Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

If we define it vaguely enough and stretch the definition a little bit, we can surely apply “blood libel” to a highly simplified and distorted portrayal of media coverage of the Tuscon shootings and right wing rhetoric.

To be fair, Rabbi Boteach does a very good job of explaining the origins and history of antisemitic murder that the “blood libel” myth represents. All the more disappointing that he has chosen to trivialize this history for partisan purposes.

Spread the joy...

For instance, consider the inevitable “draws fire” article on Republican responses to President Obama’s support for the construction of a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero. It’s got Peter King, that reliable voice of downstate NY dipshits:

“While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much,” he said. “The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from ground zero. Unfortunately, the president caved into political correctness.”

Note that it is NOT “political correctness” to defer to the knee-jerk sensibilities of people who confuse a major global religion with the violence committed by a fringe terrorist sect. Forget the Constitution or simple fairness, let the fears and grievances of a handful of victim’s families hold sway. In that light, I refer you to Matt Bors’ excellent cartoon on the subject.

But wait, there’s more! While the rest of the world would rather cram broken glass in their ears than hear what Rick Santorum has to say on any subject whatsoever, FOXNews knows their audience.

Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania told Fox News that Obama seems to misunderstand that Islam is not just a religion, but also a political doctrine. He also said the mosque is being run by a man who accused the U.S. of being an accomplice in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Santorum compared the ground zero mosque to a minister who wants to builds a church near the location where the Rev. Martin Luther King was killed but preaches racial separation and the notion that King brought his death upon himself.

Martin Luther King — such handy rhetorical cover for right wing racism. Ironic, too, given that the good doctor would most likely support the construction of Cordoba House. Ah, but what about that nasty imam whom The Santorum calls out for victim-blaming? That would be Feisal Abdul Rauf, a respected Muslim cleric who has served the diplomatic missions of both Obama and Bush administrations. Insert hypocrisy here:

Oddly, Republicans didn’t complain when the Bush/Cheney State Department partnered with “this radical” to help with our diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. This isn’t complicated — if Bush considered Feisal Abdul Rauf a valuable American voice and representative, there’s no reason for the GOP to freak out now.

Reasons. Don’t make me laugh.

BTW, the “victim blaming” in question — the rhetorical arrow that King and Santorum fire off with all the precision of a drunk aiming for the urinal (coating the floor and walls in a perfect circle, the center target perfectly dry) — derives from an interview imam Rauf gave to the late Ed Bradley many years ago.

Bradley: And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.

Faisal: It is a reaction against the US government politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.

Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

Faisal: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

Bradley: You say that we’re an accessory? How?

Faisal: Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

Make of that what you will — everyone else is!

Spread the joy...

What are the words “social justice” code for? Why, Nazism and Communism, says Beck: “Social justice was the rallying cry–economic justice and social justice–the rallying cry on both the communist front and the fascist front.” Beck even went so far as to cite Jesus Christ, saying, and I quote: “Nowhere does Jesus say, Hey, if somebody asks for your shirt, give your coat to the government and have the government give them a pair of slacks.” Well, Beck has me there. It is quite true that nowhere does Jesus say that. Nor, for that matter, does he ever say, A wop bop a lu bop, a wop bam boom!

There are so many reasons to criticize the Catholic Church — just ask my Catholic friends — but the “social justice thing” tends to work in its favor. As Ebert points out, religions in general have social justice at the heart of their creeds; including The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (i.e., Mormonism), as demonstrated by their monumental relief efforts in New Orleans after the hurricane.

Indeed, you would think Beck would point out what a superior job religious charitable organizations did compared to the “heckuva” fuck-up performed by U.S. and Louisiana state governments. That would certainly play into his anti-government rant. But for Beck and the rest of his far right crowd, the whole point of opposing any government effort to help out the poor, the suffering and the unfortunate goes beyond anti-government libertarianism. At heart it is a lack of heart. It’s reflexive white supremacy, resentment against the imagined threats posed by “those people” to the dominant culture of passive suburban consumerism (ironically, given how easily immigrant cultures from all over the world assimilate to America’s shopping malls and ex-urban housing developments.) You hear it every time some yahoo says, “I don’t want my tax dollars going to those people.” The credo of Beck’s ilk can be summed up in two words, “Fuck them.”

Spread the joy...

