Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1863

After a Brief Suspension for Defending Evolution, ESPN’s Keith Law Returns to Twitter with This Gem

Last week, retired baseball star Curt Schilling took to Twitter to criticize, of all things, evolution. And one of his critics was ESPN baseball writer Keith Law, who tried (to no avail) talking sense into the pitcher.

Law was temporarily suspended by ESPN for those tweets (which, let’s admit, were not even remotely offensive).

This week, Law returned to Twitter with this web gem:

“Eppur si muove” translates to “And yet it moves,” the words Galileo uttered when he was forced to recant about the Earth rotating around the sun. It was a quiet admission that scientific truth remained even when the ignorance of others was on full display.

To understand that line, though, you might have to do some research. Which means Curt Schilling won’t notice anytime soon.

Oklahoma Satanists Back Out of Monument Project, but Satanic Temple Officials Say They Will Still Press On

For a couple of years now, there’s been a Ten Commandments monument outside the Oklahoma Capitol building:

Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma (via James Nimmo)

Last month, a Christian man, off his medications, drove his car into the monument, completely destroying it. A state official said the monument would be replaced with private funding.

But long before any of that happened, there was a different controversy. The ACLU had filed a lawsuit against the state government, alleging that the monument constituted a government endorsement of religion.

In the meantime, the Satanic Temple decided they wanted to put up their own monument on state property. If Christians could do it, the thinking went, then the doors were open to all groups! It wouldn’t cost the taxpayers a dime.

They soon revealed the design for their monument and got to work creating it:

That would be a 7-foot-tall statue of Baphomet flanked by smiling children. Beautiful, no?

In order to go through the process of putting up that monument, the Satanic Temple needed a local supporter willing to sign some paperwork (and possibly go in front of the media). They found a couple of volunteers in Adam Daniels and his wife Kelsey, who also called themselves Satanists. A few months ago, the couple also spearheaded a controversial Black Mass in Oklahoma City, a move the media often wrongly attributed to the Satanic Temple, though there was no formal connection.

In the month following the Satanic Temple’s request, a Hindu group said they also wanted to donate a statue. More requests were inevitably coming. And that led the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission to declare a moratorium on all petitions — at least until the ACLU’s lawsuit was settled.

Here’s where things get interesting.

The ACLU’s lawsuit was dismissed a couple of months ago (though the group says it will appeal). And the destroyed Ten Commandments monument will be rebuilt. So the question is: Will the Satanic Temple’s monument now be allowed?

That’s a question we’ve been asking for nearly a year, despite all the distractions.

Earlier this week, things took a weird turn when the Daniels backed out of their support for the monument, saying they wanted nothing to do with it anymore:

“Why would I want to give a small child nightmares and destroy their psyche with a monster,” said Satanist Adam Daniels.

…

“The first thing was putting the children with the Baphomet statue to begin with as a design” said Daniels. “Then the controversy over in Florida where he designed the children’s books, Satanic children’s book for little kids.”

For this Satan worshiper, it all stops when children get involved.

“One of the rules in Satanism is do not harm little children.” said Daniels.

That’s… weird. Especially since no little children are being harmed by this statue. The Satanic Temple wouldn’t condone it, the statue doesn’t suggest it, and it’s a complete misrepresentation of everything Satanists stand for.

But does this mean the monument is dead?

No, says Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucien Greaves. He told me (via email) that the Daniels were never actual members of his organization, that he didn’t even endorse their Black Mass, and he’s “quite happy” to be rid of the connection to the couple:

While many people have expressed their concern that [the Daniels backing out] will somehow damage our campaign, we’re quite happy that Kelsey and her husband, Adam, are now making clear their lack-of-affiliation with our organization.

… The Daniels’s withdrawing their support for the monument, loudly and publicly, seems to be a last bid for media attention in The Satanic Temple’s name. We’re happy for the opportunity to finally make perfectly clear that Adam Daniels and his wife have absolutely no place whatsoever within The Satanic Temple, and we can claim no responsibility for any of their activities.

