Russian Orthodox Church Also Wants People to Die

A lot of people have written about the
pope’s remarks about
about condoms in Africa and AIDS. Comments that, if heeded, will cause
the death of hundreds or thousands of people.

But Ebonmuse at Daylight Atheist
points out
that the Russian Orthodox church, in which I was raised,
agrees with the pope
(original in Russian
here).

“It is incorrect to consider condoms as a panacea for AIDS,” the deputy chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin told a round table in Moscow on Friday, commenting on the international row concerned with the pope’s statement in Africa.

AIDS can be prevented not by contraceptives but by education and a righteous life, the priest said.

“If a person lives a sinful, aimless and senseless life, uses drugs and is lewd, some disease will kill him one day, neither a condom nor medicine will save him,” Fr. Vsevolod added.

This is typical of the black-and-white, all-or-nothing attitude one
sees so often in religion. Condoms aren’t a total solution, therefore
they shouldn’t be used at all.

Well, guess what? We don’t live in an ideal world. In the real world,
people do have sex with multiple partners, do share needles when
taking illegal drugs, do engage in all manner of unhealthy behavior,
and condoms are a cheap and effective way of reducing the
number of people who die of sexually-transmitted diseases.

BTW, there’s a missing final paragraph in the English version of the
story above. My translation:

“For the most part,” he
opines, “the spread of AIDS can be stopped only by
the moral growth of society, and not through the use of condoms,
single-use needles, or new medical treatments.”

I don’t particularly enjoy wearing a seat belt when I drive. But until
we manage to figure out how to prevent accidents altogether, they help
reduce the number of fatalities. What the Catholic and Orthodox
churches are saying is analogous to saying that people should learn to
drive better instead of wearing seat belts.

There is no total solution. But there are things we can do that help.
As a sysadmin, I run into this all the time. The perfect is the enemy
of the good. All too often, there is no ideal solution, and we have to
settle for something that merely leaves us better than before.

Bill Nye Booed for Stating Fact

Looks like Texas is the new Florida.

Think Atheist is reporting
that
Bill Nye the Science Guy was
giving a talk in Waco, TX, and mentioned that despite what it says in
Genesis 1:16,
the moon does not emit light, but merely reflects the light of the
sun. So he got booed, and one woman left with her children, so that
they wouldn’t have to hear such antireligious hate speech.

Note that this story does not appear at the Waco Tribune web site, or
in
Google News,
so take it with a grain of salt.

Update, 13:20: Fez points out that according to the nonfunctional link on Think Atheist, this story apparently dates to 2006.

Catholic Clergy Have Their Own Psychiatric Hospital?

Today’s Post
reports:

A Silver Spring psychiatric hospital that specializes in treating Catholic clergy has been cited for problems that are “serious in nature,” according to a report from Maryland health officials who investigated the facility after a patient drowned himself in a bathtub there in January.
[…]

St. Luke, which sees about 600 people a year, almost all of them priests and nuns […]

The thrust of the story is about poor conditions at the hospital, it
being ill-equipped to deal with suicidal patients, and so forth. Which
is a scandal, but not what caught my attention, which was:

There’s a psychiatric hospital that specializes in priests and nuns?
Seriously?

There are hospitals that specialize in soldiers, like Walter Reed. And
I imagine there are psychiatric hospitals that specialize in police
officers and firefighters. But clergy? Really?

If it’s that stressful a lifestyle, then maybe they should rethink how
they’re doing it.

More on ARIS’s “Nones”

I’ve taken a second look at the ARIS results, particularly the “Nones” which have attracted so much attention. Here’s a graph of various Nones through the three surveys, as a percentage of the US population at the time:

ARIS's "Nones"
(click to see a little larger.) This graph is drawn from data in Tables 1 and 3, and 4 of ARIS 2008.

Here, the topmost line represents what ARIS 2008 calls the “Nones”: atheists, agnostics, “anti-clerical theists”, nonreligious, and so forth. As expected, it’s the largest group.

It’s also the group that has grown the most since 1990, when NSRI 1990 (the survey to which ARIS 2001 was a followup) was conducted. However, its growth has slowed down substantially since 2001.

