Tag Archives: religion

Congressman says he doesn't believe in God

Posted on by
Comment

Some thoughts about religion and government.

Earlier this month — much earlier; I’m just catching up with my reading now — Congressman Pete Stark of California became the first high-ranking politician to admit that he didn’t believe in God.

From “Congressman says he doesn’t believe in God” in the LA Times:

“When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being,” Stark said. “Like our nation’s founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services.”

I have to commend Congressman Stark on his brave stance. In a day and age when an American’s value to his country seems linked with the depth of his religious beliefs, it’s refreshing to read about someone who isn’t a “me too” member of the Christian club.

I chose the quote above because it echoes my sentiments about religion:it has no place in our government. Early settlers came to the New World to escape religious persecution — this country was built, in part, on religious and cultural diversity. The founding fathers were careful not to promote one religion over another when drafting the documents that would structure the country’s government. The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees religious freedom. I take that to mean the freedom to believe whatever you like.

There’s no place in public schools for prayer, there’s no place in the science classroom for creationism (no matter what it’s called), there’s no place in government buildings for the Ten Commandments. There’s no reason why our rights should be limited because certain members of the government believe that certain private behaviors — homosexuality, pre-marital sex, abortion — are “unacceptable to God.”

And look what happens in a country ruled by religion — a country like Iraq. Constant fighting among members of the different religious groups — groups with different versions of the same basic beliefs. As reported just yesterday in “Shiite police kill up to 60 in revenge spree” in USA Today:

Shiite militants and police enraged by massive truck bombings in the northwestern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there on Wednesday, killing as many as 60 people, officials said.

You might say that the U.S. could never get like that, but consider the bombings at abortion clinics and the hate crimes against gays. We’re only a step away.

So when I read that a Congressman has stepped forward to admit that he doesn’t believe in God and that he wants to stop the “promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services,” I feel a certain amount of hope for the future of our country.

The phrase that comes to mind is one I heard many times as a child: “Truth, justice, and the American way.” I’m all for it here.

Penn Radio Podcast

Posted on by
Comment

No bullsh*t.

Penn Gillette, the bigger and louder half or the Penn & Teller magic team, is the kind of guy that you either love or hate. He’s loud and he can definitely be obnoxious. But, like me, he has a zero-tolerance stand on bull.

I subscribe to the Penn Radio Podcast. I listen to about half the episodes. It’s usually just a talk show with Penn and his sidekick, Michael Goudeau, talking about a topic in the news and people calling in. Some of the callers are good, others are clearly wacko. Talk radio at its best.

I agree with a lot — but not all — of what Penn has to say, especially about religion and politics. You might think that’s scary. I know my mother would. (Let’s not tell her, okay?)

Once in a while, they have a guest. Penn and the guest, with a little input from Michael, chat about things. Informative, entertaining, enlightening. Usually something to think about.

Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other DelusionsEvery once in a while, Penn has a better than average guest. (Phyllis Diller was one of them months ago.) I just finished listening to his February 9 show, which featured James Randi, a skeptic who has devoted much of his life to exposing fraudulent psychics, claims of ESP, and other “new age phenomena.” In other words, bullsh*t. He even wrote a book about it: Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions. The radio show was an interesting look at the tricks today’s top psychics use to give “readings” as well as insight into people who really believe they have these powers.

Anyway, if the topic interests you, you might want to download the podcast episode and give it a listen. Use the Comments link to let me know what you think about it.

And please try to keep Randi-bashing comments to yourself. I just read enough of them on Amazon.com.

“Kingdom Coming”

Posted on by
2

A book excerpt at Salon.com.

Salon.com has published an excerpt from Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg. (You may have to watch a brief ad to read the excerpt; it’s worth it.) The book covers a topic that has been worrying me for some time now: the religious right’s efforts to base the American government on pure Christian beliefs.

Some of you reading this might say, “What’s wrong with that?” Let me tell you.

  • Some of the first people to come to this country — remember the pilgrims? — came so they could have religious freedom — the freedom to practice and follow their own religious beliefs.
  • The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — which you can find near the bottom of the navigation column on most pages of this site — begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (And yes, I am aware that more Americans can name the five members of the Simpsons cartoon family than can name the rights granted in the First Amendment.)
  • The establishment of laws that are based on a belief system could restrict the freedoms of people who don’t share those beliefs — for example, the country’s homosexual population. This country was built on freedom.
  • Setting school curriculums based on theology could prevent students from learning and building on generally accepted scientific theories — like evolution. Over time, that could severely curtail America’s scientific advances — students that aren’t taught real science can’t be real scientists.
  • A government theocracy could use religion as a reason to wage war against groups of a different religion as a matter of policy.

These are just a few reasons that come to mind as I sit here typing this.

I don’t want to read this book. I don’t want to know what’s inside it. Just knowing that this situation exists scares me. I can’t believe that in the year 2006, there are still people who’d like to force others to teach creationism in school or make homosexuality illegal. It’s as if we’re taking a giant step backwards, into the Dark Ages. I’d like to take the ostrich approach and just stick my head in the sand.

But when it comes time to vote, I’ll be at the polls. And any candidate that uses religion as any part of his/her campaign will not get my vote.

Keep religion out of government.

Stand Up for Your Principles

Posted on by
3

I’m baffled by people who can’t.

I consider myself a person with principles. My principles might not match yours and you might not even think they’re any good. But that’s not the point. I have principles and I stand by them.

