The Case of the Mysterious Book

Mystery achievement

Don’t breathe down my neck, no

I got no trophies on display

I sign them away, I mean what the heck?

~~ “Mystery Achievement” by The Pretenders

I posted about this on Facebook and got so many interesting remarks, and it prompted my own thoughts, that I decided I’d make a blog entry out of it.

On Friday, I got a package in the mail, and when I opened it, I found this book and this note. I do not know who sent it. It came from the return address of sales and marketing company in Brea, California. I do not know of anyone who is in Brea, I don’t recognize the handwriting on the note, and there was no additional note to tell me who sent it.

Muy misterioso, no?

I can only assume that it was a Facebook friend who decided that I might be interested in the book and took the time to look up my address online (probably not hard to do) and package it up and mail it out. When I posted it on Facebook, I said that if the person who sent it doesn’t want to post publicly, they could send me a private message, but I still have not had anyone step up and say that they were the one who sent it.

At first, I took it as an oddity, a weird little mystery about which to speculate on Facebook, and didn’t think too much about it. But as is my wont, I kept thinking about it, because something about it just niggled at me. And, as is also my wont, I have a few things to say about it. If this person is a Facebook friend, as I suspect, I hope they see this, because they need to.

First, Lee Strobel is generally considered to be a total hack among my atheist friends. He attempts to couch things in scientific terms, but he’s no more a scientist than I’m the Queen of England. He has no background in science whatsoever. Zero.

Second, why the secrecy? Why didn’t you sign your name? It’s almost as though you are ashamed, or more likely, worried about what I might say to you. (The latter is a legitimate concern, as you can tell, because I am writing a blog entry about it.)

And what is your purpose in sending this to me? Do you want to convert me? Are you so concerned about your own beliefs that you feel that I need to validate them with my own approval? (This was posited by my friend Mark, and I think it’s a legitimate point, one that hadn’t occurred to me.)

Finally, and this is really important, you have no idea of how I came to this point in my feelings about religion. You seem to have the arrogance to think that I haven’t thoroughly thought about this in my 50+ years of life on this earth. That if I really think about it, and read a book by some dude with no science background, I’ll suddenly have an epiphany and the scales will fall from my eyes.

You have no idea about my background or what type of religious indoctrination (I use that word purposefully) I received. You have no clue about the conflicts with which I have struggled in my life, including an ex-husband who “found God” and decided that I was possessed by a demon. You don’t know about someone in my life who burned one of my books because it had bad words in it. BURNED A BOOK.

You don’t know how I have grappled with these matters for much of my adult life, and the guilt that I have felt because I wasn’t pious enough or worthy enough to get into heaven and would surely burn in hell.

You don’t know how I prayed desperately for God to heal people I loved dearly, including an aunt who was like my second mom and an uncle who told me from his hospital bed that he thought of me as his daughter. They died, anyway.

You don’t know how I can’t be myself around certain family members because for them to find out that I don’t believe would be so horrible to them that I would be getting daily, tearful calls telling me to mend my ways.

You don’t know. But you were presumptuous enough to send me this book, thinking that you might save my soul, or that I might validate you, or whatever the hell reason you sent it to me. But you didn’t have the courage to stand up for your convictions and at least say, “Hey, Beth, I sent this to you because….” You did it anonymously. I think that is something you might need to explore about yourself, rather than worrying about my immortal soul.

One of the many reasons I left religion behind was the arrogance of those who have decided that their beliefs are the only true ones and that everyone must get on that Jesus train or burn in hell. My ex-husband was determined that I would see the light and when I saw that his attempts to convert me were going to continue as long as I was married to him, I asked for a divorce.

I do not make decisions lightly, and leaving religion behind was not easy. It took me many years of thinking, pondering, and discussion. Do you know how incredibly difficult it is to break away from a mindset and belief system that has been indoctrinated in you since you were old enough to walk? This has not been an easy journey for me and I still deal with family issues because of it. I’ll just say it...the fact that you would presume so many things about me and decide that I need to get religion is not only offensive to me, it is insulting. And it pissed me off. That is something you really don’t want to do.

Listen. I’m a tolerant person. I’m cool with people believing what they want to believe, as long as those beliefs don’t hurt or discriminate against others. Some people who have a deep and abiding faith do very good things because they feel it is the central tenet of many religions to serve others. I respect that, I really do. But some of us help others because we feel it’s just the right thing to do. Both are equally valid approaches with a common goal.

So if I can respect those who believe, why can’t you, Mystery Mailer, respect me for not believing?

Do unto others, man. Do unto others.

