Happy Easter to All!
As at Christmas, when we are urged to bring back the "true meaning" of the holiday, so at Easter are we urged to do so, especially by letters to the editor and columns on the religious page of the newspaper.
Of course, we all have the right to use any reason we like for celebrating any holiday. But the implication that your Easter celebration is authentic only if you do it with the Christian resurrection in mind betrays an ignorance of religious history.
This holiday has been celebrated every spring all over the world in an unbroken tradition going back to many centuries before Jesus was even born, and thus cannot have had any original connection to him.
Easter was originally (and still is) a celebration of the fertility of the earth, renewed each springtime. The egg, the chick, the rabbit, the flowers, are all fertility symbols (and much older than the Christian symbol of the resurrected god). Its celebration has often been marked by sexual exuberance, as is still prominent in the pre-Lenten Carneval and Mardi Gras festivals and the phallic symbolism of the May pole and the cross.
Long before Jesus, many peoples associated this festival with the coming back to life of the god of fertility (Tammuz - see Ezek 8:14, Adonis, Osiris, Perseus, Orpheus), who had been dead in the underworld during the winter. Even the name by which Christians still celebrate the festival is a corruption of the name of the ancient fertility goddess Ishtar or Ashtoreth (whose name also survives in the name of one of the books of the Old Testament, the only Bible book that contains no reference to God - the Book of Esther).
The Christian church, because it could not eradicate the celebration of this popular festival, reinterpreted it and assigned to it a new meaning, but was unable to erase completely its original significance. Undoubtedly current attempts by Christians will have no more success. The egg and the rabbit, the phallic pole or cross (the real symbols of the festival) will continue to be loved and celebrated as long as we can marvel at the new life which the spring brings.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Respect for Religious Scruples Being Enacted Into Law
The Idaho state legislature is considering a law which would allow pharmacists licensed and practicing in that state to refuse to fill prescriptions which are offensive to their religious beliefs. So a Catholic pharmacist in Idaho could refuse to dispense birth control pills. Even though the prescription is legal, and neither the doctor nor the customer have any religious objection to birth control.
The bill has already passed the House and is now going to the Senate. It is supported by many religious groups as a proper recognition of religious conscience and respect for individual religious scruples.
I have not read the text of the bill, so I don't know whether a pharmacy could refuse to hire a Catholic pharmacist whom they knew would refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. I suspect that the bill requires "reasonable accommodation."
I think the bill will soon be considered not broad enough.
What about a mortuary who hires a Hassidic Jew? Orthodox Jews believe that touching a dead body makes one "unclean."
Muslim cab drivers in large cities such as New York refuse to take passengers who are carrying alcoholic beverages. Shouldn't they be protected, too?
It is against the Mormon religion to use coffee, tobacco, or tea (as well as alcohol). Should a restaurant be forced to hire a Mormon who refuses to serve coffee to a customer, or a glass of wine?
Should a Muslim be able to refuse to make a ham sandwich, if he works in a deli?
A simpler solution: if you are Catholic, don't become a pharmacist. If you're a Jew, don't look for a job in a deli or a funeral parlor. If you're a Mormon waiter, go get a job in some small town in Utah.
But it seems to be perfectly all right that nonbelievers are paid their wages in money that says "In God We Trust." And nobody objects if the nonbeliever's children have to recite the Pledge to the flag with the words "under God."
Religious attitudes need less respect, not more.
The bill has already passed the House and is now going to the Senate. It is supported by many religious groups as a proper recognition of religious conscience and respect for individual religious scruples.
I have not read the text of the bill, so I don't know whether a pharmacy could refuse to hire a Catholic pharmacist whom they knew would refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. I suspect that the bill requires "reasonable accommodation."
I think the bill will soon be considered not broad enough.
What about a mortuary who hires a Hassidic Jew? Orthodox Jews believe that touching a dead body makes one "unclean."
Muslim cab drivers in large cities such as New York refuse to take passengers who are carrying alcoholic beverages. Shouldn't they be protected, too?
It is against the Mormon religion to use coffee, tobacco, or tea (as well as alcohol). Should a restaurant be forced to hire a Mormon who refuses to serve coffee to a customer, or a glass of wine?
Should a Muslim be able to refuse to make a ham sandwich, if he works in a deli?
A simpler solution: if you are Catholic, don't become a pharmacist. If you're a Jew, don't look for a job in a deli or a funeral parlor. If you're a Mormon waiter, go get a job in some small town in Utah.
But it seems to be perfectly all right that nonbelievers are paid their wages in money that says "In God We Trust." And nobody objects if the nonbeliever's children have to recite the Pledge to the flag with the words "under God."
Religious attitudes need less respect, not more.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Religion vs Superstition
The Pope has been in Africa this week, and performed mass there.
