the parish

Atheists 1 Fundies 0

Thanks to Jay for sending this along. The fact that all these quotes are culled from fundamentalist message boards does not surprise me. What does surprise me is how well the young men recite the lines: passion, anger, righteous zeal...ahhh.

Blasphemy as High Comedy

I know some of you were onto this list long before I was. (You'll need to scroll for a while until you find "terms and catch-phrases of the ungodly.") Someone posted a comment about the list and mentioned that it's the kind of list compiled by people who know nothing about ungodliness, like a youth group trying to communicate worldliness to their elders or a super-hip youth pastor (think Pastor Skip from Saved!, the movie) trying to demonstrate the currency of his slang lexicon. Some of this stuff is cringeworthy, and what really makes me chuckle is that Tim Wirth is so offended by profanity that he misses the subtle nature of these far more disturbing phrases that he has posted for anyone to read. (It reminds me of Patton Oswalt's schtick about editing profanity in order to show a program on basic cable: "I'm gonna fill your hoo-ha with goof juice.") So, in no particular order here are some of my favorites and some of the more disturbing, and please remember, be upset with Tim Wirth, the Concerned Nazarene, not me.

• release of the pig anointing
• swimming in papa's milky goo
• glory juice of our papa
• blowing the Holy Ghost
• taking Jesus into the shower
• shigga-digga-ding-dong of Jesus
• thick, sticky dew of the Lord
• whacking the masses with Jesus juice

The common denominator here is an obsession with semen and masturbation, and let's not pretend the homoeroticism isn't clear (deoeroticism?). There also seems to be a sublimated desire to give oral sex to a man, so Tim, seriously, time to fess up. Is all this anger and judgment based on your own sublimated gay love for Jesus? I know some friends who can help you accept who you are. Come out, Tim. Come out from her and be separate, or gay.

I used to believe stupidity had a low point...

then I encountered Tim Wirth. Here is his latest, and it's in reference to my new friends (even though I don't know them or him or her) at Biblical Nazarenes. You'll notice that Tim refers to "people like me" or my friends, as well as me, as Blasphemy Incorporated! Can I tell you how much I love this? First he called me a misguided defender of the unholy. Now Blasphemy Incorporated. First person to make the tee shirts gets to sell them right here on the parish. I'm buying one each.

Biblical Nazarenes Indeed!

You simply have to go here. I have no idea who is responsible for it, although I suspect a California or Florida (or both) connection—Charles F. Dobson indeed. The Demon Deacon of Douchebaggery, Tim Wirth, is on the site accusing me or my friends of putting the site up to mock other "discernment" sites. First, I'd like to give Tim credit for recognizing the satire; I didn't think he could find his ass with two hands and a flashlight, but he noticed the satire, whereas other Nazarenes were lining up to support or condemn the "ministry." Awesome. Inspired. Manny Silva of the Reformed Nazarene blog (Manny isn't sure of theological definitions, it seems.) promised to focus on the issue of women after he finishes the campaign against contemplative spirituality, and we all know how evil that shit is. Second, I'd like to say that anyone who thinks his job is discerning the truth of falsity of movements in Christianity is probably carrying his own personal cross and nails and just begging for someone to put him on it (when he's not also carrying his own ladder to do the deed himself) to feel more strongly his sacrifice for the LORD. Oh, and he's probably a douchebag with little to no understanding of theology but who believes he knows the "word of God" and believes that phrase is synonymous with the Bible. Dear Nazarene friends, quit talking to these people. They're insane and ignorant and nothing you say will convince them of their own douchebaggery.

Metacognition and the Emotional Brain

Many thanks to Leighton for leading me to Seed Magazine. Rarely do I find science and philosophy discussed so intelligently and accesibly. Here's an example of why I love Seed. And here's the money quote from that interview:

Well, here’s the big caveat, and this is maybe the main distinction between Obama and Bush. There’s been extensive research over the last few decades about the danger of certainty, about believing you’re right. What that causes the brain to do is ignore all the evidence that suggests you’re wrong. We clearly tend to filter the world to conform to our ideology, to our preconceived notions.

Seattle First to Jump

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer becomes the nation's largest circulation newspaper to make the jump to digital only starting tomorrow. CJR rightly notes that the fact everyone knew it was coming doesn't make it less shocking. Later in the spring, the Christian Science Monitor will start its new hybrid publication program wherein the daily paper will be digital only and subscribers will receive a glossy weekly magazine to get more in depth coverage. Both models seem doomed to failure.

