Alex Wilhelm2013-05-25T23:18:36-04:00Alex Wilhelmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=alex-wilhelmCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Alex WilhelmGood old fashioned elbow grease.Why the Ten Commandments Are Un-Americantag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7011682010-09-08T21:14:00-04:002011-05-25T17:30:22-04:00Alex Wilhelmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-wilhelm/that we should create laws "based on the God of the bible and the Ten Commandments."
Now, is the United States a Christian nation? If so, you would assume that the Ten Commandments would have some sway in our legal code, or at least in its spirit.
Sarah's statement makes me curious about whether she actually knows what the Ten Commandments say. If she thinks that they are, or should be the basis for American law, she must dislike strongly the core tenets of this country. Why? Because the 10 rules that can be found in Exodus are, on the whole, decidedly theocratic and anti-capitalistic.
Before we can go through the laws one by one, we have to pick a single version of the Decalogue to use; after all there are many, many to choose from. Digging through the flavors, the Orthodox list seems to be the best to work with. It is simple and straightforward. We shall state each of the rules in turn, and then discuss whether America has based its laws upon it, or should have done so. Let's put Sarah to the test.
1) I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
Things begin roughly for the Right. This first commandment is about as un-American as you can imagine. It flies directly in the face of religious freedom and the melting-pot plurality that we cherish. The little bit of law we call the First Amendment also causes it some trouble. If we were to create a law based on this commandment, we would be living in a strict Christian theocracy. No thanks!
2) You shall not make for yourself an idol.
This is a similar point; we can make idols if we want. Actually, in America you can make exactly as many idols as you desire. Thinking carefully on the matter, you have to wonder if there is a double standard in effect here. Palin is against idols, but extolls fair and honest patriotism and the symbols of our country. Is it wrong to put our flag on a pedestal?
3) Do not take the name of the Lord in vain.
Still no luck for Sarah. This one is beaten back (thankfully) by our freedom of speech (that pesky First Amendment again). Perhaps she wants this one to be law, but you are under no obligation to follow it, thank God.
4) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
This has literally no bearing whatsoever in our nation unless you are trying to find an open bank. If we shut down our country every Sunday, our economy would grind to a halt. Modern society runs constantly; it's how our lives work.
In fact, industriousness is one of American's best points, and that means that we work on Sundays. Restricting productivity? That is hardly American.
5) Honor your father and mother.
Recommended but not mandatory, this commandment is a generally good idea. However, we make allowances for children to be able to leave their homes before legal age if they find the situation untenable, regardless of parental wishes. However you look at it, this commandment is not something that we would ever write into law.
6) You shall not murder [kill].
This is more bad news for Sarah, a death penalty advocate and staunch supporter of our nation's numerous wars. Either God was lying or really speaking conditionally. Did God say no to all killing, or only some killing? You know how the conservative elite feel about those dang Ivory Tower liberals and their situational ethics.
Either way, we here in the U.S. are not so big on killing (at least most of the time), so Sarah straddles this issue. The U.S. rules are a mixed bag. This remains hardly a big score for the Decalogue in U.S. law, now pulling 0.5 points out of six tries.
7) You shall not commit adultery.
Well now, this is a tricky one. Here in the U.S., the country that Sarah seems to not know, adultery is mostly legal. There are some rules on the books in some states that punish it; you can for example rack up a $10 fine Maryland, but following the decision of Lawrence v. Texas, those rules are generally impossible to enact where they do exist. In short, there is no strong legal rule against adultery, leaving the Ten Commandments out of step yet again with America.
8) You shall not steal.
Here we go, the first direct hit for the Ten Commandments in American law. Sadly, this one predates the Bible by a fair margin. Let's move along.
9) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Bad news, this is only illegal part of the time. You can lie all you want, so long as you are not under oath or committing slander or libel. Again, this idea predates Christianity, so even if we grant the measure, it is a cheap victory here for Moses.
10) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Now this one is slightly tricky. You have to think on the larger idea of capitalism, that more is better. If you want more, you desire an object, and there is a decent chance that a neighbor (or at least someone on your block) has that piece. There you see it, the very idea of capitalism is covetous, and as capitalism and free enterprise are foundational elements of this country, the tenth commandment is contrary to the United States. To put it perhaps more crassly, can you imagine a non-covetous Super Bowl advertisement?
So where do we end up? Out of the Ten Commandments, most are not enforced, and several fly directly into the face of our national spirit.