As for a petition for local standing, we’ve received dozens of emails from Oklahoma supporters who are eager to take on that role.

That means state officials will still have to decide whether the Satanic Temple’s monument can go up on government property.

If they say no, they will almost certainly face another lawsuit.

If they say yes… then there will be a Satanic monument on the grounds of the state Capitol building and that’s freakin’ awesome.

Greaves says he plans to resubmit the petition very soon and that the Daniels backing out will not be an obstacle at all.

Catholic School Principal Vetoes Sixth Graders’ Project on the Importance of Gay Rights

11-year-olds Quinn Maloney-Tavares and Polly Hamilton, two sixth grade students at St. George Catholic School in Ottawa, were recently assigned a project where they had to talk about a social justice issue. Naturally, they decided to focus on gay rights:

“A lot of people, they don’t know they’re being rude, but they make being gay a bad thing,” said [Maloney-Tavares]… “They need to know that it’s not a bad thing.”

That’s a great point — and one well worth making at a Catholic school, since Catholic teaching is that homosexuality is “ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil” and therefore an “objective disorder.”

But the principal of the school, Ann Beauchamp, told the girls they needed to find a different topic:

… Beauchamp wouldn’t budge. “She felt very strongly about her decision,” [mother Ann] Maloney said.

The students’ projects go on display at a social justice fair in January, attended by students from Grades 4 to 6. Beauchamp didn’t feel gay rights “was a topic that was appropriate for that age group,” Maloney said.

Human rights isn’t appropriate for that age group?! Do students take history classes? Because I promise you there’s plenty of violence and genocide and conquering in there, and no one’s suggesting we should hold off on teaching history until the kids enter high school. What do they read in English class? Green Eggs and Ham?

If kids are old enough to learn about family structures, they’re old enough to learn that there’s nothing wrong with having two dads or two moms. And if they’re old enough to talk about respect, it shouldn’t be a problem to extend that respect to people who don’t always receive it. 11-year-olds are well-versed in all of this.

The principal’s own stance justified the girls’ choice of topic.

Here’s the best part, though. The girls came back to school and responded in the most perfect way:

As a silent protest, the two wore rainbow colours to school and painted small rainbow flags on their hands.

When they explained why, their classmates said, “Oh my goodness, guys, that’s such a good idea,” Quinn said. Several other students painted rainbow flags on their hands in solidarity.

Want to know why the Catholic Church is in trouble? Because kids like these know more about human decency than many of the adults around them, and they get reminded of that every time Catholic leaders whine about marriage equality and women’s rights. These are the people who will walk out of the Church the first chance they get because they understand their faith is the problem here, not the solution.

By the way, forced to change their project, the girls decided to focus on discrimination in general — which I guess is age-appropriate — and they plan to include anti-gay discrimination in the mix.

Maybe their next project can focus on all the damage the Catholic Church has done over the years.

(Image via Shutterstock. Thanks to Steve for the link)

No, We Don’t Worship the Same God!

(via Paul Noth at the New Yorker)

Looking for a Website Developer…

I’m looking for someone who can develop a website for the podcast.

It should be a fairly simple project, but I need someone who can take care of setting it all up from start to finish, and it should be something I can easily update afterwards.

If you’re interested, please send me your rates and resume! If I’m interested, I’ll be in touch very soon. Anyone who’s done something like this before moves to the front of the line!

New Survey Finds That Not All Americans Take Christian Beliefs Seriously; Ken Ham, As Usual, Blames Evolution

A study commissioned by Ligonier Ministries and conducted by LifeWay Research found that not all Americans believe in the tenets of Christianity. While this is disturbing news for the ministry, it’s wonderful news for those of us working to loosen the grip of religion in the country. Half of Americans don’t buy into all this nonsense!