For example, I believe that if a man and a woman are in a relationship, they should be faithful to each other. That’s one of my principles.

I believe that people should not lie, cheat, or steal. That’s another principle.

I believe that people should be tolerant of other people’s religion, political beliefs, and sexual orientation. More principles.

These basic principles — and lots more where they came from — are what guide me in my daily activities.

I stand up for what I think is right. That’s why I write so many opinion pieces on this site and wickenburg-az.com. I see something I don’t think is right and I want people to know it. I want them to see — even for a moment — why the thing is wrong. Or at least why I think it’s wrong. I want them to look into it for themselves, think about it with their own brains, and make a decision. Then I want them to act on that decision.

One of the biggest complaints I hear these days is that a single person can’t make a difference. I think that’s a cop-out, an excuse not to try. The trouble is, too many people believe it. Too many people are willing to ignore their principles because it’s the easy thing to do.

Everyone can make a difference. If you believe in something, let it guide you. Don’t settle for less.

And don’t give up, just because it’s easier than trying.

DaVinci Code Plagiarism?

Posted on by
Comment

What?

Okay, so we all know that I sometimes retreat into a cave where I have no knowledge of current events. But this isn’t even current. It’s been going on since February. And even I can’t stay in a cave that long.

I’m talking about the plagiarism lawsuit over The DaVinci Code.

I heard about it today and spent some time catching up on the news with some good old Google searching. It appears that the authors of The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail (HBHG), which I thought was a work of non-fiction, are suing the author of The DaVinci Code (DC), clearly a work of fiction, for “appropriating” the central theme of their book for his. The situation is summed up quite nicely in this article from the The Times of London.

I read both books. Here’s my take.

I read DC first, primarily because it was getting so much press. This was about two years ago. I found the story very interesting — in fact, it was the primary reason I kept reading. It had a lot of fascinating “facts” and puzzles. I’m a sucker for fiction based on little-known fact and this had me hooked with its wild premise — that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, who escaped to France with their child — based on a string of facts that could just make the premise true. But as for writing style, characterization, etc., Dan Brown missed the boat, at least as far as I’m concerned.

I’m not the only one who feels this way. Frank Wilson of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, quoted in Opus Dei, said:

In my view, the book is unexceptionally written, with minimal character development and a third-rate guidebook sense of place. It is, however, a quick and easy read, largely because most of the chapters are only a few pages long, and just about all of them end as cliffhangers.

If you don’t pay too much attention, but sort of let the book go in one eye and out the other, you’ll get to the end before you know it. [Emphasis added.]

And Peter Millar of The Times of London (again quoted in Opus Dei — they must love this stuff) said,

This is without doubt, the silliest, most inaccurate, ill-informed, stereotype- driven, cloth-eared, cardboard-cutout-populated piece of pulp fiction that I have read. And that’s saying something. [Emphasis added.]

They said it better than I could. But there was enough page turning action to get people to read it — I breezed through the first half in a day, then finished it up a few days later — and I think the premise was more than enough to get people talking about it. The result: a bestseller from a rather average piece of writing. (It wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last.)

After reading it, I remember wondering why it was a bestseller. Maybe I missed something? I read fast and that tends to lessen the reading experience. So I did double duty and I read Brown’s Angels and Demons, too. More of the same poor characterization but with better puzzles and an even less believable plot. I don’t need to read any more Dan Brown.

Anyone who thinks Dan Brown is a great writer must read an awful lot of crap. (I’m sure that statement will get me in trouble somewhere.)

Intrigued by the whole Jesus-was-married-and-the-Catholic-Church-tried-to-hide-it thing, I sought out HBHG. I found it in my local library, of all places. It was a slow read, even for me. But I slogged through it. Lots of fascinating stuff, in painstaking detail. (Too much detail for light reading, if you ask me.) It seemed to provide all the background information for DC — the well-researched facts to back up the book’s central premise.

In fact, I always assumed that Dan Brown had read HBHG — he mentions it in DC — and had written a novel based on it. After all, how could he — a novelist — have come up with all that material by himself? It would take years to dig all that up. Or a reading list that included HBHG and a few other books that covered the same general topics.

Mind you, I don’t think it’s wrong to base a work of fiction on a work of non-fiction. And that’s where I’m having a problem with the lawsuit. Is it wrong? Am I wrong to think that it’s not?

My understanding of copyright law is that you cannot copyright an idea. Has someone changed that?

As a Guardian Unlimited article points out,

The case is also likely to clarify existing copyright laws over the extent to which an author can use other people’s research.

And that’s what scares me. Suppose I read a handful of books about Abraham Lincoln in preparation for writing a novel that takes place during his presidency. Suppose one of the books says something silly — like he was gay (hmmm, why does that sound so familiar?) — and that becomes one of the underlying themes of my book. Will the author that built the Lincoln-was-gay premise be able to turn around and sue me for plagiarism?

I guess if my book became a bestseller, anything is possible.

And then there’s Lewis Perdue, the author of Daughter of God, who claims that Dan Brown plagiarized his book. I guess he’ll be suing next. Until then, he’ll keep himself busy with his own blog, The Da Vinci Crock. I haven’t read his book, but if his claims are true, it would appear that he has a stronger case than the HBHG authors. Perhaps he just doesn’t have as much money for lawyers.

The lawsuit’s court case ended today, which is probably why I finally heard about it. You can read the Reuter’s coverage of the closing day here.

I’ll be waiting to hear how the judge rules.