Be glad that we live in the country that we do, not the country that Palin imagines or wishes that we had. ]]>In Praise of Christopher Hitchens: A Paean for a Life Well Livedtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6437972010-07-13T12:25:05-04:002011-05-25T17:00:24-04:00Alex Wilhelmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-wilhelm/
Hitchens himself said something to a similar effect. When confronted with the lack of perhaps a strong historicity of Socrates in a spirited debate, and thus with the possibility of Socrates' non-existence, Christopher said strongly (and I condense) "I do not care if he never lived, it is in his ideas that he was strong. The man is the conveyance." Indeed.
During the week of this essay's writing Christopher Hitchens' diagnosis with cancer had just been made public. His illness is of a serious sort that has a tendency to ignore the efforts of modern medicine. I want to make it plain, this is no eulogy, right now Hitchens is very much alive. Although his pen is calmed during this therapy there is little doubt as to the fact that when given a particle of health the polemic genius will return. Until then, at this difficult time, I would like to take a short moment and extol a man worthy of more praise than he has received thus far in his life. That is the goal of this essay.
It is a cheapened reward to be given full recognition for the good life after its natural conclusion of death. This is especially true as there is no personal afterlife to be enjoyed; only ideas and works live past the grave of their authors. While Christopher is alive we need to take a moment to explain why he has done well, and how we appreciate his life's work; we are in his debt, let us work to absolve that debit.
Christopher Hitchens is an author, journalist, essayist, literary critic, polemicist, and both public speaker and intellectual. Usually it seems that when a person's job listing runs past three slots they are fluffing their resume for one reason or the next. In this case what I have listed is only a fraction of Christopher's accomplishment and capabilities.
Mr. Hitchens has written (through the recent Hitch-22) some 18 books, edited a collection, co-authored or co-edited another seven works, was a partial contributor to three more, and has written numerous introductions to popular books of a different authorial vintage. If that is not enough to impress, Hitchens is also a famed orator whose lectures and participation in debates have gained him a reputation on television, at the university lectern, and on the large stage as a voice of reason that will not give one inch to any bit of illogic or, as he has said, 'piffle.' He is the bulldog of the logical and has often been the popper of the 'bubble reputation' in the regular world. A longtime critic of the literary, and a biographer of the excellent, Christopher has promoted the best, protected the regular, attacked the overrated, and torn down the weak and limited idea as just that: lesser and not capable.
Christopher is a friend of the weak, an ally of the intellectual, a fervent critic of fraud, and an anti-theist. Perhaps you may know him only as the latter, and that is too often the shame. His life has been so much more than the last five years in which his 'god bashing book' brought him new fame. His prominence, it is impossible to say, has not suffered by his branding along with the other so called 'new atheists,' but to merely affix that sticker to Christopher's forehead is to skip the story, read the executive summary, and then to miscomprehend the shortening; surely Hitchens is an anti-theist, but that is merely a theme in his life, not its aggregate.
Christopher Hitchens evokes anger, pain, love, war, calm, peace, strife, extravagance, and one thousand other emotions that are too myriad to contain on these pages. All that a person can do is to read his words, listen to his voice, critically examine his claims and attempt to ascertain when Christopher has a point perfected and when it could be improved. It does nothing for the legacy of a contrarian to treat their work as gospel; nothing Hitchens has ever written should be let go without a firm drubbing of verification, I imagine he would want nothing less. Come to your own conclusions on the merit of what Christopher has said so far, but on my recommendation do not miss what he has to say.
When confronted with the question 'what is truth,' Hitchens took the softball pitch and hit it so far out of the park that no one ever found a shred of the question. To paraphrase, "I could describe the search for it [truth]. But I would be skeptical of anyone who claims to have found it." Yes, that is core the idea of the Enlightenment perhaps better than it has ever been previously put.
And so to Christopher Hitchens we can all raise a glass and thank the living man for his contributions and say that yes, despite a few physical activities that most of us cannot stamp out, this is a man of personal courage that we should attempt to emulate on our own, and a man whose principles we should teach: intellectual curiosity, voracious reading, a constant pursuit of knowledge, and deep self-examination to find in ourselves our weakest ideas that we just may hold dearest. We all have it at least partially wrong, and we will never find out what is true, that is, not without those listed principles.
This is an adapted version of a longer essay that can be found for Kindle here.
]]>Bill Donohue Must Resign, For The Good of American Catholicstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6133482010-06-16T12:41:00-04:002011-05-25T16:45:26-04:00Alex Wilhelmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-wilhelm/Catholic League, needs to be reined in before he completely destroys the reputation of the Catholic Church in the United States.