The red line at the bottom shows self-described agnostics, and the purple line just below that, self-described atheists. NSRI 1990 lumped atheists and agnostics together, so the leftmost data point actually shows the sum of both. This also explains the dip in 2001. The sum of self-described atheists and agnostics is 0.7% in 1990, 0.9% in 2001, and 1.6% in 2008, so the trend is actually increasing, and has apparently picked up steam (there were 29% more atheists+agnostics in 2001 than in 1990, and 78% more in 2008 than in 2001).

It’s interesting to contrast this to the slowing growth in Nones overall. I note that the “new atheist” bestsellers all came out between the last two surveys: The End of Faith in 2004, The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, and Letter to a Christian Nation in 2006, and god is not Great in 2007.

It would be nice to say that the Four Horsemen led to the growth in nonbelief, but there’s not enough data in here to jump to such a conclusion. At most, I think we can say that Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens haven’t killed atheism; atheists aren’t going back into the closet.

Lastly, the three triangles with no lines, in 2008, represent the answers in Table 4:

  • Atheist A: there is no such thing as a god.
  • Agnostic A: there is no way to know whether there are any gods.
  • Agnostic B: don’t know whether there are any gods.

The obvious thing to notice is that there are far more of them than either self-described atheists, agnostics, or both together. Doubtless this includes some Buddhists, Taoists, Scientologists, etc., but there are too few of those to account for these numbers. I suppose that some come from the “generically non-religious” pool, while others identify themselves as members of some mainstream religious group, but don’t accept all of the group’s tenets. “Cultural Catholics”, if you will.

All in all, it’s a bit disappointing that with all the hoopla about “the new atheism” and uppity unbelievers, out-of-the-closet atheists still haven’t cracked the 1% mark.

Another point that’s been talked about is the growth in “generic” Christianity (“Christian unspecified” and “Non-denominational Christian” in Table 4 of ARIS 2008). Some of this is due, I’m sure, to smaller churches shutting down and their parishioners migrating to generic megachurches. But the growth of the Nones leads me to suspect that it’s also due to a growing disenchantment with organized religion.

It’s not uncommon to hear a sentiment along the lines of “I’m a Christian, but religion is bullshit”. People who feel the divine, but feel that organized religions are corrupt, or self-serving, or otherwise undeserving of their membership. These people are not swelling the ranks of rationality; but at the same time, they’re diminshing church rolls, and helping to reduce the power base that the Pat Robertsons and Ted Haggards of the world can mobilize and use to wield social and political (to say nothing of monetary) power. So they’re a net gain.

In other words, what this data seems to show is that a) Americans are rejecting religion, and b) Americans are rejecting superstition. These are two separate issues, but in both cases, we’re moving in the right direction.

BillDo Lies About Stem Cell Ban

Today, BillDo put out a
release
boldly proclaiming
Obama to okay killing embryos“.

It is precisely because there are ethical alternatives to killing embryos that President Obama’s decision is doubly flawed: (a) it is immoral to intentionally destroy nascent human life, and (b) it is even more irresponsible to do so when morally acceptable alternatives exist.

This is so wrong that it’s hard to refrain from saying that Bill is
flat-out, pants-on-fire lying, so I won’t. Obama’s
executive order
lifts the restriction on federal funding for stem cell research; it
doesn’t change where embryonic stem cells come from.

To the best of my knowledge, embryonic stem cells for research come
from leftover embryos for in vitro fertilization, i.e., ones that
weren’t chosen to be implanted in the want-to-be-mother. As I
understand it, people who want to
carry someone else’s child
get first crack at them. Researchers only have access to those that no
one else wants.

And finally, the leftovers are disposed of. By incineration, I
understand.

So BillDo’s “morally acceptable alternatives” no only exist, but are
being implemented, and no one has a problem with this.

What he’s saying is either “let’s shut down the IVF clinics!” (which I
doubt) or “don’t offer clusters of embryonic cells to researchers!
Throw them into the fire right away!”

People are already “intentionally destroy[ing] nascent human life”.
This has been going on for ages, but I don’t hear BillDo complaining
about that. No, he’s afraid that a lot of good might come of the
process. So FOAD, Billy.

The New ARIS Is Out!