I was listening to Chuck Klosterman on ESPN Radio this week talk about the news business. He was using player salaries as an example of what's probably wrong with the way we think about news. If Manny signed with the Dodgers for the biggest salary in history, how soon do we need access to that information? Is it true that we have to have it as soon as it's available? Of course not. Yet immediacy is killing print journalism. This has two huge downsides: lack of time to get the story straight and analyze the implications, and a dangerous de-monetizing of journalism. (Who do you think is going to produce all those "free" stories once newspapers offer everything without charge?) There are pieces of information we need with some immediacy: a tornado in my neighborhood, terrorist threats, bombs at my kid's school, an abducted child alert, etc. Knowing the gist of something immediately does not give it the context it needs for real comprehension. But I'm an old fuddy-duddy, apparently, as most of my students disagree with me; our values are stunningly different about immediacy, and their insistence on it transcends axiomatic.

Klosterman also pointed out that the newspaper business made the exact wrong decision every time it felt threatened, first by radio, then television, and finally the Internet. Each time, rather than view itself as the slow-moving, patient, thorough ally of the immediate, they've tried to recreate themselves in the guise of their assumed adversary. USA Today is like a print version of television news. Newspapers are putting more and more (shorter, less thorough) news online and not charging for it. That's a great business model. Kinda like Burger King giving away their burgers because McDonald's makes shittier ones faster. Hey, come read our news, even if you don't pay for it, because it's not as if we have journalists to pay...

I have no idea where this thing is headed. I have faith in people's ability to be innovative though. Someone is going to solve this, and primarily because people want to be informed and someone will want to make money giving people what they want. It's still a beautiful synergy. I just don't know how many journalists are going to be unemployed for how long or how many stories we'll miss or how many large papers will go under before it's solved.

Joyce Meyer: Fiscally Accountable

As of March 12, Joyce Meyer, she of the severe suits, construction-grade pumps, and stern, pseudo-Biblical advice (and one $12,000 vase and a private jet), is in good standing with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. The ECFA announced Thursday that Meyer's ministry is now accredited. According to their press release: "ECFA accreditation is based on standards of responsible stewardship, including financial accountability, transparency, sound board governance and ethical fund-raising." Umm, does that mean she had to sell or donate the vase, or can you be financially sound/ethical as a non-profit and keep the vase? Just curious.

The funniest part of ECFA's press release was this bizarre statistic: "The ministry’s 'Enjoying Everyday Life' TV and radio programs reach a potential audience of 3 billion people daily." A potential audience of 3 billion? What would it take to maximize that potential? Why is it only a potential audience? Does that mean that if I have it on the telly and 300 of my neighbors stop by—assuming this pattern is repeated for everyone else's tv who is watching—and they happen to see her blathering on, they have reached 3 billion people? Because if that's the case, then I think they should claim 6 billion. That way, just in case everyone in Oklahoma stops by—assuming this pattern is repeated for every state, country, and kingdom—the potential exists to reach everyone in the world, especially if you factor in the televisions in big box stores and storefront windows.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Committee on Finance and the originator of the investigations against several televangelists, also released a statement:

“This is a positive development. It’s good to see increased financial accountability, transparency, board governance, and ethical fund-raising taken seriously. These are good goals for every tax-exempt group. Since ministries have independence from the IRS and don’t have to file material with the IRS, like most other tax-exempt groups, ECFA membership is like a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. It’s an independent organization that audits members to maintain accreditation. I hope other ministries, including the ones I’m looking at, will pursue accreditation. I met with ECFA representatives today, while they were in town for their annual meeting, and they told me about Joyce Meyer Ministries and Oral Roberts University joining the ECFA. In addition, we discussed the status of my ministries inquiry. My staff and I continue to review the information we’ve received from the ministries that cooperated, and we continue to weigh our options for the ministries that have not cooperated.”

If I don't believe it, it ain't true. Dawkins vs. Oklahoma

We had a few Okie moments last week. We get those regularly around here; it's a combination of poor education, fundamentalist indoctrination, terrible news media, political polarization, and the politicizing of non-political issues (think global warming or condoms as helpful in the fight against AIDS). Richard Dawkins spoke at OU this past Friday. Like many institutions, OU is celebrating Darwin 2009. Dawkins was invited as part of that celebration.