The Holy See has been through a rather rough patch in the last few years. Unfortunately one of their most public representatives during this time of difficulty has been a man whose actions are indefensible. Mr. Donohue could not have broached the national media arena at a worse time for the church. While the Vatican is in crisis around the world, with the Pope himself calling for change and penance, Bill Donohue has been happily kicking the hornet's nest with a vigor unabated by either logic or circumstance.
We must quickly make two small points. Bill Donohue is the leader of an organization that by its name (the Catholic League), seems to speak for Catholics. This is hardly the case. After all, the Catholic League self-reports only several hundred thousand members in the U.S., a small fraction of the some 68 million Catholics to be found in this nation. Further, the League is not an official part of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately for the more intelligent Catholics here in the States, Donohue is often the man called by news networks to represent their cause; he has by odd circumstance become their voice. We are not discussing rare or isolated instances in which Mr. Donohue has betrayed his inner ugly character. He consistently speaks for people who have not chosen him and do not finance him, and he does them no justice by presenting his opinions as the consensus view of this nation's Catholic population. It is for this offense, in addition to the content of his unctuous remarks, that I publicly call for his resignation.
Bill Donohue has a penchant for the use of physical threats and violent analogies in discussions and debates. During a dialogue with Christopher Hitchens he repeatedly said that "as an Englishman [Hitchens], you have to be quiet when an Irishman speaks." Donohue followed this by threatening Hitchens that if "you want to take it outside, Christopher, that's fine." When allowed the chance to step back from the statement, he reaffirmed his sentiment to another group that he meant that "if you [Hitchens] want to keep it up, I'll sock you."
Donohue also suffers from a strong case of hubris. When on a television show with the artist Cosimo Cavallaro, who had crafted a sculpture that Donohue found to be offensive, Bill not only shouted (his standard vocal volume) that the artist's actions could lead to him "lose more than his head," but that Cosimo had "put his middle finger at Catholic Church and we just broke it, pal." Donohue also called Cosimo a "loser," and stated that he wanted to make him "financially bankrupt." After Cosimo said that he was a Christian, Bill openly mocked him and told him to stop lying.
Sadly, we are merely warming up. Recently Mr. Donohue has been ruffling feathers in an artificial situation involving Mother Teresa and the Empire State building. What, you may ask, do the two have in common? Nothing, but that is more than enough to raise Bill's ire. The Empire State building's management -- all of whom are private citizens -- choose celebrate certain occasions with a multicolored light display. They do not light the building to celebrate or commemorate religious individuals. Bill wanted them to color the building blue and white to celebrate what would be the Mother Teresa's 100th birthday. The owners of the building declined to do so. While the story could have ended there, Mr. Donohue took the chance to excoriate the individuals, saying to the Associate Press that "They're bigots! They have an animus against Catholics." Apparently, to Mr. Donohue, managing your property the way you wish makes you a hateful person.
While we could continue in this vein for some time, with Mr. Donohue flying off the handle at the slightest provocation (his latest missive regarding Lady Gaga -- whom he calls a less attractive Madonna in addition to calling her latest single "vomit-inducing" and claiming that she is treating the Catholic Church like "Muslims"), we will conclude with his assault on one of the great minds of our time, Stephen Hawking. Hawking gave a recent interview with ABC news where he expressed, among other topics, a short explanation of his views on religion and the human race. His comment that humanity is a small and unimportant part of the universe was enough to invoke the curse of Mr. Donohue. To quote his response:
How any rational person could belittle the pivotal role that human life plays in the universe is a wonder, but it is just as silly to say that all religions are marked by the absence of reason.
Stephen Hawking is a man whose views are so obtuse as to be silly and wonder inducing? The educated world wishes to disagree. Donohue is swimming outside of his depth, and is doing so publicly as usual, on a website emblazoned with the word "Catholic" and studded with Catholic images.
Whether threatening intellectuals, insulting and intimidating artists, unsuccessfully spitting on scientists or raising hell on private citizens for acting out their rights, Mr. Donohue is a force for discord. He does not deserve the microphone that is afforded to him by the title and manufactured prestige of his precious Catholic League. The Catholic Church needs friends, allies, and a fresh face to move forward with the changes Pope Benedict has promised to carry out in the new decade. Mr. Donohue works against all those goals, and is a stain on the reputation of the good Catholic people of this nation and elsewhere. The artist we previously discussed effectively summed up Mr. Donohue: "You," he said, "are a bully."
It cannot be better put.