The real downside is that my email wound up on the mailing list of the American Family Association, run by that raving misogynist and homophobe, Tim Wildmon. Yet even he can afford some unintended comedy. Take, for instance, tonight’s message praising the efforts of FOXNews mainstay Brit Hume to convert Tiger Woods from Buddhism to Christianity.

Brit Hume Takes a Stand for Christ, Watch Video

January 8, 2010

You may have heard about the commentary that longtime television journalist Brit Hume gave concerning the plight of Tiger Woods. It was one of the best presentations of the gospel of Jesus Christ that I have seen in the public arena.

Please take a moment to watch the video of Brit’s interview with Bill O’Reilly about the commentary. You need to watch it. Hume works for the Fox News Channel.

I encourage you to send Brit a note of support. We have provided an e-mail address to do so.

Sincerely, Tim Wildmon, President American Family Association

“One of the best presentations of the gospel of Jesus Christ” — wow. If I were a Christian, I would be insulted. No wait, I’m an atheist, and I’m still insulted. Having actually read the Gospel a few times and talked with many good Christian friends about charity, compassion and selflessness, I can say at least my intelligence feels insulted by the ignorant religious chauvinism Hume showed toward another doctrine of faith. My Buddhist friends would certainly take umbrage.

I guess what I find comical here is that Tim forwarded this display of arrogant ignorance (or ignorant arrogance) onto his followers as an article of reaffirmation, as a model for fellow Christians to emulate in their mission. Well, he must know his audience. Sayyy, there must be a scriptural verse appropos here. Oh, yes:

Such people claim they know God, but they deny him by the way they live. They are detestable and disobedient, worthless for doing anything good.

Spread the joy...

Spread the joy...

“Bottom line is Christmas is about Christmas,” said Erin Ryan, president of the Redding Tea Party Patriots. “That’s why we have it. It’s not about winter solstice or Kwanzaa. It’s like, ‘Wow you guys, it’s called Christmas for a reason.’ “

Read that quote aloud to yourself in the dippyest voice you can muster. Fun for the whole famdamily.

Spread the joy...

In its internal documents, the Family refers to itself as an “invisible organization” and the “prayer cells” into which it organizes politicians as “invisible ‘believing groups.’”

The connotations run wild: part Manson Family, part Al-Qaeda, part Illuminati, part Scientology. I try not to invoke the word “post-modern” much these days, but I can’t think of another word that fits. Well, other than “creepy” and “ludicrous” and “risible” and “scary.”

Thanks to Stupak and Pitts, I learned another interesting word:

Together, they’re poster boys for the evangelical/conservative Catholic alliance known as “co-belligerency,” a culture war strategy designed to take territory within the Democratic Party as well the GOP. [em-phassis mine]

I don’t know if that’s the Family’s word or Sharlet’s own diction, but it raises an eyebrow or two (or three, if your third eye is alarmed.) On Sharlet’s part, it could be rhetorical overload; he’s genuinely –and rightly– concerned about the religious right’s (admittedly smart) tactic to infiltrate both parties to push their agenda forward. But the rest of us –secular left, religious left, or middle, or whatever word choice you wanna make– could take a page from the fanatical fundy insurgency manual and (hopefully) adapt it with more intellectual honesty and transparency.

Anyhoo, just to be self-promoting “hoower”, here’s my relevant cartoon for this week.

Spread the joy...

Wear a “positive costume” or don’t dress up (but don’t NOT wear anything at all or the SWAT team will take you down); but definitely do not wear a scary or creepy costume on Halloween, cuz someone might get scared or take offense or get their religious panties up in a bunch.

With Christmas and Hannukah coming, let’s avoid controversy altogether by banning religious (and anti-religious) and nongovernmental displays at the state capitol. A democracy cannot countenance controversy. A free exchange of ideas and points of view is simply too much for adults to handle.

Sarcasm aside, I find the “culture wars” aspect of the holiday season to be almost as irritating as the commercial exploitation and religious indoctrination aspects. Last year Freedom From Religion posted a display at the Washington State Capitol mocking religious belief. Naturally people were offended. Fine, be offended, but FFR has as much right to mock religion in a public space as your local church, synagogue or mosque has to promote its religion.

This year, the Washington State bureaucrats chose to avoid controversy and national attention (understandably) by barring all religious and nongovernmental displays inside the Capitol campus. Here is where I, an atheist, find myself more in agreement with the religious than the anti-religious:

“It’s a shame that the state is basically shutting down 95 percent of Americans that celebrate a federal holiday, which it is,” said Ron Wesselius, a Thurston County Realtor who put up the Nativity the past two years. “They are not letting them celebrate.”