Pointless

As the floods of God wash away sin city

They say it was written in the page of the Lord

But I was looking for that great jazz note

That destroyed the walls of Jericho

The winds of fear whip away the sickness

The messages on the tablet was valium

As the planets form that golden cross Lord

I'll see you on the holy cross roads

After all this time to believe in Jesus

After all those drugs I thought I was Him

After all my lying and a-crying

And my suffering

I ain't good enough

I ain't clean enough

To be Him

The tribal wars burning up the homeland

The fuel of evil is raining from the sky

The sea of lava flowing down the mountain

The time will sweep us sinners by

Holy rollers roll

Give generously now

Pass the hubcap please

Thank you Lord

~~ “Sound of the Sinners” by The Clash

I often pass a church on my way home from the grocery store or the library and they always have a pithy saying on their sign. I think there is a website where churches get these sayings because I’ve seen other posts with the similar lame sentiments.

My personal favorite is, and always will be, “Stop Drop and Roll Doesn’t Work in Hell.”

Now that is some freakin’ WISDOM right there!

I don’t generally go around getting pissed off at church signs. I usually just roll my eyes and cruise right on by. But last week’s sign caught my eye and it really did piss me off.

It was the saying there in the photo.

I may or may not have flipped the sign off as I drove by. (Okay, I totally flipped off the sign. Double bird, too.)

I find that sentiment completely offensive. I live a full and happy life completely god-free, and I know plenty of others who do, too. Our lives are not pointless. How dare this church or any other church tell me that my life is pointless? (And let’s not even get into the fact that they are comparing me to a pencil. If anything, I’d choose to be a purple Sharpie, okay? Bastards.)

I have adopted a “live and let live” attitude towards others’ religious beliefs. As long as you keep it out of my government and out of our schools and don’t harm your kids or other people, it’s really none of my business. I don’t care. Your religion is your business. I’m cool with that! Just don’t try to convert me, okay? You will only succeed in irritating me and making me not want to be around you. I’m cool with your religion. I expect—indeed, I demand!—that you be cool with my lack of one. See how that works?

Anyway, so why does any church get off on posting such a hostile sign? And yes, I DO think it is hostile. It is saying that MY LIFE IS POINTLESS.

A couple of years ago, I recall seeing a Facebook post from a friend concerning religion and atheists. Another friend commented that they didn’t see how anyone who doesn’t believe in God (their capitalization, not mine) can possibly find any joy in life. I commented that I find joy every day in the things around me. I have a happy life with a husband who is a kind and decent man; I love our cat; I live out in the country in our own little wildlife preserve and I get to see all kinds of birds and other wildlife; I have family and friends who love me; I get to travel and see all kinds of interesting things and meet interesting people. I have so much music to listen to and so many books to read! Joy is everywhere!

Another friend commented, “Beth is one of the happiest people I know.”

The other friend (who didn’t get how anyone without a god could find joy) apologized to me, said that they didn’t know I was an atheist, and then they defriended me.

::sigh:: Okay. I get it. You don’t like having your ideas challenged. That’s fine.

But here is something that people like my former friend, or the church with the stupid sign, need to understand: there are many of us who live productive, meaningful, and very happy lives without relying on any belief in any sort of deity. We enjoy helping others, we have compassion, we want to do good in this world. We do it not because we will reap any reward in some potential afterlife. We do it because we live in the here and now and we want to help in the here and now. It’s not because we want to feel good, although helping others definitely feels good. We do it because it is the right thing to do for our fellow human beings, for our fellow creatures on the planet, AND for our planet!

All that without any sort of god. Kinda crazy, huh?

I won’t be attending your church, you with the nasty sign. I would never say that YOUR life is pointless. I don’t think it’s very nice of you to say that MINE is.

In fact, I think it’s downright un-Christianly.

Beth’s Books: The Return of the Grifter

No, that’s not the title of the book. It’s actually Sarah Palin’s latest “book,” Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas. I had to put the word ‘book’ in quotation marks, because I’m not sure this crapfest qualifies as a bona fide book.

Full disclosure: I read this book for the sole purpose of trashing it on here. I generally try to ignore the Half-Gov, because she really is irrelevant, but when she told President Obama on her Facebook page to “stop playing the race card,” I thought, “It’s payback time. You called down the thunder...well, you now you got it! I’m comin’, Half-Gov. And Hell’s comin’ with me, you hear? Hell’s comin’ with me!!”

Ahem. Where was I? Oh yes. Payback. Payback for telling our first African-American President to stop playing the race card. On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, no less. If that doesn’t deserve a little bit of righteous smackdown, I don’t know what does. And I’m just the gal to do it. So let’s get started, shall we? Kick back, because this is going to be a long one.

