When Christians Look Really Stupid

Here's yesterday's post from FriendlyAtheist.com. I hope Hemant doesn't mind me just reproducing most of his post, but it's good as is. No need for additional commentary.

The religious right group American Family Association’s OneNewsNow site seems to have an automatic filter that replaces the word “gay” with “homosexual.”

Because they want to use the more harsh sounding term, perhaps?

So when runner Tyson Gay won the 100 meter race at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials over the weekend, here’s what the news site wrote:

The article has since been corrected.

However, this article mentioning basketball player Rudy Gay, still needs some fixing…

.

There Are No Atheists

I continue to keep up with some of the leading atheist blogs, but over time a few things have become apparent:

• Atheism, by its very name, is defined by what it opposes. It's very hard to build a coherent life and philosophy based primarily on what you oppose, because in so doing, you are letting your opponent determine your thoughts and actions. If you're a person of faith, therefore, you can take satisfaction in having full control over the atheist agenda.


• The atheist blogs become rather one-note and boring after a while. Mockery wears thin. Of course there are stupid Christians. But how does that prove the stupidity of religion? A stupid carpenter may install a cabinet door upside down, but that hardly proves carpentry is bogus.


• Many atheist writers like to point out what they see as inconsistencies and illogic in the Christian worldview, but their own logic begs pity more often than awe. Thinking you're clever and insightful is not the same as actually being clever and insightful. Historically-informed criticism based on knowledge goes much further than criticism based on received wisdom and caricature.

Atheists claim that God doesn't exist. The Orthodox writer Thomas Hopko questions whether atheists themselves can exist:

According to the Bible, humanity's basic sin is not atheism. It is idolatry. In this perspective, all people have their god. It is either a god (or gods) that they have made or others have inflicted upon them, which they command and control; or it is the God who made them, whom they are commanded to worship and obey for their own good. In this view, there are no atheists, but only idolaters.

Final (for now) Thoughts on the Pope’s Visit

May I share some of my thoughts-observations-conclusions about the Pope’s visit?

• For a rottweiler, he’s pretty nice.
• He doesn’t do the “pompous Pope” act very well. Although he dresses the part, his eyes and voice give him away as more friendly, shy, and pastoral than how we normally think of someone in his position.
• For an 81-year-old, he’s quite vigorous. Simply reading his detailed itinerary for the 5 days he was here leaves one tired, but he kept up the schedule and never appeared wiped out or “aged.” That gives me hope for my own advancing years (though I’m still a few decades shy of 81).
• The U.S. really rolled out the red carpet for him: the greeting ceremony with the President, the closing ceremony with the Vice-President, the provision of the President’s limos (amazingly thick doors!) and helicopter. Maybe other world leaders get that kind of treatment when they make state visits here, but I doubt it.
• My crib sheet held up pretty well. The Pope is Catholic, just as I predicted, and his talks were big (for example) on his role as the apostolic successor to St. Peter, the centrality of “the Church,” and Catholics’ necessity for obedience. Those aren’t the parts I chose for inclusion in my daily highlights, but they were assuredly there.
• Although there are significant, even intractable, differences between Catholic and Protestant theology, both sides of the fence have found a lot of common ground. And that’s not by denying the differences or deciding they don’t matter, but rather by realizing that the things we agree on transcend many of those differences. The divinity of Christ and the dignity of human life would be two of those things; there are more.
• Finally for now, I find it highly interesting that the atheist sites I keep up with generally ignored the visit. Except for one flippant entry on FriendlyAtheist.com that didn’t even make much sense, I have seen nothing that shows any of the anti-religion advocates taking a serious look at the Pope’s visit and, more to the point, the philosophy behind the Pope’s many (and lengthy!) addresses. Instead, they seem simply to have pretended that the visit of the spiritual leader of one billion people just didn’t happen and that hundreds of thousands of people didn’t storm the gates to see him. Mockery looks shallow against this Pope, and perhaps the atheist bloggers, in a fit of insight, realized they were outclassed. Instead, they directed attention toward the movie, Expelled. Really, now.