]]>Apostolic Visitation of the Irish Church: A First Step Towards a Brighter Future?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5968852010-06-03T18:10:00-04:002011-05-25T16:40:24-04:00Alex Wilhelmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-wilhelm/making good on his previous promise to probe into the Irish Church's crimes against minors by sending numerous Archbishops to the area under the blanket authority of an Apostolic Visitation.
In more common language the Pope is pushing for an investigation into the shameful past of the Church in Ireland, looking to "respond adequately to the situation caused by the tragic cases of abuse perpetrated by priests and religious upon minors." With the directive of the Pope himself the group of visiting leaders seems likely to have the authority to enact change if it so desires.
This is a small ray of sunshine into a room that has been dark these several millennia. As I have written before, child abuse is the very opposite of a new problem in the Holy Roman Church; it is a problem as old as the Church itself. As small as this initial pulse of brightness may seem, we need to accept reality as it is: this could be the advent of something that will finally change the future of the Church to not reflect its past.
However, we must not let our vigilance of the Holy See abate in the slightest. Our first directive as global citizens and humans is to recognize that child abuse is a continuing problem in the Church. We will not tolerate anything less than a shakeup of the Church's systems and methods for handling the problem of child abuse, the release of all known abusers still in the Catholic Church to the appropriate legal authorities, and the expulsion of all known abusers from the Vatican proper. The tolerance for child abuse should be the same inside a church as it is outside: zero.
Yes, there are a thousand miles to walk, and we only may have taken the first step, but a step towards a destination is a world of change from the denial of a necessary expedition. As they say, admitting that you have a problem is the first step towards its correction.
Let us watch as the Vatican in Ireland views the wreckage that it has wrought, and let us see if it can stomach the human misery without pushing forth drastic changes. If they walk from that land with nothing more than calls for prayer and spiritual propitiations, the people of Ireland have been horribly jilted. The Church will have said in complete signed unwritten verse that the status quo is to be the way of the Church and that the past will again be the future.
We may not see that. We may see a break with history, and a new way forward from a Church with a troubled past, a scandalous present, and a leader who himself at one point was a dedicated advocate of sweeping abuse under the rug. Every human deserves a chance to turn over a new leaf, and so we owe it to greater humanity to grant them a window of time in which they can redeem themselves. They may, of course, take the interval to hang themselves with their own actions, but that is not for us to decide.
The die is cast, and the pieces are in motion. Mr. Ratzinger, it is your turn.]]>Intelligent Design Is an Empty Sack, So Why Do We Have to Repeat This?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5861092010-05-25T14:43:00-04:002011-05-25T16:35:20-04:00Alex Wilhelmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-wilhelm/Intelligent Design's Coffin Is Still Empty." I say 'boldly,' as I was quite surprised by the title. Intelligent Design not dead? It could not be. What had happened in science without my noticing that had given creationism merit? As it turns out, perhaps unsurprisingly, Giberson had nothing new to say. Indeed his article was a rehash of several well-worn gripes that are often worked up to appear supportive of Intelligent Design.
As a quick aside, it is very appropriate to discuss Intelligent Design here in this place of religious dialogue. Intelligent Design, which is creationism, is a religious position. You will never meet a non-religious person who is a proponent of Intelligent Design. Religion does not preclude an understanding and acceptance of evolution, but non-religion does end one's chances of finding any truth in Intelligent Design. Do also note, as we move along, that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It is untestable and unfalsifiable, therefore failing the definition of the word 'theory.' It is not an alternative theory, a competing theory, or anything of the sort. It is a poor conjecture created by religious charlatans to push an anti-science agenda.
Giberson's post had four main points as to why Intelligent Design is somehow in his view still alive (hence the empty casket). We shall take them on one at a time. His first claim is perhaps the most interesting, as science has proved him wrong in a new way since his article was published.
1. The complex designs of many natural structures that have not yet been explained by science. As long as there are ingenious devices and intricate phenomena in nature (origin of life, anyone?) that we cannot understand, there will be ID arguments.
Before I introduce our recent scientific breakthrough, we can dispense with this simply. This is an application of the "god of the gaps" theory, the idea that whatever science cannot explain, god must have done. You can see the fallacy of the idea quite simply. We know more today than yesterday, and thus either god became smaller or he was never there at all. When science was much more ignorant, this sort of idea held more weight.
With respect for the clock we shall move on to our next disagreement with Ginsberg's point, that of abiogenesis. The creation of life was just cracked by science. Not completely, and not well, and only in a laboratory, but we have finally created life out of a pile of matter. Impressive, and completely contradictory to what Ginsberg is attempting to say. He wants you to feel that either science knows everything, or god exists. It's a straw man argument, with the scarecrow being the need to have everything fully explained in this instant.