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, said she was pleased about the new rules but added that they don’t go far enough.

“I don’t think Nativity scenes belong on the outside of capitols either,” Gaylor said.

Maybe because I’m an artist, but I think more expression is better than less. Mr. Wesselius probably puts more creative effort into his nativity display than FFR did with their snarky placard last year (which I criticized along with another suit FFR brought against “so help me God” in the Presidential oath of office.) If FFR is out of ideas, I would happily create a satirical nativity or a Flying Spaghetti Monster sculpture or even something more positive, like a commemoration of great atheists. John Lennon and Yoko Ono, for example, who used the holiday season to promote peace, charity and social equality.

What bothers me about Ms. Gaylor’s position is that it shuts down conversation and debate. The public space is where people should be able to convene and exchange ideas with all the passion, brilliance, silliness, ignorance, rudeness or politeness they can muster. FFR should not approve of the Washington State Capitol ban; they should oppose it and advocate for the right of atheists to express their beliefs in the company of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Wiccans, Rastafarians, Scientologists, and whoever else I forget to mention. Right now a ban on “nongovernmental displays” means all we get are governmental displays. Wheeee.

Spread the joy...

Whether people want to admit it or not, the way Fred Phelps and Benedict XVI talk about [lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered] is consistent with the way we’ve been treated by the Christian church for 2,000 years. Anything pro-LGBT in Christianity is a recent development. I know there are people who are willing to give Christianity a pass on that. Many more of us are not.

It will be argued that “not all Christians are like that” and that “you shouldn’t paint Christians with a broad brush.” Well, I can’t remember ever seeing a comment here (or anywhere else, for that matter) to the effect that every single Christian everywhere is a bad person. We are all perfectly aware that there are “affirming” and “accepting” congregations and a great many fine individual Christians. Comments tend to be about the Christian church at the institutional level and its supporters.

I’ve pointed out before that of the 30-odd state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and the scores of anti-gay ballot initiatives and referenda across the country, every single one of them has been initiated or actively promoted by a Christian group. In contrast, I’m not aware of even one pro-gay measure that has come out of a Christian group. Not one.

Moreover, the “affirming” churches never seem to speak out against the language and behavior of the actively hateful ones. It’s all very well for churches to claim to be “affirming,” but that affirmation never seems to translate into action. The old phrase “all aid short of help” comes to mind.

QScribe goes on to discuss the long history of skepticism regarding the existence of God and/or gods, providing several amusing quotes from philosophers, scientists, social critics and at least one Founding Father whom American religious conservatives attempt to co-opt:

Thomas Jefferson: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva from the brain of Jupiter.”

The main argument is this: religions and the propositions they make about reality, history and morality should not enjoy a special exemption from skeptical inquiry. There’s no need to be an asshole, of course, but there is no need to check one’s critical thinking cap at the door, either.

One thing QScribe does not address, so I’ll add it here, is the role multiculturalism plays in stifling legitimate criticism. By and large I support multiculturalism as a way of respecting the liberties and rights of people in a pluralistic democracy. That includes the right to practice one’s religion and to express one’s faith openly and publicly with an expectation of respect, even from cranky atheists like me. Yet when such faith is used to deprive people of civil rights and liberties, to persecute them for their very mode of being; or even to impose its view on public school curricula (Intelligent Design, school prayer, etc.), articles of faith become fair game.

However, there is this view that skepticism is a Western construction; that using it to criticize the claims made by non-Western religions is a form of racism or imperialism. Recently Oktar Babuna, a Turkish physician has taken to publicly decrying the theory of evolution as a Western attack on Islam, sending out copies of his book on the subject to schools in Turkey; indeed, he ropes in Judaism and Christianity as allies in defense against this perceived attack on the unique relationship these faiths posit between God and humanity. To be sure, scientists who subscribe to these faiths are appalled. And it should be noted that evolutionary theory itself, pioneered by the devout Christian Charles Darwin, makes no claims on Biblical accounts of Creation or any other religious explanation of human and cosmic origins. It makes its own claims, striving do as all scientific theories to understand external phenomena based on evidence, theory, prediction and falsification. (Please note that last element; the scientific method trains skepticism most intensely on theories proposed in the name of science.) Nonetheless, the Turkish government has banned access to Web sites on evolution and prevented publication of the Darwin issue of its oldest and most respected science magazine. Notably, Babuna derives much of his inspiration from the American Creationist and Intelligent Design movements, which treat evolutionary theory as an assault on its faith. As ever, the assault is really the other way around. Here is Babuna:

These two ir-religious philosophies, Darwinism and materialism, are the foundation of the conflict and corruption going on in the world. Because we all believe, Christians, Jews and Muslims, that God has created the entire universe out of nothing and that he dominates all that exists with his omnipotence.