We expected picketing and protests from the fundamentalist churches in town, and there was a little bit of grumbling and complaining, but the churches were largely silent, at least outside of the buildings. I have no idea what was being said from the pulpits. However, because the churches would not do God's work, Oklahoma state representative and former OU football player Todd Thomsen (R - Ada) called on his fellow legislators to pass a resolution banning Dawkins from speaking at OU. You read that correctly. A state legislator wanted to ban a world-renowned scientist, speaker, and author from speaking at a state university. (Do you wonder why I love it here?)

House Resolution 1015 said in part: "...the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma."

My science-minded friends are more eloquent on the science issues at stake, but I do want to point out one absurdity in the resolution. "...contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma." First of all, I hope that isn't true, but it probably is. And even if it is, can someone tell me why the views and opinions of most Oklahomans should trump the views and opinions of professional, scholarly, brilliant men and women of science? Do we really want to use populism as the criteria by which we judge hard science? Imagine the AMA asking for opinions of the populace before developing new surgical procedures.

"Dear Rastus McGillicutty: we are considering a new form of laser surgery to target tumors in the body. This is far less invasive and much more focused than previous surgical procedures. What do you think? Sincerely, AMA Doctors."

"Dear AMA, that shit is magic and it scares me and the Bible says no witchcraft, so I am against it. And so is the Bible. And so is everyone else in this trailer park, except for the meth cook in the last trailer. Damn that shit stinks. Sincerely, Rastus."

That would be the perfect way to do science, wouldn't it? As long as the views and opinions of a majority of the population are against "the theory of evolution," then we should be against it too. Never mind that the views and opinions of the majority are not informed by actual science.  Even tossing in the phrase "theory of evolution" reveals that Thomsen knows shit-all about what a theory actually means in science. A theory isn't just a random idea; it's a working model that has been tested and continues to be tested. It also means that the current construct of the model best answers the questions put to it. In the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, Massimo Pigliucci details recent, radical changes in parts of the model to illustrate the willingness of evolutionary science to bend when presented with solid evidence. (It's not available online yet.) People like Thomsen believe that there is a conspiracy among scientists to hide the truth because they don't want to believe the Bible. I don't even know what to say to that. Dawkins handled it well though when he discussed the competition within the field of science to the extent that every conclusion is tested and every finding challenged in the hope that someone can gain notoriety (or grant money) from a landmark finding. It doesn't guarantee there won't be a conspiracy, but it comes close.

The other Okie moment was tangentially related to Dawkins. The day before he was scheduled to speak, a second grade teacher in Tuttle, Oklahoma, showed Louis Giglio's "How Great is Our God" video to her class. This was after asking one little girl who didn't go to church to go out in the hall to color. Awesome. Let's thin the heathens from the herd! At least one parent addressed the issue with the teacher, who explained that she only showed the part about the planets and stars, and turned the video off when Giglio started talking about sin. Excellent. Nobody I want teaching science more than an itinerant evangelist with a passion for praise and worship music. To her everlasting credit, the principal handled the issue by the book, so there probably won't be a repeat offense.

My students discussed this in class on Friday, and several of my evangelical kids believe that evolution and creation should be taught side by side. I explained two things: Darwin's theory is not about abiogenesis, so it isn't an alternative theory as to how the earth was created, and only science belongs in a science classroom. God may very well have created the heavens and the earth, but until we can get his lab notes, it ain't science. They insisted that in the spirit of free speech we ought to include the creation story. Of course they meant the Genesis 1 creation story, not the Hopi, Hindu, Zoroastrian, or Scientology creation story. I pointed that out and they said all those stories should be told if there is reason to believe them. Sigh...

Jon Stewart vs. CNBC (You know who wins, right?)

CJR gives the comedian-prophet-analyst-critic some much deserved props in this piece about The Daily Show's trashing of CNBC. I've decided that The Daily Show should have a new motto, kinda like FoxNews's "fair and balanced". The Daily Show: Calling Douchebaggery Douchebaggery Five Nights a Week.

Porn and the South: they go together like peanut butter and jelly.

Jay sent this along. It requires no editorializing. I am, however, a wee bit skeptical of some of his metrics.