Science is working as quickly as it can to learn. History has shown it a very dangerous game to bet against discovery's progression. In short, Ginsberg says "Intelligent Design has some weight as it explains things that science cannot," to which we retort, "It actually explains nothing at all and is egregious pseudoscience."
2. The remarkable, finely-tuned structure of the cosmos in which the laws of physics collaborate to make life possible. Many agnostics have had their faith in unguided materialism shaken by this, most recently Anthony Flew.
Ah, the fine-tuning argument. It is impossible to even speak to a person with faith in creationism without their pointing up and saying, "See!" Here Ginsberg is attempting to connect things that do not cross, saying, "Look at the universe! Therefore, god." This is unimpressive to say the least.
I could direct you to a library of material on this matter from the best astrophysicists and theoretical physicists, but that would take time; arguments that show the literal emptiness of the claim are short enough to share here.
When one looks at the universe, and the Earth, and takes note of the machinations that are required to make their particular life possible, it can be quite impressive. "Look what the Lord has provided for me," you might proclaim. That the universe appears to be somewhat designed for you should come as no surprise; after all, you are here. Given that our species has arisen, certain conditions must have been true for several billions of years. The mistake that most people make at this point is to assume the existence of humans as fact, and then to mold the universe to that fact. That is wholly backwards. Humans could just as easily not have evolved. The fact that we are here is a tribute to the universe as it is. We are therefore only a product and component of it, not its culmination.
At this point we must discuss the ego of the living. "But we do exist," shout the creationists, "so there must have been a plan." It is sometimes phrased differently: "We are here, so there must be something more," and so forth. Fine, let us take it as fact just for a moment that there was a plan. To paraphrase several skeptics, if we are a plan, we are quite a bad one. We took an entire universe billions of years to eke out, our species almost died off in its infancy, and even now we fail to feed ourselves. Our single planet is mostly inhospitable to human life, and we find ourselves at the mercy of nature itself far too often. Even more, our planet is doomed. The sun will expand into a red giant soon enough, burning away all water on earth and thus killing off everything alive. Following, in a few more billion years we will collide with the Andromeda galaxy. If god's great grand plan was to bring forth a universe to allow him to craft a broken, generally warlike people on some small rock away from the Galactic core before smacking it with another galaxy, then good on that plan. Just don't expect any logical person to give you a moment of their time when you try and pitch it.
3. The widespread belief that God -- an intelligent agent -- created the universe. The claim that an intelligent God created an unintelligent universe seems peculiar, to say the least.
This is a reason why Intelligent Design is viable? This is merely an example of how uneducated people make mistakes when they are confronted with a discipline that they do not understand. This is not a reason for Intelligent Design to be treated with any sort of respect or dignity; it is merely an exhortation of our school system to improve itself to help prevent mass ignorance.
As to the intelligent god creating the unintelligent universe, he seems to be saying that as so many people believe in creationism, they cannot all be dolts, and as god would not want his creation to be foolish, god created the universe thus validating their view. Logical gymnastics aside, his core point is wrong. Deists believe in just that: that god kicked things into motion and then got out of the way.
4. The enthusiastic insistence by the New Atheists that evolution is incompatible with belief in God. Most people think more highly of their religion than their science. Imagine trying to get 100 million Americans to dress up for a science lecture every Sunday morning -- and then voluntarily pay for the privilege.
Ginsberg makes two points here, the first claiming that as the New Atheists insist that evolution and religion are incompatible, Intelligent Design will live on. He then states that as a country, we put much more emphasis and weight on religion than science; we respect it more.
Again Ginsberg gets his facts in a bunch. In fact we Americans do pay more for our science than our religion. Look at the national budgets for education, and for federally funded scientific research. Now add in private school and university education and research budgets. Finally tack on the expenses of private enterprises working to create scientific breakthroughs not just one day a week but seven. The totals are not even close.
Now are science and religion compatible? Personally, I don't think so. I never managed to pull off the feat when I was religious, but the scientists that I know best disagree with me. Perhaps it is best to say that science and religion can exist side by side. They cannot exist, however, on top of each other. They do not mix. No scientist that I know, or have known, has or will support Intelligent Design. Leave religion and science apart; when they mix, nonsense ensues.
Ginsberg closes by saying that science's attempts to quash Intelligent Design have been an "abysmal failure." Has science really failed? Or is it more the truth that was never any substance for science to crush, that Intelligent Design was always mere puff and fantasy? You know the answer.