First of all, I refused to give this grifter one penny. I was trying to find a free download, and finally saw that it was available as an e-book from my wonderful local library. You know, the socialist one where all the liberal elites hang out. I’m sure she got a few gullible people to fork over some dough for this, but I wasn’t one of them.

It’s difficult to convey just how horrid this thing is, but I’ll try.

Drop the adjectives and walk away. Nothing is simple in the Half-Gov’s world (except for the Half-Gov herself). There can’t just be a Christmas tree...it has to be a fragrant Charlie Brown tree with twinkling lights. There isn’t just snow...there is crisp and crunchy snow. People don’t just sing carols, their pure voices soar to the starry heavens with humble joy, their eyes alight with Christmas cheer. These are not actual examples from the book (I’ll get to that later), but this is the kind of “writing” you’ll find there. Adjectives are helpful in small doses, but not every noun has to be accompanied by one. There are several grammatical errors, too, including apostrophe abuse. It makes me laugh that she was a journalism major. Oh, wait...it makes me utter a jolly laugh, my rosy cheeks flushed with good humor, my twinkling eyes flashing in the mellow glow of my trusty laptop. ::eye roll::

Ditch the delusion of the idyllic family and household. There is plenty of stuff about the Half-Gov gathering her brood around and reading the story of Baby Jeebus to them and getting all choked up over it. There’s also plenty of family and friends gathering in the kitchen to bake Christmas treats. I cracked up over this: “Nothing says Christmas like strapping on an apron, heading to the kitchen with friends and family, and cooking and baking yourself into the Christmas spirit.” This “book” would have been more tolerable if I’d baked myself! There are stories of her wonderful childhood and the special Christmases she had. She tells a story about wanting a Walkman one year and getting a dictionary instead. “...my good parents were teaching me a lesson I would remember forever. Words matter.” I about fell over laughing. Should have spent a little more time with that dictionary, Half-Gov! Although I’m sure you would refudiate that.

Get off the cross, Mary, we need the wood. There is a pervasive tone of personal persecution in her writing. She would be riffing on the joys of Christmas at one moment and toss in a snarky comment about Nancy Pelosi or liberals in general in the next. She often mentions her and McCain’s loss in 2008, and it’s obvious that she is still very bitter about it. She bitches about her treatment by the “lamestream media” (which she later abbreviates as LSM), she mentions the “angry, outraged, and just plain silly and rude responses” that she gets when she posts something on Facebook, and she says she gets “vile tweets.” She chalks this up to “the fringe” commenters. Sorry, Half-Gov, but not liking you doesn’t make people “the fringe.” She says, “The media speaks for itself and not the masses. Ignore it.” I think a more truthful statement would have been, “If the media calls me on my lies, ignore them.” She even mentions the ridiculous “free Obamaphone vouchers” story. When writing about her and some family members volunteering at a Wasilla soup kitchen on Christmas, she can’t stop herself from going on about losing the election and how she was maligned, her family mocked, their privacy lost. She then bitches about the ethics charges with which she was hit in Alaska: “My approval ratings—which had been the highest in the nation—plummeted.” Merry Christmas, poor people! News flash, Half-Gov: your approval ratings didn’t plummet because you had ethics charges brought against you. They plummeted because people saw for themselves that you abused the power of your office and they realized that you weren’t quite the person you had portrayed yourself to be. She equates the Affordable Care Act with “secular leftists” who view “babies as expendable and older Americans as crippling cost centers.” It’s the death panels again! She just can’t stop herself from regurgitating the same old lies.

Scenariopalooza. We are treated to the inner musings of the Half-Gov’s odd little mind as she regales us with constant fictional scenarios. We start with “Joe McScrooge,” an “angry atheist with a lawyer.” Joe listens to NPR (elitist!), and when he goes to the small town where his ex-wife lives with their son, he is disgusted with the public religious displays. When Joe McScrooge gets to the school, he parks “between two pickup trucks, one sporting a red-and-gold Semper Fi window decal, the other a faded, peeling McCain-Palin ‘08 bumper sticker. Joe audibly gagged.” Audibly! I wonder if he sounded like Sheeba coughing up a hairball? I’d like to think so. We get another pair of scenarios set in 2028, with the Half-Gov visiting her grandson Tripp at the University of Alaska. In the first, atheistic version, the communications director she speaks with wears Birkenstocks, there are gender-neutral bathrooms with foot-washing stations for Muslims, and Pagan and Muslim holiday celebrations occur, but Christian ones do not. In the non-atheistic version, all religions are celebrated—except the Christian celebrations are the best because DUH—and to top it all off, we get to hear about President-Elect Romney and his great hair! The Half-Gov Grammy thinks, “I guess sixth time’s the charm.” By the time I got to the “Joe the Student” scenario, I laughed out loud and thought, “Oh boy, another scenario!” Poor Joe the Student feels persecuted by the anti-Christian policies of his public school, and his parents are too busy with work to push back against the persecution. She didn’t specify if Joe’s dad was also a Joe, but it sure seems like there are a lot of Joes in the Half-Gov’s imaginary world! Personally, I was hoping for a story about Joe the Proctologist or Joe the Male Prostitute, but I was disappointed.