Creationist Ken Ham can’t believe it; he blames evolution. (Though, to be fair, Ham would blame evolution if he couldn’t find his keys in the morning.)

According to the survey, the majority of Americans (53%) don’t believe that heaven and hell are real places and almost half think that there are many different ways to heaven. Also, less than half of the participants believe that God authored the Bible and over half (57%) don’t think the Bible is always accurate. Consequently, only half of Americans (49%) think the Bible has authority in our lives. Sadly, while half of the population (51%) may think that the Bible is authoritative, many of these people don’t base their thinking in all areas on God’s Word as nearly half (45%) are said to believe that the Bible was written for each person to interpret as they chose.

…

We have found that a major reason for our young people leaving is because many in the church have neglected God’s Word in Genesis. Instead of accepting what the Bible says about the history of the earth, by and large the church has replaced God’s Word with man’s by accepting evolution and/or millions of years and so God’s Word is no longer accepted as the ultimate authority on Earth’s history — man’s word is! It should come as no surprise that this compromise hasn’t stayed in Genesis but has spread to how people view the rest of the Bible. After all, if you cannot trust God’s Word in Genesis, then why trust what it says throughout the rest of Scripture?

I fully agree. But he’s putting too much responsibility on Genesis. It’s the easiest book to reject. You can play this game with the New Testament, too, and still watch the dominoes topple.

Dr. R.C. Sproul, who runs Ligonier Ministries, summarized the findings with the greatest line I’ve heard in a while:

What comes screaming through this survey is the pervasive influence of humanism.

You’re welcome, America.

Israel Contemplates Bill That Gives Jews More Rights While Reducing Those of Religious Minorities

In Israel, all are equal, but some may soon be more equal than others.

The “Jewish nation-state” bill would recognize Israel’s Jewish character, institutionalize Jewish law as an inspiration for legislation and possibly de-list Arabic as a second official language. It is being promoted vigorously by the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu [pictured below], and was approved by the Israeli cabinet on Sunday, but has attracted fierce criticism.

Those critics include Reuven Rivlin, the country’s president, who said he wants to ensure that “the Arab public in Israel not feel like the Jews felt in the diaspora.”

Said one commentator:

“A quarter of Israel’s population is not Jewish, and probably the most important item on the nation’s agenda should be their integration into the fabric of Israeli society and their participation in the Israeli economy. Giving them the feeling of being at home, of being equal citizens.”

Some two-thirds of Israeli Jews believe that Jews are God’s chosen people.

Ken Ham Says Atheists Are Attacking His Religious Freedom, but Fails to Mention His Illegal Hiring Practices

Either Ken Ham doesn’t understand why people have a problem with his Ark Encounter theme park… or he does, but he’s lying to his Christian audience, anyway. I wouldn’t put that past him.

Here’s the issue: Answers in Genesis, Ham’s ministry, is a religious non-profit. That’s why the Creation Museum can require you to sign a “statement of faith” if you want to work there.

Ark Encounter, the Noah’s Ark theme park that’s eligible for millions of dollars in tax rebates, is a for-profit business. They cannot discriminate in hiring.

But as I’ve mentioned on this site a few times already, a job listing at AiG’s website made clear that being a Christian was a prerequisite, even though the position was for Ark Encounter:

That’s the one thing Ham can’t do if he wants perks from the state. In fact, if state officials believe AiG is discriminating in hiring, they could rescind the opportunity for Ham to earn up to $18,000,000 in tax rebates. (The Freedom From Religion Foundation has already urged the IRS to investigate the park’s hiring policies.)

In a fundraising letter just sent out this week, Ham doesn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing. Instead, he says this is all just Christian persecution:

Right now, because of pressure from atheists and some very liberal newspapers in Kentucky on state government officials, our freedom of speech and freedom of religion with this outreach are now under attack.