]]>Don't Ban the Burqa, Just Shun Its Usetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5725662010-05-12T13:04:00-04:002011-05-25T16:25:21-04:00Alex Wilhelmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-wilhelm/wearing a burqa in public. This is hardly an isolated incident; countries on two continents are contemplating legal restrictions on the garment. In Europe the burqa is fast becoming a proxy battle between Western governments and growing Islamic immigrant populations. The scrap over the burqa is a symbol of the cultural differences that exist between Muslim immigrants and the generally secular governments that run the countries they now reside in.
Reasons behind the laws are varied, with different voices joining together to move the bills forward. Many women's groups view the burqa as a tool for the subjugation of women and are therefore advocating for passage of these laws. Some government officials are looking to ban total facial covering in public as necessary precaution against terrorism. Needless to say, there are some fair arguments for the laws' creation.
Classic liberal thinking is ambiguous in this situation -- torn between empathy with women who are subjugated into the roles of servants and forced to wear such oppressive garments, and the recognition that some women do in fact wish to wear burqas for their own personal reasons. Where do you draw the line?
For the Italian woman mentioned above, the fine for her attire (a steep 500 Euro) is the least of her concerns. Her husband has decided that if she cannot wear the burqa outside, then she cannot go outside. The woman is now effectively under house arrest for committing no crime. She will not be able to go outside to take a morning walk or an evening stroll. Her sentence is life in prison.
Anyone who has read the Koran or the Hadith understands the foundational basis for strict clothing rules for women. If you believe the books, you cannot avoid the passages. This man, and by default his wife, is basing his actions on those passages, and is therefore exercising his religious freedom. We must respect this. When given freedom, not everyone makes the choices we wish they would; lumps come with the territory. While we might wish to bemoan her decision to abide by the wishes of her spouse, it is her choice to do so. However, if his wife wishes to leave the house, she must be able. He may not coerce or threaten her in any way to stay indoors. She may follow his request to inside, but he may not force cooperation.
At the risk of estranging my humanist and feminist friends and readers, I have to stand against the banning of the burqa not just out of respect for liberty, but also for the second reason: it could hurt women more than help them. As we have seen in the case of the Italian woman, banning the burqa as an ancient hulking relic of sexism can backfire and take away what modicum of freedom that these women had enjoyed previously. I find it extremely uncomfortable to say this, as I am sure there are many women who live their lives in sorrow, forced to live as a walking tent or as the only inmate of a house-shaped prison. The cultural values of even modern Islam hardly fit well into a Western sensibility of gender equality.
To remind yourself of just what we are discussing here, look at this woman and see if you can do so without a wave of pity at her plight.
Of course, it's more understandable if a law must be passed for public safety reasons. It is far more justifiable to limit freedoms with respect to facial covering and other identity obfuscation on government property. No one should be willing to sacrifice the normal public safety for a strict religious belief. When you board a plane, no matter what your views, you pass through a metal detector or do not board the plane. No exceptions are allowed due to your religious views when you are part of a group. Your faith does not give you the right to outrank anyone else.
That is not to say that we cannot react to the burqa, even if we have to stand against its banning. There are ways of small personal protest that can be employed. Individuals are allowed to express their views in the ways they see fit. While those might have some impact, the secular tool against cultural abhorrences such as the burqa will be what is always has been, education. No normal woman wants to be discriminated against, and given time and proper schooling they can and will change their situation. We should be there to help them. If not, shame on us.
Sexism is a pernicious cultural sin. We cannot let it exist without protest. ]]>The Long Scandal: A History of Abusetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5609042010-05-05T11:55:00-04:002011-05-25T16:20:27-04:00Alex Wilhelmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-wilhelm/
There has been much suffering and pain at the hands of the Church against the most innocent and defenseless in human society, children. Indeed, the numbers speak for themselves: in the last 50 years some 30,000 people in 25 countries have reported abuse committed by the Church's many workers. Considering that rape is the most under-reported of violent crimes (only one-third of victims report), this statistic is nothing less than horrifying. Tragically, the odds are quite high that there are children in the world this very day who will be sexually abused by their priest.
Among the multitudes of difficult questions this raises, one that begs to be answered is whether or not child abuse is a new problem in the Church. If rampant crime against children by priests is a modern problem, then it follows that it might be clearly rectifiable. In other words, it would be possible to return to policies in place at a time when the Church was effective at preventing child abuse. As this essay discusses below, it does not appear that there was a time that the Church was effective at preventing child abuse -- this is a problem that reaches back to the earliest days of its formation and practice.