ARIS 2008,
the American Religious Identification Survey, has just been released,
and the atheosphere is as giddy as a bunch of schoolgirls upon the
release of Harry Potter and the Adjective Noun.

The most significant finding, IMHO, is that the “Nones”
(atheist/agnostic/no religious preference) are up since 2001,
although nowhere near as dramatically as betwen 1990 and 2001. But
still the fastest-growing segment of the population.

One new feature is that, unlike the 1990 and 2001 ARISes, the 2008
survey asked “what do you believe?”-type questions, rather than just
“what do you call yourself?”

Table 3
in the
full report
(p. 5) lists atheists as comprising 0.7% of the US population, and
agnostics at 0.9%. However,
table 4
(p. 8) lists people’s answers to
the question of whether there is a god: “There is no such thing”
(atheism) comes in at 2.3%, “There is no way to know” (proper
agnosticism) at 4.3%, and “I’m not sure” (common agnosticism) at 5.7%.
(IMHO it might be interesting to see how many people haven’t really
thought about it. Maybe next time.)

In other words, there are a bunch of people who are atheists and
agnostics, but don’t call themselves that. Presumably they either just
call themselves “None of the above”, “No religion”, or “Spiritual, but
not religious”; or else they’re members of religious groups that allow
that kind of latitude, such as Buddhism or Taoism.

Table 7
(p. 11) shows that religion is stronger among women than men. In most
religions listed, there are more women than men. “None” is an
exception to this rule (as are “Eastern Religions”, “Muslim”, and “New
Religious Movements/Other”), but the skew is most pronounced: 60% of
Nones are male vs. 40% female.

Update, 16:14: USA Today has a nice
interactive graph
of the survey results.

I’m guessing that the sharp drop in “Other religions” in Wyoming, and of “Don’t know/Refuse” in Delaware represent statistical anomalies (i.e., they happened to get a bad batch of poll respondents), rather than real demographic trends.

Quickie Fundie Quiz

Who said this?:

I am embarrassed that it took me 38 years as a Christian to see in God’s Word that prison, as a form of punishment, violates the Bible.

If you said
Kent Hovind,
currently serving 10 years in federal prison for not
rendering unto Caesar
that which is Caesar’s“,
give yourself a pat on the back and a nice steaming cup of
schadenfreude.

Dance, Monkeys! Dance for My Enjoyment!

Today seems to be the day when a bunch of right-wing fundies all decided to make themselves look ridiculous in public, seemingly only to entertain me.

For a while now, Ray Comfort’s weblog wasn’t accepting new comments, because he had been hired by Examiner.com as their Creationism Examiner, and he wanted comments to be posted there.

This morning, however, I found a post on his old site, with a bunch of comments. I can only surmise that the Examiner decided that Ray was too kooky for them, and booted him back to blogspot.com.


Then there was the kook fight: according to this WND story (sorry, I couldn’t find a reliable source), Ray basically accused Catholics of not being True Christians™

But the Vatican has chosen to officially believe Darwin rather than Jesus

BillDo, recognizing in Comfort one of the rare people who could make him look reasonable and measured by comparison, responded by saying that the Catholic church’s position is that it’s okay to accept evolution, as long as you still believe in a magic man in the sky.

Ray’s response to that basically boils down to “is not!”

(HT PZ.)


But the one who had me laughing out loud all morning was Brannon Howse, who has a show on Christian Worldview Radio.

Howse recently put in an appearance at a church in Ft. Worth. Bud Kennedy, a reporter for the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, wrote an article about it, under the title “Who knew that yoga is a tool of Satan?”, talking about Howse’s superstition, ignorance, and paranoia.

I wasn’t at the event in Texas, but Kennedy’s account is pretty much in line with what Howse has talked about on his radio show: ZOMG teh gays, the Earth is 6000 years old, Obama == Hitler, and so forth.

So Brannon Howse spent an entire episode whining about how the article made him and other True Christians™ look foolish and extreme, at one point asking, “is there anything extreme about saying that there’s nothing Christian about yoga?” (Yes, Mr. Howse. Yes, there is.)

What had me laughing out loud was that Howse’s “corrections” of Kennedy’s librul yellow journalism just made Howse look as bad as before, if not worse. For instance, he claims that he never said yoga is a tool of Satan. It is, however, an Indian occult practice, and anti-christian.