Atheists hate Christmas, the Baby Jeebus, America, and they have no morals. Here we get to the crux of this “book,” which is that “...the ‘war on Christmas’ is the tip of the spear in the larger battle to secularize our culture and make true religious freedom a thing of America’s past.” I call bullshit, Half-Gov. She seems unable to grasp the difference between religious displays on private property and those on public property, as well as the difference between atheists taking offense at the latter as opposed to the former. The vast majority of atheists I know are of the “live and let live” variety. If you want to put up a nativity on your front lawn, knock yourself out. But keep it out of our government offices, okay? She writes, “The atheists are trying to make Nativity scenes such a pain for cities to maintain that the public officials will simply remove all religious displays entirely.” Bingo! Give that Half-Gov a kewpie doll! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and she got this one right. Until we stop seeing all religious displays in government facilities, I say keep pushing for those Festivus poles. For the record, I don’t know of anyone who sees a Christmas tree (or holiday tree...I don’t care what you want to call it) as a strictly Christian display. The Christians stole it from the Druids, after all. A nativity scene is obviously Christian, however, and if you allow that to be displayed in your county courthouse, you’d better be prepared to allow a Menorah, a Festivus pole, or a pagan display, or any other display that any religious group wants to put up.

As for the “amoral atheists” stuff, I’m going to go into depth here and provide several quotes.

Without God as an objective standard, who’s to say what’s wrong and what’s right? Morality becomes a matter of the human will, as each person decides what’s right and what’s wrong for himself. 

Without faith, I doubt we’d have the love in our hearts that compels one to give, to volunteer, to be kind and loving to our neighbors, and to aspire to live the Golden Rule.

Without faith, we’d be, well, the secular Left—a group that data shows to be notoriously stingy with their time, money, and pleasant attitudes, and that believes ‘compassion’ is best represented by a failed welfare state that traps millions in lifelong poverty and despair.

Left to our own devices, without God in our lives, we drift toward evil.

I call bullshit—again. You DO know that the Golden Rule appears nowhere in the bible, right, Half-Gov? I also find it interesting that you provided no footnote as to your “data” that shows that atheists don’t give their time or money, or that they don’t have pleasant attitudes, or that they have no compassion. You know why? Because that data doesn’t exist. Liar. It strikes me as almost sad that so many people feel that without religion telling them what NOT to do, they would become “evil.” That doesn’t speak very well for you and your pals, does it? So you need to be told not to get all rapey and murdery and junk? Personally, I find that I’m not that way because it’s the right thing to do, both because I value my fellow human beings and because I value a civil society, and want to always try to do what is best for both. I may not always succeed, but I do try, and I somehow manage to keep my vile and amoral impulses in check.
Here are a few more fun quotes and my commentary:

...if you can’t handle protests, then it’s hard to handle other challenges of the job.

Oh, that’s rich! This would be the job that you QUIT halfway through, right? That job? I thought so.

...my friends bobbed their feather-banged heads to “Jessie’s Girl” and “9 to 5” on their headphones (I was more of a Van Halen and Joan Jett-type girl, and to get into a game-day mindset I’d listen to “Back In Black”).

If she listened to Van Halen, Joan Jett, and AC/DC in high school, I’ll eat my hat. I bet she was listening to Debby Boone wailing her way through “You Light Up My Life.”

She mentions her publisher, HarperCollins,

...the same publisher smart enough to publish this book.

That made me laugh.

She writes about the French Revolution and the Jacobins (“radical atheists”) changing street names to remove references to the saints:

We wouldn’t want any Frenchman to be offended and have a totally rotten, ruined day after glancing up at road signs to find his favorite baguette shop.

She really seems to dislike the French. Who can forget the fruit fly research in Paris, France??

I decided to run against good ol’ boy incumbents for mayor, then governor, because I knew the public deserved new energy to get the job done. [Emphasis mine]

Get the job done! That’s a hoot! But you DIDN’T get the job done, did you, HALF-Gov?