The current Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, has stated (in a letter to the much-abused citizenry of Ireland), that part of the blame for the abuse scandals and their handling by the Church of Ireland was due to "rapid transformation and secularization of Irish society." This statement is not just morally offensive, it is logically fallacious. It appears the Pope was trying to place at least partial blame onto the modern world for the crimes, thus deflecting the Holy See from full responsibility. Additionally, by attacking recent changes in "modern society" he made the scandal modern, implying that this is a new difficulty for the Church.
On this point, the Pope is clearly wrong. Religious documents dating back to before the writing of the New Testament highlight problems inside the Church regarding sexual rule-breaking and the abuse of boys. The Church has hung itself with its own paper trail and history.
One must only examine the Didache, a very early theological text which is usually dated around 70 A.D. Far from being some cheap forgery doctored to cast a negative light on the Church, this tract is foundational and has been accepted by Catholic Church into the collection of the Apostolic Fathers.
Children come up repeatedly in the Didache, usually for their protection. Actions against children that are banned in the document include their abortion in the womb, their murder after birth, their use in fornication, and their employment in rape and pederasty. While these commandments are only part of the document, their message is clear: leave the children alone. One has to wonder, why the special focus? One purpose for making a moral commandment is to amend behavior and set a better path forward; from this it is not hard to infer that some child abuse took place in the earliest Church. This is a good start for the Christians, to speak out against abuse, but sadly their first pronouncements did not stick.
By the Council (or Synod) of Elvira in 309, the problem of child abuse had become large enough for special punishments to be put in place. One particularly strong proclamation was as follows: "Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune, even when death approaches." In those times, this was fairly severe punishment. Unfortunately, the actual punishments didn't match the guidelines laid out.
As inferred above from the Didache, child abuse was a problem during the first days of Christendom. In the year 309 there were new punishments created to enforce previous edicts. This could suggest there were little or no punishments in force before 309. Furthermore, when the Council of Elvira did decide that punishment was required, a theological slap on the wrist was ordered. In the eyes of the Church, an appropriate punishment for raping a child was the legal equivalent of being disbarred. Note that there was no secular reporting or punishment required. The issue was seen in spiritual terms and treated as such. It is doubtful that the children who were molested found that to be a satisfactory reprisal. Further, and obviously, the punishment failed to mitigate the problem.
Leaving the earliest years of the Church, we move to Saint Peter Damian and his view of the very Church by which he was later sainted. Saint Peter described the Clergy of the Church at the time to be a veritable cesspool. He was so outraged by the Men of the Cloth that in the year 1049 he wrote the "Book of Gomorrah," and dedicated it to the Pope. In the tome, he railed against the Priesthood of his time, specifically condemning sodomy against both children and young priests. This is damning evidence from one of the Church's own saints indicting them for rampant abuses from as early as the advent of the second millennium.
By the year 1600, a familiar system had been developed: the quiet moving or promoting of priests out of locations where they had been abusing the local children. This system continues to this very day.
Clearly, two patterns emerge: the Catholic Church has been struggling with the abuse of minors (usually boys) by members of the Priesthood since the earliest days of the church; and the Church tended to deal with the problem both internally and ineffectively.
To bring the discussion to our current day, we must revisit Ratzinger, the current Pope and Vicar of Christ on Earth. In 2001 he made it plain in Church doctrine that child sex abuse cases should not only be kept internal, but should be dealt with under the deepest cover that the Church has, Pontifical Secret. Ratzinger advocated, and one can only suspect still wishes, to keep abuse in the dark. This is a continuation of Catholic policy for nearly the extent of the Church's history.
Finally it is argued that although tragic, rape and abuse are merely parts of human society, and that it is therefore unfair to point a finger at Catholic Church. After all, to err is human and so forth. This would be fair criticism if the Church claimed to be no more than merely a collection of persons, but this is not the case. The Church claims to occupy a moral high ground, own the answers to life's largest questions, and know the only pathway to Heaven. Systematic direct and indirect sexual abuse of children is one of the many symptoms of a diseased Church that should no longer be allowed to claim moral superiority.
When a priest rapes a child entrusted to him, he not only shatters a life but becomes a felon and a hypocrite. It is high time that we begin treating abusive priests and those who enable them as exactly what they are -- criminals.
