Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1882

The “Nones” Are 20% of the Population… and 12% of the Electorate. We Need to Fix That

There are a lot of reasons Democrats got crushed on Election Day, but this particular bit of information is worth noting: “Nones” — who are atheists, Agnostics, and people who may believe in God but don’t use a religious label — make up nearly 20% of the adult population… but, according to exit polls, we were only 12% of the electorate:

Meanwhile, nearly 80% of the population is some form of Christian and nearly 80% of the electorate was, too.

I know that even if 100% of us who are non-religious voted, we’d still be vastly outnumbered by the fraction of theists who vote, but those demographics are constantly changing in our direction, and it’s still no excuse to not vote. If anything, we should be more engaged because we have the most to lose by staying at home.

It also suggests Democrats have a lot to gain by reaching out to our communities or at least talking about the issues that matter to most of us — things like civil rights for LGBT people, church/state separation, women’s rights, and all the other social issues they avoided discussing (for some odd reason) over the past few months. It’s not that we’re all going to vote Republican if they don’t reach out to us, but we may end up not voting at all. It still hurts our issues in the long run.

On another note, I’m curious how much that voter apathy would change on our end if we had more candidates who were openly non-theistic. Would non-religious people get off their butts for people who weren’t ashamed of admitting they didn’t believe in God?

For what it’s worth, I saw no indication that Arizona State Rep. Juan Mendez was re-elected because of his atheism… but I also didn’t see any evidence that Daniel Moran (Texas State House candidate) or James Woods (Congressional candidate from Arizona) were not elected as a result of their atheism.

That label alone wasn’t a political liability in two pretty red states. Maybe that fact will encourage more non-theistic candidates to be honest about their beliefs in the future. If they did, especially in states where the “Nones” make up a larger segment of the population, maybe it’d excite us enough to vote — and encourage others to join us.

(via Sarah Posner)

Priests in Love: Catholic Clergy’s Forced Celibacy Is Cruel and Theologically Unnecessary, Deterring New Recruits

The New York Times gives some lovin’ to priests who violate their sacred promise to keep it in their pants. The paper isn’t talking about child rape for a change, but about consenting adults. One anonymous couple is introduced thusly:

They had not planned on falling in love, but they did. They did not want to become the objects of malicious gossip, but they are. They had not imagined living a life of furtive affections and secret rendezvous, but that is what has happened since the woman and the priest defied a Roman Catholic Church taboo and became romantically involved.

“Some people see me as a devil, something dirty,” said the woman, who, along with the priest she is involved with, agreed to discuss their situation, sitting for an interview at a hotel in a city far from his parish.

Reporter Elisabetta Povoledo hit The Google and found that

An online search using “in love with a priest” produces blog after blog about church-crossed lovers, in any number of languages. There are support groups on social media, including Facebook groups for women. One group of 26 women even petitioned Pope Francis to change the church’s requirement of celibacy for priests, and relieve their suffering.

The issue has not been on the table for the Vatican since the Synod of 1971, where the celibacy requirement for priests was ultimately confirmed. Pope Francis, even before ascending to the Vatican’s highest position, occasionally made pretty noises about celibacy needing to become optional, but nothing has come of the idea.

The Church’s policy (the pope claims it’s not a dogma) is detrimental to all involved. It’s not just cruel to both persons involved in a budding romantic bond, and unnatural for the priest to abstain from physical intimacy; it also eliminates many candidates for the priesthood, young men who decide that they will not live their personal lives according to a bad idea from the Dark Ages.

Challengers to clerical celibacy point to the shortage of priests worldwide and to studies that show celibacy is a significant deterrent for young men wanting to enter the priesthood.

No kidding.

The statistics collected by the Congregation for the Clergy do not specify the reasons priests “defect,” but critics of clerical celibacy suggest it is partly to blame.

While no numbers are authoritative, Advent, a support group for priests who have left the ministry in Britain, estimates that about 10,000 men have left the priesthood to marry in the past 50 years in England and Wales alone. … Another group, Married Priests Now, estimates that there are 25,000 men in the United States who have left the priesthood to marry, and about 150,000 worldwide.

Many more — probably — stay despite either being in a romantic relationship or wishing to start one. Why do they stick around? In many cases, it’s as prosaic as money, says Povoledo.