One letter from the State of Kentucky to AiG makes it clear that the state seeks to discriminate against us because of our Christian message. The letter from a state official, with statements that criticize us for having an evangelistic purpose and possibly hiring Ark staff who agree with our Christian faith, is remarkable.

Here is one of the many incredible statements in that letter (which was also obtained and published by the liberal media): ‘The Commonwealth (of Kentucky) must have the express written assurance from Ark Encounter, LLC that it will not discriminate in any way on the basis of religion in hiring.’

But as is clear settled law, churches and other religious organizations are allowed to hire employees who agree with their religious viewpoint!

Who would have ever thought that such governmental interference would come to America!

No one’s attacking Ham for being Christian. We’re going after him because he’s breaking the law by running a business that denies job opportunities to people because of their religious beliefs. He can do that in his church, he can do that at the Creation Museum, but he can’t do that if he wants to create a for-profit theme park. It’s that simple.

Oh, by the way, Ham still needs a ton of money. Roughly $14,000,000. He says the park is scheduled to open in 2016, but who knows how long that’ll be postponed if he can’t raise the money and if he loses the tax breaks he believes should be coming his way.

(Thanks to Jim for the link. Portions of this article were published earlier)

Christian Author: If You Don’t Accept Miracles, You’re Intolerant and Closed-Minded

Christian author Eric Metaxas has a new book out all about miracles (“what they are, why they happen, and how they can change your life”).

It’s nothing new, of course. His “miracles” include things like the fine-tuning argument and the improbability of life, which have been countered and rebutted many times over.

But here’s the real question: How does Metaxas respond to atheists who don’t consider any of this proof of God’s existence? Are they too skeptical? Are they just missing evidence that he can provide?

Nope. It’s much worse than that:

“What I say is that people who are skeptics like [Richard] Dawkins — to be as skeptical as he is — I find there’s a real intolerance and a lack of open-mindedness,” Metaxas said. ”If you have to put that much emotion and nastiness into it, it tells me the arguments are not on your side, the evidence is not on your side.”

There you have it. It’s not that we want more proof — or don’t consider improbability automatic evidence of God’s existence. It’s that we’re intolerant, close-minded jerks.

If that’s the sort of reasoning he uses in the book, then there’s nothing in it worth reading.

It’s been said before, but the only thing skeptics are intolerant of is bullshit, and being open-minded is fine as long as it doesn’t involve our brains falling out. Metaxas is using the same old irrational Christian apologetics that we’ve all heard repeatedly. He mistakes “miracles” for things we can’t necessarily recreate in a laboratory yet or things we may not have a natural explanation for yet. “Yet” being the key word.

Everything is a miracle until you finally figure it out. But the only way that happens is by asking questions, performing experiments, and educating yourself.

Nothing about that is intolerant or closed-minded, no matter how Metaxas wants to spin it.

You May Think Their Actions Are Un-Islamic, but It Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Muslims

This is a guest post by Lala Stone. She also writes at Medium and Alternet.

…

Mass murderer Anders Breivik — the man who killed 77 people in Norway in July of 2011 — made it extremely clear what his religion is in his 1,500 page manifesto.

“At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church,” he wrote. “I consider myself to be 100% Christian.”

Bill O’Reilly was not convinced.

“Breivik is not a Christian. That’s impossible,” he said on Fox News a few days after the murders. “No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.”

Christians are often quick to kick people out of their tribe, to say fundamentalists are not “true Christians.” Of course, this is just a version of the “no true Scotsman” argument. Instead of admitting that some members of your group have objectionable characteristics, you just redefine the group so it excludes the undesirables. O’Reilly didn’t ask if there was something within Christian teachings that might have contributed to Breivik’s crimes. He didn’t wonder how a Christian could have done something so terrible. O’Reilly just dismissed him as not a Christian at all, despite Breivik’s statements to the contrary.