And his boss, Harun Yahya, who has recently written an 800-page refutation of Darwin, makes these claims:

I’m a believer in science. If I had ever found any hard evidence for evolution, in the Koran or in the world, I would accept it. There are millions of fossils, but none of them ever show creatures evolving. Darwinism is nonsense, and dangerous. Despots like Stalin and Hitler used Darwin to justify murdering millions.

The Son of Sam claimed his dog ordered him to go on a serial murderous rampage, but I don’t think we should hold the dog accountable, should we? Anyhoo, Babuna and Yahya, as implied by reporter Aaron Schachter, see the strident atheism of the Richard Dawkins school as a direct provocation, deserving of response. Fair enough, Dawkins is not always the most pleasant of critics, and he would claim provocation by the Creationists seeking to eliminate evolution from school curricula and the role of religion in promoting all sorts of nasty violence, for which a link can be made that is more direct than Darwin’s role in The Holocaust. Yet for all of this “he started it” playground sniping, the real issue is that a legitimate —and working— field of scientific theory is constantly under attack from groups who mask their fears of its implications behind characterizations of the scientific method as a kind of aberration of Euro-American thinking, a cognitive blip, an ideological weapon of Western Imperialism.

And, at the risk of seeming “uncivil,” that’s bullshit. Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have certainly put forward some crazy racist ideas in the past, yet no one has been harder on them than modern practitioners of these fields; not only because such ideas are abhorrent, but because they are rendered utterly false by scientific skepticism, by testing the claims against reality. You want to drive a scientist crazy? Misuse his or her findings to justify your personal ideology; misuse the scientific method to prop up racism, as anyone who was alive during The Bell Curve controversies should recall with a sense of outrage that inspires the use of uncivil language. To be fair, plenty of people of faith feel a similar degree of anger when co-religionists misuse scripture to promote homophobia or sexism or any other agenda of oppression. Twenty years ago, I worked at a daycare center in a church, where I found someone had stashed a Chick comic book (I think it was this one), an artifact of fundamentalist crackpottery I thought hilarious. The priest I showed it to did not share my amusement: “If you find any more of these, bring them to me right away!” I have never forgotten the look on his face.

I feel more common ground with that priest, certainly, but that doesn’t mean I should not criticize the irrational claims of Creationists or of Islamist charlatans like Yahya and Babuna; or, for that matter, refrain from holding the claims of even friendlier strains of the Big Three religions. Critical thinking is not a form of incivility or Western imperialism. It’s our most important strategy for survival.

Spread the joy...

The school refused to let the group be chartered as a school club. They cited the group’s name, the fact that students would have to pledge to Jesus Christ to vote in the club and that allowing the club in would bring religion into the school. The club’s would-be founders then sued the Kent School District, claiming discrimination.

Couldn’t this have been more easily resolved? Like, say, drop the pledge to Jesus requirement? Open up the study to anyone interested in the Bible?

After all, it should be pretty obvious that, for better or worse, the Bible is an important literary work in the history of Western Civilization. A lot of claims have been made based on its contents that people have used to justify slavery and its abolition; war and peace; Jim Crow and Civil Rights; Creationism and The Big Bang; monarchy and democracy; burning heretics at the stake and religious tolerance; overthrowing the State and imposing Absolute Rule; etc, etc, etc.

I seriously doubt such discussion is what this Bible study group had in mind. (The price of religious fealty for admission gives a clue.) The difficulty we have in even allowing space for such discussions in public education — opposition coming from religious zealots and from church-and-state separators alike (though not at all alike, I should add; the latter just want to keep religious indoctrination at bay) — speaks volumes about the low level of religious maturity extent in our culture. Just too politically loaded.

Speaking of using the Bible to justify dumb shit, Barry posts an interesting excerpt on the various pro-slavery arguments that Americans used prior to the Civil War. Instructive stuff.

Spread the joy...