In conversations with church experts, priests and the women in relationships with them, many also pointed to financial uncertainties as a major deterrent to leaving the ministry. Some noted that a theology degree doesn’t have much market value in Italy’s depressed economy. And others said that in many cases priests who defected found little financial support from their families, Italy’s de facto welfare system.

Francesco Brescia, a Naples-based former priest who provides support to defectors through Vocatio, an Italian association for married priests, said priests who want to leave for love frequently contacted him “because returning to civilian life isn’t easy. And if it’s hard finding work, it’s twice as hard for a priest who doesn’t have a trade or usable skills,” he said.

What makes this all extra silly, and extra sad, is that there is no Biblical imperative for priests to stay celibate. In fact,

[C]lerics routinely married in the early centuries of the church. “We know that St. Peter was married,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior analyst at The National Catholic Reporter. “All the apostles were married, so celibacy isn’t intrinsically connected to the priesthood.”

This is a problem of the Catholic hierarchy’s own making. The Vatican, under this pope, can undo centuries of useless tradition… but given that useless tradition is what the Church traffics in, it could be a long wait.

(Image via Shutterstock)

Iran, Mindful of Islamic Doctrine, Contemplates Punishing Pet Lovers For Owning and Walking Their Dogs

Thirty-two members of the Iranian parliament are currently pushing a bill that proposes this:

… walking dogs, trading them or keeping them at home will be punishable by 74 lashes or a fine of 1m to 10m Tomans [an equivalent of $320 to $3,200].

The bill says that

Walking and playing with animals such as dogs and monkeys outdoors and in public places are harmful to the health and the peace of other people, especially kids and women, and are against our Islamic culture.

As we’ve seen before,

According to Islamic custom, dogs are unclean.

It’s a dog of a doctrine (a dogtrine, if you will), and not all Muslims adhere to it.

Iranians avoid keeping them at home in general, though a minority, especially in north Tehran’s wealthy districts, enjoy keeping pets. Iran’s morality police, deployed in public places, have previously cracked down on dog owners, cautioning them or confiscating their animals…

Hardliners in Iran are particularly worried about what they call a “cultural invasion” from the west and see pet ownership, especially dogs, as an imitation of western culture.

Could it be much ado about nothing?

It was not clear if the majority of Iranian MPs would approve such a bill but the parliament is dominated by conservatives who are likely to share the views of those behind the proposal.

Try not to think about what will happen to the canines who are abandoned and/or confiscated if the bill passes.

(Image via Shutterstock)

Catholic Diocese Hopes to Reach Teens with “Urban Feel” of Hip-Hop Catechism

It might sound like a Stephen Colbert “aging pundit tries to appeal to young viewers with cringe-worthy attempts to prove he gets them” skit, but it’s not.

The West Virginia Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston has a project with the edgy name of VCAT — Video Catechism — aimed at the young ‘uns. The goal is “to effectively reach this generation of teens with the richness and beauty of [the] Catholic faith.” Since teens “consume… a staggering” amount of media each day, much of it video, the messages are video-based.

If the name doesn’t win back the young, erstwhile Catholic demographic, the content is sure to make an impression. Content like one of the latest VCAT productions: a hip-hop video catechism called “Love God/Love Each Other” written by youth icon and Franciscan University Professor Bob Rice.

Explaining the purpose of this and other VCAT productions, he states

What we are doing with these 18 videos is show young people that the commandments of God actually set us free and don’t restrict us.

While that may be their intent, it seems like an overly optimistic goal considering the production in question.

Like other forms of religious media, even when it lasts a short time (in this case, a mere two minutes and nineteen seconds), it feels like it goes on so much longer. This particular song owes the effect to the fact that it is a painful merging of mediocre ability, average visual production, and awkward phrases (am I the only one creeped out by the line about God being “your savior and your lover — lover of your soul?)… The emphasis on “love your neighbor” is laudable (the emphasis on loving “a god you can’t see” less so, but expected).

Otherwise, this is standard Christian media — with an attempt, as Director of Youth and Young Adult Ministry at Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston Bob Perron put it, to evoke an “urban feel.”

Colbert would be proud of them.

Ohio House Bill Would Undermine the Teaching of Evolution

Ohio’s House Bill 597 would amend existing education law to include this bit about science:

The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and encourage students to analyze, critique, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the standards.

That’s all code for “teach kids that evolution is questioned by credible scientists”… which it’s not.

