Lines To Remember

"I've read the Bible cover to cover, Bottom line: love beats hate."
Lesley Brighton, Silverton OR resident

Apparently Fred Phelps sent his minions to Silverton, OR to condemn the town for having the temerity to elect a transgender mayor.

A woman pushing a baby jogger past City Hall did a doubletake on her run, backing up to question 16-year-old Victoria Phelps, whose family runs the small Kansas church.

"I'm a Christian," Lesley Brighton said, clearly perplexed by the girl's "God Hates Fags" sign. "This is some kind of joke, right?"

No, it's deadly serious, Phelps replied. Electing a transgender mayor, she said, was an abomination.

"I don't expect for it to sink in but it's our duty to come out here and preach to these people because they're so proud of having a transvestite mayor," Phelps said. "It's disgusting. And where was it? Was it Isaiah? Deuteronomy? About it being an abomination?"

Phelps and crew are a pretty nasty lot to begin with, unhinged being one of the nicer things said about them. I think Ms. Brighton did a lovely job of putting them in their place.

The Evils of Atheistic Fundamentalism

I had no idea that there was such a term as "Atheist Fundamentalist", but, apparently some think there is.

He said it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas "Winterval", schools refusing to put on nativity plays and crosses removed from chapels.

In his Christmas message, he said: "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous."

While I would certainly accept the proposition that fundamentalism is bad news, no matter its stripe, I take a little bit of exception to his commentary about the use of phrases like "Winterval".

First of all, one has to recognize that not all faiths celebrate "Christmas" per se, however a winter solstice celebration is quite common, whether we are talking about Persian Culture, or the pre-Christian era cultures of much of Europe.

I disagree with The Pope's recent pronouncement that "Christmas without Christ is empty". To make such a claim is to suggest that all other cultures and faiths besides your own are empty and devoid of meaning and validity.

When one stands back and recognizes that the early Christian Church chose to move its celebration to coincide with winter solstice celebrations in northern europe, it becomes a bit tricky to claim that other non-Christ centric celebrations are invalid.

I am sympathetic to those who are appalled by the notion that the annual school play at this time is often called "Winter " rather than the "Christmas Pageant" (or whatever) - I do think this reflects an over-sensitivity on the part of those wishing to "not offend non-Christians". I wouldn't ask a Muslim to change the name of Ramadan simply because it happens to coincide with a celebration of my own faith.

The notion of "Atheistic Fundamentalism" is a flawed concept to begin with. The very notion suggests that there is some "fundamental" set of tenets that atheists subscribe to. Besides the common concept that there is no "real god", there is no common set of concepts that atheism derives from. One cannot, for example, claim that atheists all subscribe to a common root text, and that the fundamentalist has some particular interpretation of that text. What I suspect they are referring to is in fact a form of "absolutism" on the part of some people, who seem to complain at the mere mention of the concept of any religion that it is "exclusionary".

I think what people of all traditions need to become a little more self-aware of is that in societies where multiple faiths coexist, faith itself becomes a matter of the individual, and each of us should be free to practice our faiths - up to, but not including the point where our practice of our faith begins to impose itself upon others.

As a practitioner of "Evangelical Christianity", one might believe that it is your duty to go forth and preach the gospel to those who have not heard it yet. That's fine, and I have no problem with that. However, I still possess a right to not have to listen to that gospel if I do not wish to. In other words, if someone approaches me in a coffee shop while I'm enjoying a coffee, and begins to preach to me, I have a legitimate right to tell that person to get lost ... and they should comply. {and yes, I've had that very experience once or twice - although I had to get a little bit more explicit in my demand to be left alone)

In short, matters of faith do not, and should not, be matters of state in a poly-faith society such as exists now in much of the "Western World". Instead, there is a quiet respect that we all should bear for all faiths... including those who practice no specific faith.

Ted Byfield: Quick! - Into The Time Machine!

Reading Ted Byfield is usually a good way to find out just how thoroughly irrational people can be - and his latest tirade is no exception.

According Byfield, most Canadians are being "disenfranchised" by legal rulings of one sort or another that conflict with their religion:

Therefore our opinions as to what should and should not go into the law will be religiously grounded opinions, because that's the only source of authority we know.
...
Probably 90% of the country is being disfranchised.

There's a couple of points that must be made, and that Byfield clearly fails to understand. Freedom of religion is an individual freedom. The Charter speaks of individual rights and freedoms as part of the contract between the Canadian Government and its individual citizens. Ted has no more right to impose his religion upon me than I do mine upon him. Why should his religious views drive the creation or tone of law in Canada? (and, given the oh-so-lovely things that have been done in the name of Christianity at one time or another, I question the moral authority of that faith to dictate anything to me ... but that's my opinion)

Most of Byfield's argument boils down to "but even laws derive from some moral authority - and for most people that authority is religious".

I'll grant Byfield this much - most of the moral framework that our laws are set in has its roots in Judeo-Christian traditions. What Byfield forgets, or chooses to ignore, is that he is talking about scriptures that range in age between 1500 and 4000 years old, and reflect social and legal attitudes of those eras. (The dramatic differences between the Old Testament and New Testament reflect shifting societal attitudes and values) Surely in the last 1500 years or so we've had enough change to the face of society (and knowledge) that we might recognize that the "moral framework" that was codified so long ago is gradually unravelling, like a much loved, but well-worn rug.