To sum up, this was yet another rendering of how the Half-Gov was persecuted and maligned and just plain bullied, gosh darn it. Not only in her brief political life, but those mean ol’ atheists are picking on her and her religion, too. She cherry-picks the words of the founders concerning a religious society, because taking the time to read more about how they felt is just too hard. Check out what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it sometime, Half-Gov, if you can tear yourself away from eating moose chili. Oh, and she includes a few recipes at the end of the book, including one for moose chili, and another recipe for something that I found rather exotic and experimental. Has anyone ever heard of these things called “Rice Krispie Treats”? Sounds really strange to me, but the Half-Gov swears by ‘em. Thank science she included the recipe, because I’m sure I never would have heard about this treat otherwise.

I’m not sure when I’ve read such a steaming pile of literary malfeasance. The Half-Gov is self-serving, self-centered, and completely narcissistic. Her portrayal of her magical, idyllic life (except for that bad spell where her teenage daughter somehow found herself preggers and her and Todd had a fight about it, and then all that losing and quitting and ethics charges junk) reminded me very much of someone we dealt with for quite a while, but no longer have to, thank science. When I was describing some of this to Ken and asked him who it made him think of, he knew exactly who I was talking about, and some of you will, too. There was definitely a feel of the “cozy country cottage” and “little cottage kitchen” (which was actually a small house in a suburb of a small city) in this “book.”

I’ll leave you with one final quote from the “book”:

And yet I’m pegged the idiot by the LSM?

Haters gonna hate

You might think that this time of year, when people usually think about peace and family and Coke-drinking polar bears and all things squee and squishy, we’d get a little break from the hate. You might think that, but you’d be wrong.

Oh, the majority are definitely not hatin’, but it seems like it’s the exceptions that always stand out. I really started noticing it the other day when one of our local TV stations posted the Obama family’s Christmas picture on their Facebook page. It’s really a nice picture, with everyone smiling and holding hands, and the girls look so sweet and they’re getting so big. However, knowing my community and having seen some of the comments that have been posted on the station’s page on other topics, I had a feeling that it was going to get nasty. I tried a preemptive strike with this comment: “It's a great picture of a lovely family. It would be nice if people could focus on that during this holiday season.” Of course, it did no good, with attitudes ranging from apathy to rage; a couple of people took the opportunity to disparage the President for his upcoming family vacation in Hawaii; one person called him ‘evil.’ There were a handful of comments similar to mine there, and I took some heart from that.

Then Christopher Hitchens died. The atheist community is in mourning; whether or not you liked the man, he had an incredible intellect, and his writings will be greatly missed. He was also a son, a brother, a husband, and a father, as well as a good friend to many. The response from some on the Christian right was not unexpected, but I was still taken aback by the sheer ferocity of the hatred. The horrid Bryan Fischer predictably said that Hitchens is in Hell, then went on to say that it was because “God loves him.” Whatever. Apparently irony is beyond the guy’s limited grasp. One of Hitchens’ books is titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, so some folks on Twitter started the hashtag GodIsNotGreat. That didn’t go over well with some, and whoever started the hashtag was told to commit suicide and threatened with death. That seems to be a bit of an overreaction to me, especially when you’re proclaiming God’s awesomeness while simultaneously writing that you’re going to beat the shit out of the person who dares to disagree, or shoot them in the face.

Today, I read an article on a Catholic website stating that the atheists who had the audacity to file a lawsuit over a government-declared Day of Prayer in Arizona were whining, pathetic cowards. It included this memorable quote from author Mary Kochan: “Yes, you are outsiders. Go start your own damn country. This one was started by Christians, you puerile dimwits.” Gosh, I’m just overwhelmed by the sheer outpouring of Christian love! The broader issue here, that of the constitutionality of any government promoting religion, is beside the point. I was rather stunned at the rage emanating from this woman because someone dared to challenge the easy assumption of the Arizona government that everyone embraces Christianity and is perfectly fine with the government promoting prayer. Her level of anger seems a little out of proportion for a matter of people simply exercising their right to challenge such a declaration. I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t exactly make me think, “Wow, I’m going to get out of bed tomorrow morning and get to church bright and early, so I can meet people just like Mary Kochan!”

I’m pretty mellow this time of year. I can still get fired up about things, and often do. (Ol’ Mary might still get a comment from me on her article...I’ll be respectful, though. Kind of. In my own special way. Heh.) But I tend to let things slide a little more, I do my best to not take offense at statements that would normally start my chainsaw roaring, and I try to spread a little good cheer and good will. Sometimes it’s a matter of getting someone a gift that I think they’ll really like, and other times it’s as simple as smiling at someone who seems to be having a hard day. (At the grocery store the other day, I exchanged a smile and a few kind words with a woman whose little kid was screaming his fool head off. Wasn’t that better than making her feel bad by giving her a dirty look? I think so.) Tolerance is maybe one of the best gifts we can give, not just this time of year, but year round.