The National Center for Science Education explains the history of that language in this particular bill and why educators should be worried:

As NCSE previously reported, HB 597, aimed primarily at eliminating Common Core, also contained a provision requiring the state’s science standards to “prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another.” A sponsor of the bill, Andy Thompson (R-District 95), explained that local school districts would be allowed to teach creationism along with evolution and global warming denial alongside climate science.

The objectionable provision was removed in committee, but it was replaced with the “strengths and weaknesses” language, familiar from antiscience bills across the country. NCSE’s deputy director Glenn Branch commented, “If the sponsors of the bill are trying to reassure the public that they’re not trying to open the classroom door to creationism, climate change denial, and pseudoscience of all kinds, they’re not doing a good job.”

The current version of the bill passed out of the House Rules and Reference committee this week by a 7-2 vote. There’s some hope the bill won’t go any further, though:

Rep. Tracy Maxwell Heard, a Columbus Democrat and House Minority Leader, said she is not sure what will happen to the bill from here. She said there is little support for it from Republican leaders in the Ohio Senate and she doubts there are enough votes for it in the House as a whole.

Still, if you live in Ohio, please contact your representatives and urge them to vote against this bill.

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

Pastor Won’t Swallow Starbucks’ Gay Propaganda, Spits That Its Lattes Contain the “Semen of Sodomites”

We’ve met Harlem Pastor James David Manning before, back when he warned African-American women that “white homos” will take their men, and when he wished cancer, syphilis, HIV, and hellfire on gay-rights supporters.

Manning still isn’t taking his meds, I guess. If you thought his previous rants were bizarre, well, you ain’t heard nothing yet.

This week, the good pastor released a video in which he warns that Starbucks coffees are flavored with the “semen of sodomites.” Apparently, that’s a reference to a new ad for the coffee peddler in which two drag artists perform: American Idol star Adore Delano and RuPaul’s Drag Race winner Bianca Del Rio.

The commercial was too much for Manning, who appears to be fighting against man-on-man action with the same hotblooded zeal that set apart totally straight folks like Pastor Ted Haggard and the Reverend George Rekers.

This is how he came to learn — and broadcast — the truth about Semengate:

Pastor James David Manning, of the ATLAH World Missionary Church in Harlem, claimed last week that Starbucks was “ground zero” for Ebola, which is being spread by “upscale sodomites.” His remarks sparked a protest in which gay rights advocates handed out free coffee outside his church — which has provoked Manning into another attack on Starbucks.

He said in [a subsequent] video rant: “They had a big bucket of Starbucks coffee. They said that this church is a hate church, and that I’m a hate preacher.”

Citing a satirical news report — which he appeared to take seriously — Manning said: “Starbucks is a place where these types frequent and a lot of body fluids are exchanged there.”

Then it gets, I dunno, almost weird. Watch and listen:

“The thing that I was not aware of is that… what Starbucks was doing, is they were taking specimens of male semen…”

… which, to be fair, tastes much better than female semen,

“… and they were putting it in the blends of their lattes. It’s the absolute truth. They’re using male semen, and putting it into the blends of coffees that they sell. My suspicion is that they’re getting their semen from sodomites. Semen flavors up the coffee, and makes you think you’re having a good time.”

Huh. Not what the ladies at Healthy Homemakers had in mind when they encouraged you to make your own flavored coffee creamer, I bet.

But now that Starbucks’ big gay secret is, um, blown, Manning adds that better times are cumming coming.

“I want to tell you that there will not be a public sodomite in Harlem in not too many days. And Starbucks will close. Starbucks will be found perverting is customers and perverting human sexuality as if drinking Starbucks is some sort of a sacrificial ritual bath where they kill the innocent babies and drink their blood in some of these meetings that are had by these fraternal or sorority groups. Starbucks has for years been using sexual fluids to prosper their businesses, and the truth is now coming out.”

Hallelujah, in Onan‘s name!

A Christian’s Plea to Get Her Community to Stand Up for Atheists

Rebecca Florence Miller, one of the evangelical Christian bloggers on Patheos, recently got in a conversation with a bunch of atheists (on this site, I believe), and came away with a few important conclusions:

I came away from this conversation challenged that I need to do more to stand up for the rights of atheists (and those of other religions) here in the United States. Not because I agree with them on God and theology, but because they are human beings who deserve respect. Because when we stand up for someone else’s rights, we are appropriately loving our neighbor and treating them as we would want to be treated.

