Aryan champion and active opponent of Judaism — it is thus a historically indefensible parody of the Christian faith, and nothing more or less than an utter heresy. Other aspects of Naziism flirted with the occult, or with forms of paganism. And it must be noted, vis a vis my comment above about the Grand Mufti, that various Islamic officials also worked closely with Hitler, the Grand Mufti even going so far as to send troops to assist Hitler in his campaign against the Jews.

It may interest you to know that there are many more atheists and agnostics and other forms of unbelievers alive and well in the US than you have imagined. Some are in the closet because of statements like that of Bush Sr. They all pay their taxes, give to charities, hardly ever trip old ladies with canes and would really like to be recognized as first class citizens just as the theists.

I don’t deny the existence of moral, charitable atheists; good for them. And yet it remains the case that atheists — or, more broadly, secular folk — are about 3.8 times more likely to be incarcerated for crimes. It remains the case that while crime in America tends to be higher in “red” (read: Republican, stereotypically more Christian) states, the hotbeds of crime in those states tend to be “blue” (read: Democratic, stereotypically more secular) counties (see The Irrational Atheist for more and better detail on these figures).

But remember: nobody can take credit for simply abiding by the law. The law is the minimum standard — as Chris Rock might say, “you’re supposed to pay your taxes, motherfrakker! What do you want, a cookie?” And he might also say, “you’re supposed to not trip old ladies, motherfrakker!” Personally, I think Aspentroll is overstating when he bemoans the fact that atheists do not enjoy recognition as “first class citizens”; I know more than a few atheists personally who are models of their communities, and good people besides. But then, it’s not hard to be a model citizen; one need only obey the law, participate a bit in community events, and treat other community members with respect.

If it really is the case that atheists do not enjoy recognition as citizens in good standing in their communities, it is probably the case that many atheists fail on one or more of these metrics. This conclusion seems, at least, somewhat more probable than the alternative conclusion, that the lower standing of atheists is due solely to a massive theistic conspiracy.

Unless, perhaps, one is a paranoiac. But one cannot be a paranoiac and claim the “high ground” of reason, which atheists often do.

The facts on the ground seem persuasive: religious inclination promotes charitable actions, religious conservatives are more likely to donate to charities and to work in charitable organizations than are secular folk and/or progressives, and religious people are less likely to cheat on their spouses. That’s all stuff I’ve commented on in the past, and then just the stuff I found after a two-minute search. I’m sure, were I to comprehensively examine the archives, that I’d find many more such examples…but these will suffice to demonstrate the point being made: it’s great that some (many?) atheists are good folks and decent citizens…but so what? They’re still the exceptions, rather than the rule.

The biggest problem is that fundamentalists are taught in their churches to discount anyone who believes differently than they do.

This is often the case, yes, and I can only assure both Aspentroll, directly, and the good Reader, more generally, that I am just as much on the receiving end of evangelical exclusivity as any atheist. Being Catholic, the things that I say, and the things that I believe, are very often completely (or near-completely) discounted by the likes of fundamentalists.

But then, it should be noted that atheists are not guilty of doing the same thing. Aspentroll himself, in the writing which I responded too previously, specifically attempted to play the “atheism is reason/religion is delusion” card; is this not a form of automatically discounting “anyone who believes differently” than Aspentroll himself does? And can’t people — young and old alike — be taught to be exclusive in just this way?

Methinks the answer is a resounding “yes!”

This may be because Religion in the US is a big business and will do their utmost to hang on to their positions in church and government. Pat Robertson, Huccabee, Palin come to mind.

Actually, most fundamentalists do it for a far simpler reason that that they are all participants in a massive conspiracy to discount, and possibly disenfranchise, the godless. 2 Corinthians 2:14-18 reads thusly: “Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Be’lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.’”

So in “discounting” non-Christians, evangelicals are simply living out their interpretation of this teaching from St. Paul. Of course, their interpretation is incorrect in and of itself…but that’s not the point. The question that Aspentroll raised was one of motive, and this Biblical excerpt is at the heart of the motive of fundamentalists if they make any attempt to discount atheists or other non-Christians.

Now, I promised that we’d come to discuss Sarah Palin a bit more.

I just saw the videos of Sarah Palin being prayed over by the black Priest from Kenya who was attempting to protect her from being taken over by “witches”.

Please, if this is “the common sense” that comes from organized religion, then we have stepped back a century or two, wouldn’t you think?

We all have the right to worry if this twit makes it into government.

I fail to see the cause for worry. Yes, it’s damned odd that some priest from Kenya saw fit to pray that she be protected from witches (more on that in a moment), but why does that make her a twit? And why does it impact on her ability to govern, or to fill the office of Vice President of the United States? And why should we worry about it? It’s just the actions of one priest…he can hardly be said to be representative of Christianity as a global religion, nor of Sarah Palin’s faith, nor of her competence (or lack thereof) to govern.

As to the odd prayer for Palin’s preservation from witches, it should be observed that Christianity often absorbs regional customs, and what we’re seeing here is the result of a conflation of Christian religious tradition with some local Kenyan traditions, methinks. A lot of African tribal cultures still have strong beliefs about possession and witchcraft, as did the ancient Hebrews. That’s not a result of their Christian faith, for the most part; it’s a remnant of their pre-Christian cultural traditions, which has been partially grafted onto their Christian worship practices.

No, it’s not the most sensible thing in the world, good Reader…but give it a few centuries, and it also won’t be an issue any longer, methinks.