So I guess if you want to go after me for something I’ve written or done, now would be the time to do it. Just remember that I may be a little more mellow and tolerant at the moment...but in a couple of weeks, it will be a brand new year. And then all bets are off. [big grin]

Harris kicked his butt!

That may be the quote of the night, but I’ll get to that at the end.

I went to see Sam Harris debate William Lane Craig at Notre Dame this evening. (Heretofore known as SH and WLC.) I cannot begin to describe just how good this was, but I will try. I took many notes (along with a couple of crummy pictures on the sly...I wasn’t supposed to take any, but being the heathen that I am, I did...and I liked it!), and I think the easiest way to write this up will be to just transcribe my notes with a little “neatening up” and commentary for clarity. The premise of the debate was whether or not religion and/or God is required for morality, i.e., can someone be moral without being religious? Harris maintains that that is most certainly possible; Craig says no. It naturally ended up as a debate of whether or not there is a supreme being who shaped our world and expects our worship; if we do not accept those terms, we will burn in hell. So here are my notes, and I’ll try to make some sense out of them. I can already see that there are some things I wrote down that I’m thinking “What was that about?” St. Anselm? What? Ha!

Heard behind me before the debate started: “I believe in a higher power...but I’m not Catholic.”

WLC looks smug. Harris opens his Mac.

WLC goes first, has 20 minutes to speak:

• Quotes SH from The Moral Landscape, but leaves out crucial points of his hypothesis, especially regarding genital mutilation of females. In some cultures, this is considered a “moral” reality, based on religious beliefs. As moral beings, how can anyone condone this? Craig doesn’t seem to grasp what Harris was saying about that.
• States that by nature, God is loving and kind
• Says that Judeo-Christian beliefs are to love your God, love your neighbor
• Compares humans to rats or insects
• Says “Nature is morally neutral”
• I want to barf (This was my thought, not a statement from him)
• Compares humans to bees, corn, and bacteria
• “If there is not a God, what foundation remains for objective moral duty?”
• Incest - without religion there is nothing to stop it (I might have laughed out loud at this point)
• States that Harris says there is no free will (since when did Harris say that?), so no one is morally responsible
• Says that Harris says right and wrong don’t exist

Sam Harris gets 20 minutes:

• He is surprisingly soft-spoken
• Quotes his book concerning burqas; considered moral in that society, but highly restrictive of the rights of women in ours.
• Where do our notions of right and wrong come from? Evolution and then cultural mores.
• Avoid the worst possible misery for everyone; that is what drives our morality and guides us to making things better for others.
• Talks at length about the Taliban; a highly religious society that dictates morality, but one that we find repugnant. They feel that throwing acid in the faces of young girls who dare to go to school is perfectly acceptable, and their literacy rate for women is something like 12%.
• Generally seems to be a little more humorous, in a low-key way
• Speaks of the value of evidence and logic, whether looking for reasons behind morality or for a belief in a god

WLC rebuttal:

• God is essentially compassionate
• Moral values are grounded ontologically in God
• Speaks of the non-moral uses of “good,” using ridiculous, semantic arguments--bullshit
• Atheism cannot explain moral values because atheists can’t see any reason to act morally; they have no moral lawgiver.
• My head is exploding! (My thought, not his.)

SH rebuttal:

• Any god is either impotent or evil
• If you’re praying to the wrong god, you’re doomed...no evidence to support this. Made a comparison to Lord of the Rings. I snorted, and the crowd laughed (at his remark, not at my snort, although those in my immediate proximity might have been laughing at me).
• The Bible supports slavery
• God is psychotic--totally detached from the well-being of humanity
• References transubstantiation by saying that it’s like praying over pancakes to turn into Elvis. I snorted again.
• “I hate to break it to you here at Notre Dame, but Christianity is a religion of sacrifice.”

WLC rebuttal:

• Responding to Harris’s remarks concerning an impotent or evil god, a psychotic god, Bible supporting slavery: “The less moral framework is ATHEISM!” There was laughter among the audience.
• If God does not exist, we have no foundation for morality
• Evil proves that God exists (I think I need to explore that premise further in another entry)
• The Taliban has got the wrong god

SH rebuttal:

• Every branch of science relies on core values
• Certain facts are objective
• “We have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question.” Brilliant!
• We can have a conversation that is from the first century, with the Old Testament. Or from the seventh century, with the Koran. Or we can have a discussion in the 21st century.

