Absurdities

I came across this piece of writing from a lay member of the Holy Cross Catholic Church:

“Being an Anglican and then married into the Catholic church, I had to make
this journey into the Faith after hearing so many misconceptions. So far, my
journey into the Faith has opened an inner eye (heart) to be able to identify my
calling and purpose that God has for me in life. He is teaching me to cleave to
him continuously so He can mold and remold me where necessary.

“If you don’t read the Bible, you are uninformed; if you do read the Bible,
you are well-informed. But, we can only ask for a more intimate relationship and
understanding according to Ephesians 1.17-19, which says ‘that the God of our
Lord, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation
resulting in knowledge of Him.’

I am looking forward to the Easter Mass celebration to receive his
Body and Blood for a never ending joy in my life. I also want to use this medium
to thank especially my sponsor, Mrs Laura H…, for helping me in this journey
and for buying me my very first rosary and all the team who taught me.”
–Chinedum I.

Excuse me whilst I gag. The best I can say is that perhaps we can give Chinedum the benefit of the doubt with regard to a possible language barrier.

Ok… Where to begin…

“Cleave to him continuously”? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Assuming that in this context, Chinedum means “to cling or stick” as opposed to “to split apart,” (see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cleave,) this still makes no metaphysical sense. How does one “cling to” a being entirely otherworldly and in no means physically present? Apparently, only in a phsychological sense, akin to the fashion in which people still “cling to” the notion that the earth is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary (no kidding: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society).

Next: “We can only ask for a better understanding of God.” I’m paraphrasing; it could be argued that what Chinedum meant was the Bible, not God. I’ll get to that. But the Bible quote ends with “resulting in knowledge of Him,” which seems to suggest that God is also implicated. Seemingly, by “better,” Chinedum means “improved over the present state.” Last time I checked, God was defined as utterly otherworldly and completely unknowable (A convienient way to circumvent the petty inconvienience of not having any evidence to His credit). That’s one of the first items on God’s resume. Therefore, any understanding is unthinkable, and simply asking for it will assuredly not get Chinedum any closer.

And, of course, my favorite. “If you read the Bible, you’re well-informed.” Well-informed about the opinions of the handful of nomadic tribesmen who wrote and compiled the bible, not to mention a couple of millenia worth of translatiors. Well-informed about who to stone and what for (Deuteronomy 3.7-11: “If [anyone] tries to secretly seduce you, saying ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ … you must kill him…You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yaweh your God”). And well-informed, of course, about sundry mythological “facts” which have no bearing or application whatsoever in scientifically-informed modern-day life. Perhaps in Chinedum’s native tongue, “well-informed” is defined a bit differently.

Thanks for reading.

Intolerance

Occasionally, people will claim that by forcefully pointing out the absurdities of faith, I am being “intolerant.” However, faith should be treated like any other issue. Many democrats aren’t “tolerant” of George Bush, and criticize him perpetually for a variety of dumb things he’s done. Football fans aren’t “tolerant” of refs when they make bad calls. As such, I lay claim to the right to criticise faith and the faithful just like I might criticize a corrupt politician, a poor foriegn policy stance, or an umpire’s bad call in the Red Sox game.

Deliver us from Sean II

After some gruesome descriptions of the Holocaust, Hannity writes:

“I know this is painful to read, but the only way to come to terms with such
evil is to confront it directly. Rather than treating the Holocaust as dry
history, I believe we must pull something deeper from it, something
real — that can make us understand evil more intimately” (35).

Trouble is, upon more careful examination, most of Hitler’s henchmen performing their gruesome tasts weren’t “evil.” They were, as many of them later professed, simply following orders, and had been bombarded with propaganda all their lives. The power of authority is amazing. Consider this 1968 interview with an American Vietnam veteran:

Q. How many people did you round up?
A. Well, there was about forty, fifty people that we gathered in the center
of the village. And we placed them there, and it was like a little island, right
there in the center of the village, I’d say, …and…
Q. What kind of people–men, women, children?
A. Men, women, children.
Q. Babies?
A. Babies. And we huddled them up. We mand them squat down and Lieutenant
Calley came over and said, “You know what to do with them, don’t you?” And I
said yes. So I took it for granted that he just wanted us to watch them. And he
left and came back about ten or fifteen minutes later and said, “How come you
ain’t killed them yet?” And I told him that I didn’t think you wanted us to kill
them, that you just wanted us to guard them. He said, “No, I want them dead.”
So–
…
Q. And you killed how many? At that time?
A. Well, I fired them automatic, so you can’t– You just spray the area on
them and so you can’t know how many you killed ’cause they were going fast. So I
might have killed ten or fifteen of them.
Q. Men, women, children?
A. Men, women, children.
Q. And babies?
A. And babies.
…
Q. Why did you do it?
A. Why did I do it? Because I felt like I was ordered to do it, and it
seemed like that, at the time I felt like I was doing the right thing, because,
like I said, I lost buddies. … after I done it, I felt good, but later on that
day, it was getting to me.
Q.You’re married?
A. Right.
Q. Children?
A. Two.
…
Q. …How do you shoot babies?
A. I don’t know. It’s just one of those things. (qtd. in Milgram, pp. 183)

You’ll note that when asked why he did it, he doesn’t say, “Well, I have a firm belief in my duty to spread evil.” You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who would say that. Consider also Stanley Milgram’s famous study, showing that when given an order by a guy in a white lab coat, 65% of people will do what he says, even if it involves delivering electric shocks to an ordinary guy who can be heard screaming in pain and pleading for release. What Hannity chalks up to evil is a much more complicated psychological matter. Unfortunately, the real world isn’t in black and white.

Deliver us from Sean I

I picked up a copy of Deliver Us from Evil at the library the other day. It’s Sean Hannity’s 2004 book, subtitled “Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism.” Besides being horribly repetitive, Sean’s got it all wrong. I don’t have time to write a refutation of the whole thing, and I doubt you have time to read it. However, a few notable nuggets of nonsense:

“In the story of Nazi Germany, we see what happens when man forsakes faith, morality and conscience in favor of unquestioned loyalty to the state” (30).

Hmmm. Mind, Hannity’s just spent most of the 29 pages preceding this remark telling us how right America was in its decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and how purely evil terrorists are. Terrorists, though, as Hannity does his best to avoid pointing out, are motivated primarily by faith, thereby not “forsaking” it in the slightest. Morality and conscience – okay, maybe terrorists do forsake that, at least by our cultural definitions of morality and conscience. Sean deserves a smidgen of credit for not equating morality and conscience with faith. The implicit assertion that by “forsaking” faith, we’ll become Hitlers is absurd, and plainly erroneous.

As for unquestioned loyalty to the state… “More than 225 years after that Declaration [of Independence], America has become, without rival, the world’s most beneficent nation. … America sends her young men and women to war to defend the weak. She sends her resources to help feed the poor. And she offers a hand to any nation that seeks friendship and peace” (11-12).

Now, maybe I’m wrong, but that sounds a lot like unquestioned loyalty to me. Sure, maybe we “liberated” the Iraqis. Sean overlooks our callousness to other places in need of “a hand.” Darfur comes to mind; or Zimbabwe. Could it be that Sean is ignoring some other, less poetic motivator? How about, “But most importantly, she uses military force to take over places that have a lot of oil.”

Thanks for reading.