The Catholic Church is in trouble today, but they should be prosecuted in the public mind for millennia of wrongdoings against children. It is a long scandal, a heartbreaking history of abuse. "There is nothing new under the sun," the Bible tells us, and the Catholic Church has confirmed it.]]>Why Christianity Must Adapt -- Or Perishtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5527292010-04-26T19:13:00-04:002011-05-25T16:15:25-04:00Alex Wilhelmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-wilhelm/
The non-religious of the world will be quick to point out that this is in fact something of a new question, whether the religion should fit the culture or the other way about. Historically, Christianity's church held much more control and influence in daily lives of people around the world. The question of adapting the religion to better fit a morality in flux (most people would say for the better) was moot. The Bible and the Church were both the guide and the morality.
Modern times have changed the equation. Freedom to practice religion as one wishes implies less central homogeneity among Christians. Without a central core, doctrine can wander. Once you have the freedom to leave to find a better-fitting sect, start your own, or just stop practicing all together, it becomes much more difficult to corral a society. Unless a single sect so dominates a certain area, no specific church or even Christendom can exert enough control to enforce its views. I would posit that voluntary assimilation is no control at all.
This, of course, is why Brian D. McLaren is on the right path in his most recent work A New Kind of Christianity. McLaren is advocating a different, perhaps upgraded form of Christianity that takes a more objective view of history and employs a better interpretation of the Bible. This allows him to take what he finds good and best in that book, rendering it more applicable and accessible to a modern, educated people.
At least he recognizes the challenge. As humanity progresses around the world, unlocking the science of the universe, time seems to move more quickly. The pace of progress accelerates, from the depressed call of "nothing new under the sun" to the doubling of human knowledge every decade or so (estimates vary, pick your number); we now expect change as an inherent, paradoxically stable truth.
How does this fit with the literalist, conservative Christian view? You can see that it is intrinsically opposed; a more liberal interpretation of Christian doctrine could make space for science that promises the great, the life-improving, and the new. A literal interpretation of the Bible offers regressionism and leaves little room for progress. This is exactly where McLaren finds the inherent problem with modern Christianity, and the exact thing that must change: the Bible is a ballast.
What of a new Bible, one that makes more sense examining the past and is pro-human when applied to the future, releasing past dogma for improvements and corrections? As you may have guessed, it is not necessary to replace the physical work and words of the Bible; it is sufficient to have it become a new book via a fresh reading.
Now, where does that leave us? The temperate Christians among us might find that to be a fair idea, already having been employing it in everything but name. Most Christians read Genesis and Revelations as allegory and tale, not as fact. The proportion of Christians who take Scripture to be literal truth declines as the education of a population rises, creating an increasingly irreconcilable tension among intellectuals and the religious. Testament to this is the difference in religiosity shown between scientists and the average citizen.
The relevancy and perceived truth of the Bible among Christians and non-Christians through time has always been changing. But the general trend has long been towards complete repudiation by the non-religious, and reinterpretation among the faithful. McLaren is calling for a much quicker change, a larger, conscious adaptation of the religion's text and therefore the religion itself. This manifests as a firm repudiation of the most odious passages (e.g., how to enslave, when to stone, and so forth are to be disregarded).
Why should these changes be made now? Is there such a dire need here in the United States? In short, yes. The Pew Forum has a rather revealing recent poll that outlines a quick collapse of American religion. Quick, that is, in a historical context. Given that we have long been a majority-Christian nation, the Pew numbers of aggregate religion are a fair look at how Christianity is surviving in the States. What can we see? Of people born from 1981 on, some 26 percent claim no religious affiliation. Among people born between 1965 and 1980, the percentage of non-believers is a lower 20 percent. Heading farther back, those born from 1946 to 1964 are only 13-percent non-religious.
A doubling, that is, between the boomers and the most recent generation. As you know, doubling is a geometric function. If the number of non-believers doubles again in 50 years, then by around 2050, the United States will be a majority non-religious country. Clearly, if Christianity seeks to not only stay relevant but viable, it must adapt. The proof is in the numbers; Christianity is suffering.
The Biblical passages subjugating women to the back of the bus need to be let go to reach the modern woman, who no more expects to be treated as a second class citizen than to be beaten. The passages condemning people born homosexual as abominations need to be released to make the church inclusive. The blatantly incorrect attempts at science and history in the book need to be shut out if Christianity is to attract the educated who could not reconcile the Bible and the real world.
If Christians want to find some sort of hope to reverse the trend in the game that they are losing, they would be wise to listen to not just McLaren but also the person sitting next to them who left the Church because it never spoke to them. That person is the reason Christianity is suffering a silent crisis.]]>