In all honesty, there are some Christians that make me cringe by what they do, or for the sometimes esoteric beliefs that they hold. Christians are capable of being “less than rational,” as surely as are all human beings. But methinks that Aspentroll is doing something again which I called him on once before: he would hardly be the first atheist to look at, say, oddities particular to one Christian denomination in an isolated region, and declare that all religions are weird and sub-rational as a result. That might come as news to the many educated, wise, rational, reasonable Christians in the world, but not everyone can be counted on to let facts get in the way of good rhetoric, especially if it sells books with provocative titles. And yet, a more reasonable, rational person would notice that there are many critical differences between, say, Christianity with local tribal influences and formal Catholicism.

And at the end of the day, for as weird as some Christians can be, atheists and other secular folk are still more likely to pursue pseudo-science and the paranormal. Indeed, if one wants to tie this back to the presidential race currently underway, one could reflect that while “36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. [Barack Hussein Obama]’s former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin’s former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.”

I respectfully submit to Aspentroll that, if it is honestly his desire that the candidate most closely associated with “common sense” be elected, his vote should not go to the Obama end of the ticket come November.

I know you won’t post this, because it will not be in your best interest.

Sorry to disappoint, Aspentroll.

Apparently, “think of the children” trumps “ethnic diversity” in Chicago:

A 15-year-old Chicago high school sophomore was told to remover her replica [Chicago Cubs] jersey at school because the dean thought the last name on the back, Fukudome [a starting OF for the Cubs - ed], sounded too much like a profanity.

Ronny Cox, Andy Dick — and a million Asians with the last name Dong — could not be reached for comment.

So, to sum up how things work in progressive America: the word “terrorist” — used to describe a white terrorist[link added by me; not part of original article -- Ken] — is racist. Against blacks. As is any mention of foreign contributions to the campaign of a black candidate.

– Whereas disallowing an actual Asian name belonging to an actual hometown player because that name sounds too much like a profanity? A sign of intellectual stewardship.

BECAUSE YES WE CAN!

Does anyone else’s brain hurt from trying to reason this one out?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

After reading the text of Palin’s speech, I think it’s pretty clear that this could prove to be an interesting election after all…and something of a first. Well, obviously it’s a first, given that Palin stands a good chance of being the first woman to hold such a high office in America.

She’s Margaret Thatcher with five kids and a Klondike drawl.

But more than that, there’s something interesting emerging here, a trend of sorts. At least based on what we’ve seen so far, this could well be the first election in which a presidential candidate, in essence, ends up running against his opponent’s vice-presidential pick. The face-off that seems to be shaping up is not between John McCain and Barrack Hussein Obama, but between Sarah Palin and Obama.

Which is damned odd, to be sure. But also damned interesting.

Anyhow, the Anchoress has a roundup of reactions to Palin’s speech, which seems to have liberal-minded folks all in a panic…as well it should, given how sharp some of its observations were:

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” [a position Obama held in Chicago, and which constitutes a large portion of his resumé — Ken] except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

Also, I suddenly find that I like Dr. Phil McGraw a bit more, after his excellent smackdown of David Letterman’s poo-pooing of Bristol Palin.

Guest “Dr. Phil” on Wednesday night chastised David Letterman’s misunderstanding of teenage sexual behavior and parental influence after Letterman sarcastically complained that if a President McCain “drops dead…don’t you want your President to have had the presence of mind to have chatted to her teenaged kids for five minutes about birth control?” (Letterman delivered the same belittling joke the night before too.)

Referring to Letterman’s almost five-year-old son, daytime TV host Phil McGraw, aka “Dr. Phil,” informed Letterman:

Let me tell you something, new dad. If you are under the misapprehension that when Harry is 17 that you are going to have even a remote influence on what he decides in the back seat of a Chevy on a Saturday night — I don’t think old Dave’s going to be popping in his mind at that point. It’s not a 15-minute conversation. It’s a dialogue that you need to have starting when he’s about eight or nine.

Undeterred from his contempt for Sarah Palin, Letterman asked: “Then why didn’t they have the dialogue?” McGraw suggested: “Maybe they did. But when children get that age, at 17 — see, here’s the thing. The body’s grown but the brain is not.” Letterman soon sneered: “They don’t sell Trojans in Alaska? Come on,” prompting McGraw to point out: “Wasn’t Barack’s mother like 18 when he was born?” Indeed she was.

And over at his blog, Vox Day observes that the (liberal) media has no clue how the heck they should respond to Palin:

First, they were all taken completely by surprise when McCain made the most obvious and effective choice for vice-president. Second, they actually thought conservatives and the religious right would somehow be turned off by a pregnant girl marrying the father of her child and having the baby! Here’s a little secret for the irreligious Left: religious people not only believe that sin exists, they believe that everyone engages in it. True, it’s best to avoid sin, but the far more important thing is how you attempt to amend for your errant actions when you, like everyone else, fall short of perfection.

Now they’re all surprised that a woman whose nickname is “Barracuda”, who compares her kind of woman to a pitbull, who took on and beat the corrupt old boys of Republican politics in Alaska, should turn out to be an effective attack dog. Whoever could have imagined it?

This is why I don’t read much political commentary except as a guide to what the clueless parrots will be repeating. With a few exceptions, it’s almost completely useless.

This was shaping up to be a boring election, an unstimulating contest between Tweedledum and Tweedlenotsodum. Indeed, I’d barely been paying attention to it. Now, though, it’s a whole new ballgame.

And I am loving — loving — watching the supposed champions of women’s rights and tolerance (a.k.a. “the Left”) soil their trousers and abandon all pretense in response to McCain’s running mate. I mean, when people openly admit their intent to lie their asses off in order to take Palin down by any means necessary, and when people openly opine about how tearing a family apart is a small price to pay to avert “a disaster” (e.g. a Republican victory in the coming election), you know they are scared.

As in: pants thrice-soaked, fight-or-run-for-your-damned-life-flight scared. The Left has come unhinged over this. Un. HINGED.