WLC closing statements: God is the paradigm of good blah blah blah

SH closing statements:

• Everything that WLC has said about Christianity could also be said about Islam
• The scriptures were written by men who had no concept of our worldview, or of what we have learned since they were alive.

Question and Answer time:

• Someone asks Harris if some religion could be true? Would he accept any religion as true? Harris says that in about five minutes, we could make a new religion. Let’s just cut out Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and at least half of the ten commandments. (The crowd laughs.)
• Someone asks about WLC’s previous remarks concerning light vs. dark (it was along the lines of O’Reilly talking about the tide goes in, the tide goes out...you can’t explain that), and how older societies turned to a magical explanation for the phenomenon. She stated that this is now explained by science. WLC goes into a long response about ontology vs epistemology. The questioner says, “Can I clarify? Why is God an explanation for morality?” (Laughter and mild cheers from the audience.) More stuff from Craig about ontology vs epistemology.
• The existence of God doesn’t really add to the concept of love. (I don’t recall the question there, but that was a statement from Harris.)
• A questioner asks about miracle stories, and how that can be explained. Harris says, “It would be trivially easy for God to convince me of his existence.” (Laughter from the audience.)
• A questioner asks about homosexual vs heterosexual love, says that the former was shown to him last night...as Harris struggles not to laugh, WLC berates the questioner for not being serious. In all fairness to WLC, although it was amusing, it was a troll question.
• Harris says that people are means, not ends...our happiness is dependent upon that of others. Unless we’re psychotic, we genuinely want to see others happy, and do what we can (while taking into account our own well-being) to achieve that.
• Harris says that this is the only world...it encompasses the most happy and the most miserable. Most of us want to help others rather than harm them.
• Harris mentions WLC’s “divine command theory.” God instructed Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham was going to do it. Harris’s point was that such blind obedience is not conducive to morality, and is no different than the Taliban ordering its religious adherents to throw acid in the faces of young girls who dare to go to school.
• Harris maintains that there is no consensus within Christianity; various denominations believe various things, and have differing dogma. Christian dogma is dependent not upon morality but upon whatever the hierarchy decides will be the dogma.
• WLC ends with the statement that there are no morals in atheism.

Whew! Man, that was a wild ride. I know that I’m biased, but I thought that Harris came across as rational and logical, humorous and earnest. He seemed much more relaxed and low-key; although I know he wasn’t speaking off-the-cuff, he seemed much more at ease and comfortable with his opinions and statements. Craig seemed stiff and uncomfortable, very rehearsed and stilted. I sensed that the crowd responded to Harris’s comments better than Craig’s; Harris’s comparison of the Taliban and Christianity seemed to resonate. Not that they are the same, but in one sense, they are: the absolute certainty that anyone who doesn’t believe the way they do will surely burn in hell. I felt like his examples of Taliban justice in the name of their religion got through to people; he questioned how certain any religion can be of their absolute righteousness. He implored people to think about what he said.

Here is what was really remarkable to me. This lecture took place at Notre Dame, that bastion of Catholic universities. (Although with President Obama speaking at their 2009 commencement, they seem to have lost a bit of their holy cred.) The questioners, who all seemed to be Notre Dame students, asked some great questions (except for the guy talking about last night’s homersextical experience) and were not giving Craig a pass. I honestly think that the students, at least, were much more in line with Harris’s thinking than Craig’s. They were definitely questioning, in every way, and I applaud both the university for hosting this debate, and the students for using their critical thinking and asking some really amazing questions. It was truly a fantastic debate, in a setting where you wouldn’t expect to see such a thing!

As for the title of this entry...on the way out, I overheard a young man (all decked out in a suit and tie) say to his friend, “Harris kicked his butt!” I was still on cloud nine feeling the same thing, so I said, “Excuse me...did I just hear you say that Harris kicked his butt?” He said, “Yeah!” I shook his hand, and he added, “I’m a good Christian, though!” He said something like “I don’t agree with either of them!” I have to chuckle about that. Was he telling me, or was he trying to convince himself? At least for that young man, Sam Harris succeeded in getting him to think past the indoctrination, and maybe start doing some critical thinking. If a self-proclaimed “good Christian” thought that Harris kicked butt, then I think that Harris pretty much kicked butt.

William Lane Craig? You got pwned. At the University of Notre Dame. Thanks for stopping by!

A non-reply reply

Remember not too long ago when I wrote a letter to my Governor, Mitch Daniels, concerning remarks he'd made about atheism? I was pleasantly surprised to get a reply yesterday! I can't say for sure that he definitely wrote it, but based on the tone, I kind of think that he did. (It was sent via email.)