Yearning for Intelligent Celebrities

I once heard Alex Trebek of Jeopardy fame on the radio. He was speaking to the National Press Club, and what stood out to me was how smart and eloquent he was, not just "another pretty face."



But there are plenty of pretty faces out there who probably ought to keep their traps shut. They may be good actors, but they certainly can say stupid things (so can I, but I manage to stay out of the magazines).



Case in point: Jodie Foster, as interviewed in the latest(?) edition of Entertainment Weekly (thanks to Friendly Atheist for profiling this on his own blog). Check out this quote from p. 41:

Are you religious?

No, I’m an atheist. But I absolutely love religions and the rituals. Even though I don’t believe in God. We celebrate pretty much every religion in our family with the kids. They love it, and when they say, ”Are we Jewish?” or ”Are we Catholic?” I say, ”Well, I’m not, but you can choose when you’re 18. But isn’t this fun that we do seders and the Advent calendar?”

An atheist who loves religion and practices rituals for "fun." I haven't read the article, but from this risible quote, it appears this portrayer of tough women has marshmallow convictions under that steely exterior. What good is it being an atheist if you're going to practice religious rituals and tell your kids they can choose their own beliefs when they're 18? What good would it be to call oneself a "Christian" and participate in Ramadan, or a Muslim and celebrate Easter? For that matter, what kind of parenting is it that cares so little about guiding children regarding life's most important issue?

It seems to me that whatever you're going to be, you ought to be it, and stop playing around. That naive dreamer Jesus said something along those lines: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9.23).

Reasons to Believe, or Reason vs. Belief?

My friend the Friendly Atheist has posted a (liberal) pastor's critique of presidential candidate John Edwards, who says that his opposition to gay marriage is "influenced" by his Southern Baptist background. The pastor says in response:

Sen. Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage has [been] influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation and denying women the right to vote. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?

To which I ask the following questions. This is just off the top of my head, and doubtless there are still more (and better) questions that could be asked in response to this pastor's sloppy thinking:

1. So are we saying that opposition to gay marriage is only OK if it's NOT motivated by religious reasons?
2. Why should religion be excluded as a reason for having a political view? What makes it less valid than any other reason? Says who?
3. If we're going to exlude religious conviction from the public square, then what if the reason given for a political position is 30% religious and 70% "secular" - is that OK? If not, then what if it's 5% religious and 95% secular? What if we disagree on how religiously motivated my position is? Then who gets to be umpire?
4. What good is a religion that doesn't have any effect ("influence") on how I think about life issues?

And finally, if it was wrong for some to use religion to justify slavery, was it also wrong for Wilberforce to use "religion" as a reason to fight for its end?

This Blog is Rated NC-17

Is that good or bad?


Here's a site that will analyze the content on your blog or web site and tell you how it would be rated - if it were a movie - based on the language. It appears you will currently find on my blog: death (20x), abortion (19x), dead (13x), hell (10x), sex (9x), murder (7x), torture (5x), steal (4x), kill (3x), shoot (2x), and gay (1x). Not bad for a Christian blog . . . though if you could analyze my "Christian" mind the same way, I'd get a NC-1700 rating.


Oddly enough, my buddy at FriendlyAtheist.com only gets a PG-13. What's wrong with this picture?

Yes, I'm Famous

As I mentioned last week, Hemant Mehta added me to his Friendly Atheist blogroll. That was exciting enough. But now he's gone a step further and actually reproduced one of my posts on his site: check it out here. (Actually, I think he lifted a second one from my site, too, but without attribution. We'll overlook that.)

.

I didn't notice any paparazzi hanging around the house this morning, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

.

Now, if I could just get him to reference one of my serious posts. . .

Am I Famous?

Hemant Mehta - a.k.a. Friendly Atheist - has added me to his blogroll, which you can see here. You'll find me in the "Christian Blogroll" section.

.

OK, I admit I asked him to do it, after he solicited submissions and said Christians would be welcome. But still, these brushes with fame can be exciting.

Thanks to Hemant, and if you haven't yet checked out his site, it's a good thing to do from time to time.

Now, if I could just get on the Pope's (double entendre intended for those "in the know") blogroll, I'd really have the bases covered.