Of course, most of Byfield's real argument is pure assertion, with a healthy dose of distortion thrown in for good measure. (It's almost like he spent his time researching his stories at Lifesite)

A teacher has been fired for daring to criticize -- not in school but in public debate -- certain sexual practices not long ago regarded as criminal.

Oh? Lessee, I'm going guess that Byfield's referring to homosexuality. Which was decriminalized some forty years ago - people born then are reaching their middle years today - real recent. As for the teacher who was fired, I can't even find references to a story like that on Lifesite - one would have to presume that the story has a grain of truth, but since he doesn't cite anything verifiable, it's assertion.

Books have been forced into school libraries over the objections of parents and school boards.

Christian schools have been forbidden to prohibit activity they regard as perverted at school dances.

Newspapers have been prosecuted for running biblical verses denouncing certain sexual practices.

If such despotism does not constitute a prohibition of "the free exercise of religion," it's hard to imagine what would.

More argument by assertion. Byfield fails to cite a single tangible case that can be examined - which leads me to suspect that what he's really beaking off about are relatively minor cases where some bible beater got their knickers in a twist over something small, and went screaming to the media about it.

We believe we should behave fairly, honestly, truthfully because the Bible or the Church or the Qur'an or our pastor or priest tells us so.

Therefore our opinions as to what should and should not go into the law will be religiously grounded opinions, because that's the only source of authority we know.

Finally, we come to the crux of the matter. Byfield simply cannot imagine that we might be able to derive our own sense of "right and wrong" without referring to something that was supposedly, but unverifably divinely inspired. It seems far more probable that scripture was a human construct in the first place, just as the laws of Hammurabi were (in fact big tracts of Old Testament legalisms sound decidedly similar to his laws.)

As much as the fundies like to accuse more secular people of being "amoral" (or worse) because of a lack of explicit tie to some concrete moral framework, they fail to recognize that their own "moral framework" is extremely relativistic as well - but it merely happens to be relative to the era in which the scriptures they believe so fervently in were written. Society ultimately codifies its morality relative to the times in which it exists. There are some universal truths, but then again, some supposed truths turn out to be amazingly false. It wasn't so long ago (using Byfield's rubber ruler of time) that being left-handed meant you were marked by the devil.

[Update 14:00]
Speaking of imposing one's religion upon others, we have some loon trying to censor the public library.

An aside - it also occurs to me that Byfield would be among those who scream the loudest if someone were to demand that he adopt the moral sensibilities of a different faith...
[/Update]

Fundamentalism - Catholic Style

Back here, I was talking about the increasingly vocal actions of religious leaders in the political dialogue of various nations.

One commenter took me somewhat to task for criticizing the Catholic Church's recent revival of the "Tridentine Mass" (Latin) because of its prayers specifically calling for the conversion of Jews.

Although I would not accuse the current Pope of being a biblical literalist, I do accuse him of being a fundamentalist (and likely highly regressive).

Where most Popes since Vatican II have been pretty careful about alienating other faiths outright, we see in Pope Benedict (aka Pope Ratz elsewhere in my writings) a man who is clearly not worried about returning the Church to a pre-Vatican II state - including the feuds with other denominations.

Roman Catholics better Christians, Vatican says:

A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches that suffer from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in the Protestant denominations – a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.

The Vatican text, which restates the controversial document Dominus Iesus issued by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000, said the church wanted to stress this point because some Catholic theologians continue to misunderstand it.

Yes, yes - I know - all of these various religions think they have some monopoly on a "higher truth", but you have to admit that it takes some nerve to flaunt it the way that this Pope is.

Perhaps that statement also reflects the Vatican's stance towards Jewish people under the current papacy as well, since the recent revival of the Latin Mass didn't call into question any of the content of the rituals. Regardless, this most recent statement is very telling about the direction of the Roman Catholic Church under the current Pope.

Church modernizers interpreted the Council as a break from the past while conservatives, such as Benedict, see it in continuity with 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.

The document said the Council's opening to other faiths recognized there were "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, but stressed that only Catholicism has all the elements to be Christ's Church fully.

Even as a Cardinal, this Pope was a hard line conservative, and it seems to me that in his own way, he is a form of fundamentalist. While his fundamentalism is not the biblical literalism that we see commonly held as "fundamentalism" in North America, it is nonetheless every bit as damaging because of its rigidity.

There is little to be gained by balkanizing the world along the lines of faith - we've already been there, done that - and it wasn't a very pretty picture when faiths crossed with each other. (A little reality check - every religion tries to deal with things metaphysical to our world, and as such deal not just in the mystical, but in the ultimately unknowable - a fact which should give us pause anytime one tries to claim a monopoly on "The Truth"(tm))

Now, whilst this may seem like I'm being "critical of the faith", that's not entirely my point. I don't much care what the Catholic (or any other) Church believes - as long as they don't insist that I must believe/conduct myself as they do.

There is a definite pattern in recent years of the Catholic Church attempting to inject itself into the politics of the nation - not in a merely ecclesiastical sense, but in a very direct "exercise of power" sense. (Look, for example, at some of the rantings of Bishop Henry, which have wandered into the realm of outright public threats at times)

Not only does this Pope seem to represent a return to the Church in it's pre-Vatican II form, but his very actions suggest a desire to return the Church to the kind of influence it held when Pope Urban II triggered the first Crusade.