Dear Ms. R.,

Thank you for your recent letter expressing concerns about my responses to a reporter's questions about atheism, and for this opportunity to respond. I have endeavored to be completely scrupulous about separating my faith from my public duties, and about serving all citizens of Indiana equally. I try to respect the views of all, in matters of public policy, or, in this case, personal religious views.

Enclosed is the complete text of my interview with this reporter on the subject. I think in reading the entirety of the comments you will find these values reflected. You certainly will find no disparagement of any individual nor any implied guilt by association with the historical facts and personages mentioned.

As my answers to the reporter reflected, I rarely, if ever, mention religious matters in public and that will continue to be my practice. Thanks again for this opportunity to respond.

Sincerely, Mitch Daniels

He enclosed the attachment of the full text of the interview, and there really wasn't much that was new compared to the excerpts I posted on my entry and included in the letter I wrote to him.

A few thoughts.

I give him credit for responding, or at least getting someone on his staff to respond. Since I sent it snail mail, I really do hope that he read it and that it made him think a little bit.

I also give him credit for rarely bringing his faith up in the public forum; he wasn't lying about that. He definitely keeps his faith private, and I've rarely heard him speak of it. As far as public policy, I can't think of any overtly religious legislation that I've seen happen under his watch. I could be wrong, but I can't recall any big controversies that have happened here recently, so I don't think he's used his governorship to promote any sort of religious agenda.

So I've given him two credits, and I really do appreciate that he wrote back to me. However, I have one huge problem with something he wrote:

"You certainly will find no disparagement of any individual nor any implied guilt by association with the historical facts and personages mentioned."

Let's take a look at something he said in the original interview:

"And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists. Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth. Because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment, and there is no—nothing other than the brief time we spend on this earth."

First of all, he's saying that Hitler was an atheist, which I pointed out in my original letter is historically inaccurate. Hitler was raised as a Catholic, and in a speech before the Reichstag in 1936, Hitler said, "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." Does that sound like an atheist to you? You can find numerous references to God and religion in his speeches and writings, and a belief that he was doing what God intended him to do. The Nazis themselves came from the German people—it’s not like they were imported from elsewhere—who were by and large a religious bunch at the time. As for Stalin, he was also raised as a Catholic, and apparently intended to become a priest. His clampdown on religion was not a matter of his own disbelief; it was a way to seize power in the country.

I think that Governor Daniels' association of atheists with some of the most brutal dictators in history is definitely disparaging towards atheists. That most certainly IS guilt by association.

He stated that atheism leads to brutality. Also completely untrue. Are there atheists that commit brutal crimes? Undoubtedly. However, since atheists make up perhaps 16% of the population, I'm guessing that proportionately more crimes are committed by those with some sort of religious affiliation. There is no causality here, and saying that "atheism leads to brutality" is also a very disparaging remark against atheists. His notion that not believing in an eternity of salvation or damnation leads to such brutality, or results in increased crimes because of the lack of divine retribution, is also completely false. Some people can be good merely because it is the right thing to do, and it is the best thing for the betterment of society and fellow human beings. This is an old argument from theists, and it is one that simply does not hold water. I guarantee that if you polled most atheists, the vast majority would say that when they decided they didn't believe, they didn't suddenly go on a crime spree, murderin' and pillagin' and rapin' like a bunch of lunatic Visigoths. Seriously...a very stupid argument and one that needs to be retired.

While he has not been vocal in his faith or tried to push some sort of religious agenda upon my state, his statements show a profound lack of understanding when it comes to dealing with people who profess no faith, as well as a disrespect for their sense of morality. I find that sort of attitude typical of those who would attempt to vilify nonbelievers, I find it rather arrogant, and have to ask: are you that horrible of a person that you can't bring yourself to do good without the threat of eternal damnation? I would also point out that those priests who continue to rape children, and their superiors who continue to cover it up (that includes you, Ratzi), don't seem to be taking the whole eternal damnation thing to heart, because it's sure not stopping them, is it? I don't rape children, and do you know why? Because it's horrible and wrong and morally reprehensible. What is the priests' excuse for continuing to do so, in spite of the threat of the Fiery Pits of Hell™?

I'll leave you with another quote: "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people."

Does anyone know who said that? No cheating by googling! Let’s see some guesses. And what do you think? Do you agree with that statement? I will write more about it soon, after you give me your best guesses on the speaker. I'm sure that some of you already know the answer, and if you do, shoot me an email at Luvrte66@aol.com rather than leaving it in a comment. See if others can make a good guess at it first.

Note: Upon publishing this, I saw that it was my 666th post! I just found that amusing.