On other topics, like the notion that the stimulus package is a way of achieving a worldwide monetary system and a one-world government, his response was basically, “Well, yes, I said that, because it’s true. But when Kennedy puts it in the paper, it makes us look foolish.”

Yes, it does, Brannon. As the saying goes, people who don’t want their beliefs ridiculed shouldn’t hold such ridiculous beliefs.


And finally, to cap off a perfectly wonderful day, here’s Richard Dawkins’s response to Ray Comfort’s challenge to debate him for $10,000.

Go read the whole thing. It’s wonderful.

$10,000 is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don’t accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher). It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool. You can tell him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (it’s a charitable donation, tax deductible) I’ll do it. A further condition is that it will be filmed by Josh Timonen for my website, RichardDawkins.net, and distributed by Josh as a DVD, if he thinks it is funny enough. To this end, it would be nice if Mr Comfort would reprise the ever popular Banana Sketch.

Richard Dawkins

(HT Shelley.)

Indian Stupid Burns Like a Hyderabadi Biryani

First, the Telegraph has a
story
about an Indian nun’s book about sex in the church:

The book by the former nun reveals how as a young novice she was propositioned in the confession box by a priest who cited biblical references to “divine kisses”. Later she was cornered by a lesbian nun at a college where they were teaching. “She would come to my bed in the night and do lewd acts and I could not stop her,” she claims.

When she was sent to Bangalore to stay with a priest known for his piety, he lectured her about the need for “physical love” and later assaulted her.

To steal a line from
Monty Python,
“may I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no sex in the Catholic Church. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit”.

The article concludes with a spokesman who dismisses the nun’s claims:

“How far what she says is well-founded I
can’t say, but the issues are not very serious. We’re living with
human beings in a community and she should realise this is part of
human life
,” he told the Daily Telegraph.

(emphasis added.)

Oh, the irony! If the Catholic church would only realize that yes, sex
is part of human life, and would allow its priests and nuns to get
laid every once in a while, maybe there’d be less of this sort of
thing, to say nothing of child abuse.

(Cue BillDo in 3… 2… 1…)


The second item concerns an
op-ed piece
that appeared in
The Statesman in India.

The piece by Johann Hari argues that while people deserve respect,
ideas don’t. And that a recent UN resolution to avoid criticizing
religion has the effect of shielding human-rights abusers.

He and his editor have since been
arrested
for “hurting the religious feelings” of Muslims. You can’t make this
stuff up.

The Statesman’s
letters page
includes a letter entitled “Denigrating Islam”. Among other things, it
replies to Hari’s original contention that

I don’t respect the idea that we should follow a
“Prophet” who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and
ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn’t
follow him.

with

Hari has made some vulgar remarks about the marriage of the Prophet with young Aisha, which incensed and hurt many readers of The Statesman. Muslims regard the pious wives of the Prophet as their mothers and hold them in high esteem.

Aisha, was not 9 but 10 years of age when she was married to the
Prophet, but came to live with the Prophet much later. It was after
attaining puberty when she was more than 15 years of age. Following
the Arab custom at that time, her father Abu Bakr, the first caliph of
Islam, proposed this marriage to cement his close relationship with
the Prophet.

Oh, so instead of a 53-year-old man fucking a 9-year-old, it was
actually a 58-year-old fucking a 15-year-old. I guess that’s supposed
to make it all right.

I’ve heard Christian apologists make similar excuses for the Old
Testament atrocities (e.g., by saying that Leviticus sets rules on
what you can and can’t do to a slave; which presumably makes it okay
to own human beings as chattel). I’m sure the fact that their Muslim
counterparts use similar arguments says something profound about the
ecumenical brotherhood of man or something. I can’t help imagining a
crowd of Christian and Muslim fanatics hand in hand with torches and
rakes, singing Kumbaya while marching to punish the heretics who would
disrespect their imaginary BFFs.

Bible Study Notes: Homosexuality in the Bible

I’m leading the discussion at today’s Bible Study session with the
Beltway Atheists.
The topic is Homosexuality in the Bible.

I’m attaching my
notes
(also available in
Org mode for Emacs
here).