Muslims often take a different route and aren’t as quick to exclude extremists from their religion — and this slight distinction makes for a big difference in how to combat it. A few of the Facebook comments for Terry Firma‘s recent post said that ISIS is not “Islamic,” which is a shade different from saying they are not real Muslims. Instead, they’re essentially saying “you got Islam wrong.” By not denying the faith of the violent extremists, the Muslims saying this not only avoid the No true Scotsman fallacy, they also don’t rule out the possibility of dialogue with extremists. And, as an added benefit, they make it a bit easier for moderate Muslims to reach out to young people who may be influenced by extremists because they’re still connected by the Muslim label.

This is the point made by Shahed Amanullah, CEO of tech startup LaunchPosse and former Senior Advisor to the U.S. Department of State, where he worked on combating online extremism. When asked if terrorists should be considered Muslims, he agreed that they were.

“I disagree with their actions, but if they claim they are acting for Islam it’s kind of silly for me to say they aren’t,” he said. “I’m more interested in arguing with extremists as to why their interpretation is wrong. Saying they aren’t Muslims doesn’t help us convince them they are wrong.”

Imam Islam Mossaad, leader of the North Austin Muslim Community Center in Austin, Texas, had a similar answer when asked if the terrorists were “true Muslims.”

“They are Muslim. But they took certain things to an extreme which are unacceptable to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,” he said. “So they are Muslim, but they’re not applying Islam in the way that it should [be applied].”

Why don’t mainstream Muslims say that violent terrorists are not “real Muslims”? Muslim lecturer Tahir Wyatt, the first American to teach in Al Masjid-e-Nabawi (commonly known as the Prophet’s Mosque) in Medina, Saudi Arabia, said that arbitrary takfeer, or excommunication, is “widely viewed as the first theological heresy in Islam and, as such, is cautioned against by almost all Sunni scholars.”

But this doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to be booted from the faith.

“There are certain beliefs and acts that are considered to nullify one’s testimony of faith (shahada); however, violence and even murder — as evil as they are — are not necessarily considered from those acts, though they could be. And this is where it gets nuanced — and quite sticky.” Wyatt said.

He added that he is confident that most, if not all, mainstream Muslim scholars would agree that the terrorists are Muslims. Of course, this doesn’t equal approval of beheadings and other violence. Instead of excommunicating people, Muslim scholars try to understand how terrorists could interpret Islam in this way and how they can stop future violence in the name of Islam.

Akbar Muhammad, associate professor of history and Africana studies at Binghamton University in New York, talked to PBS about this issue for a Frontline story about Muslims in May of 2002. He was specifically referring to the terrorists responsible for the World Trade Center attacks.

“I think the Muslim world must understand what produces such persons. Muslims have to help Westerners understand that such person may not be acting in a widely accepted Islamic manner,” he said. “But at the same time, Muslims need to try to understand such persons against a large corpus of Islamic writings, thought, et cetera. Because such persons are saying that what they did, what they do, is justified in Islam.”

Tahir Wyatt adds that many terrorists are driven by “political agendas, not religious ones” and are often “ignorant about basic Islamic tenets.” The extremists still often convince others to join them. Wyatt and other mainstream Muslims recognize the importance of reaching out to young people who may be influenced by extremism.

“I think that these impressionable youth need to be reached by credible Muslims who have knowledge of the roots of extremism and can prove through classical Islamic teachings, that terrorism really is un-Islamic,” he said.

Imam Islam talked about how hard it can be to “deprogram” a young Muslim when he or she sees someone on the Internet that looks like a scholar promoting violence — especially when that “scholar” says that all other Muslims are telling lies.

“It takes a lot of patience,” he said. But the important thing is that he was there to do the deprogramming, and that would be impossible if someone was written off as not a “real Muslim” as soon as they had extremist views.

Of course, this approach just trades one problem for another. Instead of the logical fallacy, it becomes an argument over interpretation of religious texts — which can be used to justify anything. But, by acknowledging that extremists are indeed Muslim, the lines of communication might remain open, perhaps leading to less violence in the future.