He urged the Catholic Africans to help their countrymen to abandon superstition, magic, reliance on shamans and witch doctors. They should rather accept Christianity (in its Roman Catholic form, of course).
It is dangerous to believe in such superstitions, Benedict said.
Indeed! I agree with His Holiness entirely.
It is dangerous (as well as emotionally harmful) to believe such superstitious things as these:
- sprinkling with magic water while a witch doctor says magic words will wipe away your faults;
- a priest saying the proper words will turn a cracker into actual flesh;
- eating a bite of magic cracker-flesh will make you acceptable to the gods;
- if a demon possesses someone you love, you can get a witch doctor to "exorcise" the demon by waving a cross over him and saying certain magic words;
- you had better participate in the magic rituals on special magic days, at least twice a year;
- you can ask holy dead people for special favors;
- burning candles on an altar has a magic effect and will bring you your wishes;
- a Jewish rabbi who was executed two thousand years ago for treason wants you to devote your life to him.
Yes, superstition can be a terrible thing, if you let it get hold of your mind.
He urged the Catholic Africans to help their countrymen to abandon superstition, magic, reliance on shamans and witch doctors. They should rather accept Christianity (in its Roman Catholic form, of course).
It is dangerous to believe in such superstitions, Benedict said.
Indeed! I agree with His Holiness entirely.
It is dangerous (as well as emotionally harmful) to believe such superstitious things as these:
- sprinkling with magic water while a witch doctor says magic words will wipe away your faults;
- a priest saying the proper words will turn a cracker into actual flesh;
- eating a bite of magic cracker-flesh will make you acceptable to the gods;
- if a demon possesses someone you love, you can get a witch doctor to "exorcise" the demon by waving a cross over him and saying certain magic words;
- you had better participate in the magic rituals on special magic days, at least twice a year;
- you can ask holy dead people for special favors;
- burning candles on an altar has a magic effect and will bring you your wishes;
- a Jewish rabbi who was executed two thousand years ago for treason wants you to devote your life to him.
Yes, superstition can be a terrible thing, if you let it get hold of your mind.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Pope's Solution to AIDS
The Pope is visiting Africa now, and speaking there about the many problems that plague that great continent.
One of the most troublesome problems is the prevalence of AIDS, a withering disease that is usually (but not always) transmitted by sexual contact. The easiest and most widespread preventive measure is the use of condoms. Where condoms have been widely distributed and have been easily available, the incidence of AIDS has dramatically decreased.
But the Pope is opposed to promoting the use of condoms in Africa as a means for preventing the spread of this life-threatening disease. His alternative solution?
Abstinence!
Yes, His Holiness suggests that an entire continent become celibate. No more sex, no more physical love, no more children.
Why, one must ask, is the Pope so opposed to condoms? The answer seems obvious: for so many years the Roman Catholic Church has been opposed to any form of birth control (except abstinence, or the so-called "rhythm method"), and condom use was one of the most widely used contraceptive methods. One must suspect that it is only that long aversion to condoms as contraceptives that now colors the Catholic pontiff's rejection of a simple and effective method of preventing death for millions of Africans.
Another example of narrow-minded religious dogma causing human suffering.
Fortunately, most people ignore the pronouncements of the Pope. Thank God for that!
One of the most troublesome problems is the prevalence of AIDS, a withering disease that is usually (but not always) transmitted by sexual contact. The easiest and most widespread preventive measure is the use of condoms. Where condoms have been widely distributed and have been easily available, the incidence of AIDS has dramatically decreased.
But the Pope is opposed to promoting the use of condoms in Africa as a means for preventing the spread of this life-threatening disease. His alternative solution?
Abstinence!
Yes, His Holiness suggests that an entire continent become celibate. No more sex, no more physical love, no more children.
Why, one must ask, is the Pope so opposed to condoms? The answer seems obvious: for so many years the Roman Catholic Church has been opposed to any form of birth control (except abstinence, or the so-called "rhythm method"), and condom use was one of the most widely used contraceptive methods. One must suspect that it is only that long aversion to condoms as contraceptives that now colors the Catholic pontiff's rejection of a simple and effective method of preventing death for millions of Africans.
Another example of narrow-minded religious dogma causing human suffering.
Fortunately, most people ignore the pronouncements of the Pope. Thank God for that!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
More Problems With God
Most believers in God claim that God is "perfect." Usually they do not seem to draw the ultimate conclusions from saying that, but simply use the word without thinking of the implications.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Why believing in God is difficult
One of the big reasons that makes it difficult to lend any credence to a belief in God (and I'm referring here to the God that Christians and Jews worship) is that nobody can say much about God without finally talking in absurdities and contradictions.
If you ask probing questions of a believer about the God they worship, you very quickly get some statement like, "We cannot understand God's ways," or "God is inscrutable," or "We will learn the answer to that in the next life."
So why should we respect or venerate (worship) such a being whom we cannot possibly understand or even describe in a sensible way? Simply out of abject fear?
Examples:
God is supposed to be all-knowing (omniscient), knowing the future as well as the past. He also is all-powerful (omnipotent), able to do anything he wants. Apparently, then, he knows exactly what all of us are going to do (sin!) and he does nothing about it. He created a universe (supposedly for his own glory and satisfaction) and peopled it with creatures who he knew would disobey him and therefore he would have to condemn them to eternal torment.
If I were writing a computer program and knew it was going to crash when I ran it, I would not be a very good programmer.
God is supposed to love us, since he created us. But he sends storms, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and all kinds of natural disasters to destroy and kill us. After having promised in the Bible that he would protect us from harm.
It makes about as much sense as worshipping a stone idol or a good luck charm. Actually, less.
Any believers out there who can clear this up (without telling me I simply have to "have faith")?
If you ask probing questions of a believer about the God they worship, you very quickly get some statement like, "We cannot understand God's ways," or "God is inscrutable," or "We will learn the answer to that in the next life."
So why should we respect or venerate (worship) such a being whom we cannot possibly understand or even describe in a sensible way? Simply out of abject fear?
Examples:
God is supposed to be all-knowing (omniscient), knowing the future as well as the past. He also is all-powerful (omnipotent), able to do anything he wants. Apparently, then, he knows exactly what all of us are going to do (sin!) and he does nothing about it. He created a universe (supposedly for his own glory and satisfaction) and peopled it with creatures who he knew would disobey him and therefore he would have to condemn them to eternal torment.
If I were writing a computer program and knew it was going to crash when I ran it, I would not be a very good programmer.
God is supposed to love us, since he created us. But he sends storms, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and all kinds of natural disasters to destroy and kill us. After having promised in the Bible that he would protect us from harm.
It makes about as much sense as worshipping a stone idol or a good luck charm. Actually, less.
Any believers out there who can clear this up (without telling me I simply have to "have faith")?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
"Why do you choose to be an atheist?"
A Christian recently congratulated me on having given up the religion of my youth (which he rightly viewed as a "cult"), but then asked me quite puzzled, "But why did you choose atheism as its replacement?"
Here is another misconception many believers have about atheists. They think that one chooses to be an atheist the same way one chooses to buy a Dodge or a Ford or a Toyota - it's just a matter of preference or taste. And probably many Christians do choose their denomination in the same way: they try ("test-drive") the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and decide which one they like better. And if a new pastor takes over and they don't like him, they switch.
Atheism is not like that. It is not an affirmative choice. One does not simply decide to be an atheist. Atheism is the natural and quite involuntary result of examining the evidences and doctrines about God and realizing that they don't make sense. Once you realize that, you are an atheist, willy-nilly. It's not a choice.
I suppose I could have asked this Christian, "Why do you choose not to believe in fairies? I can understand why you don't believe in gnomes or leprechauns, but what do you have against fairies?"
In a way it is like your realization that you are mortal, and one day you are going to die. It may not be a pleasant realization, but it is unavoidable. You don't choose that. You actually have no choice in the matter. Maybe I should have asked the Christian, "Why do you believe that someday you are going to die? Why not believe that the angel of death will pass you by?"
Of course, he might say, "Well, I AM going to live forever, with the God I believe in!" Hmm, yes, but you have to die to get there, don't you?
Here is another misconception many believers have about atheists. They think that one chooses to be an atheist the same way one chooses to buy a Dodge or a Ford or a Toyota - it's just a matter of preference or taste. And probably many Christians do choose their denomination in the same way: they try ("test-drive") the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and decide which one they like better. And if a new pastor takes over and they don't like him, they switch.
Atheism is not like that. It is not an affirmative choice. One does not simply decide to be an atheist. Atheism is the natural and quite involuntary result of examining the evidences and doctrines about God and realizing that they don't make sense. Once you realize that, you are an atheist, willy-nilly. It's not a choice.
I suppose I could have asked this Christian, "Why do you choose not to believe in fairies? I can understand why you don't believe in gnomes or leprechauns, but what do you have against fairies?"
In a way it is like your realization that you are mortal, and one day you are going to die. It may not be a pleasant realization, but it is unavoidable. You don't choose that. You actually have no choice in the matter. Maybe I should have asked the Christian, "Why do you believe that someday you are going to die? Why not believe that the angel of death will pass you by?"
Of course, he might say, "Well, I AM going to live forever, with the God I believe in!" Hmm, yes, but you have to die to get there, don't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)