She gets specific, too:

We can defend the child who is serious enough about his beliefs that he won’t “fake it” and stand up for the part of the Pledge of Allegiance that says “one nation under God.” We can stand against any instance when the government tries to establish some form of state religion. We can decry death threats against those who are speaking their beliefs, loving them enough to defend them even if we disagree profoundly with them. We can do this by considering that certain governmental expressions of religious faith may not be the greatest idea.

That’s really what most of us are asking for. Atheists, for the most part, aren’t interested in forcing our views on everyone else the way many Christians seem to want. We want the government to maintain neutrality on religious issues instead of promoting Christianity (or theism in general).

It’s been said before, but atheists are fighting to be treated the same as everyone else, while Christians often want special treatment. They get defensive when a city council says a Nativity Scene or Ten Commandments monument can’t be placed on government property… or angry when an atheist display goes up right next to their own. They think the whole world is an extension of their church and get upset when the same rules don’t apply (see: Football coaches who think prayer during practice is never a problem).

If atheists got what we wanted, Christians wouldn’t be harmed in the least. If Christians got what they wanted — and they often do — atheists (and other non-Christians) would be treated like second-class citizens. That’s why it’s so infuriating when it seems like we’re the only ones taking on these battles. The values we’re fighting for would benefit everybody, not just us.

So hats off to Rebecca for recognizing that and imploring her readers to understand it, too.

(Thanks to Debra for the link)

Why These Ex-Muslims Critique Islam, and Why They’re Fed Up With “Relativist Liberals” Who “Pretend We Don’t Exist”

This is a commentary written by members of the Council of ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB). It addresses an opinion piece by Andrew Brown in the Guardian headlined “Why I don’t believe people who say they loathe Islam but not Muslims.”

…

As ex-Muslims, we critique Islam because there are many aspects of Islam that need to be critiqued. In particular, we seek to oppose Islam’s apostasy codes, which are oppressive and lead to persecution.

We have found it is quite difficult to get some people to listen to our stories because they fear that acknowledging these issues will contribute to a critical view towards Islam.

The idea is that particularly reactionary teachings and aspects of belief that lead to critical judgements of Islam are in and of themselves prejudiced. The resulting logic of this is that Islam should have special privileges, inasmuch as basic human conscience and ethical critical judgement of people living in a secular culture should not apply, or be expressed, towards Islam.

The fact that criticism exists is the offense.

Effectively, this is to propose a kind of proxy blasphemy code and apostasy code, wherein the liberal secular space defers to Islamic taboos. Dissenting Muslims and ex-Muslims have to conform to these proxy codes too. Everyone else is free to critique their own religion, and other faiths and ideas too. But Islam must be protected.

However, Muslims are free to critique all religions, belief systems and moralities, because evangelizing Islam, and proffering critique and judgment is not only a divine prerogative, but the closing down of ethical, critical judgment towards Islam is also a divine right.

As we can see, this is an ethical and moral mess.

This is an aspect of liberal relativism that is morally flawed and unsustainable without damaging basic principles of liberal secularism. It also means that aspects of Islam that need to be criticized, like Islam’s apostasy codes, remain unexamined, and with that authority unquestioned, their capacity to hurt people and cause harm increases.

Another fear is that being critical of aspects of Islam manifests in prejudice towards Muslims, and this is an understandable response given how parts of the far-right do project generalizing narratives of communal responsibility on Muslims. As ex-Muslims, we understand this, because being from ethnic minorities ourselves (apart from growing numbers of former white converts) we are also prone to be in the crosshairs of bigots who project their hostility onto anyone who ‘looks’ Muslim, whatever that is supposed to be.

The key to dealing with this is for the Left to take ownership of the issues that need to be critiqued, and do so through the prism of liberal secular values, so that they cannot be co-opted by the nationalist right, who have agendas that are not tolerant.

Sadly the instinct of relativism too often prevents this reckoning from occurring. The silencing of ex-Muslims’ voices is the norm, although we are trying to change this.

There are three main layers of silencing of apostates’ voices. The first layer is the hardcore religious silencing, which includes notions that we deserve to be killed and harmed. Underneath that is a second layer of some Muslims who may not agree we should be persecuted, but don’t want to have these problematic aspects or religion talked about, because of feelings of embarrassment, fear of the consequences, or cognitive dissonance regarding apostasy/blasphemy codes. The third layer underneath this is the relativism of white liberals who are often in concordance with silencing instincts over these issues, including silencing of ex-Muslims, for the reasons we outlined earlier. Often, relativist liberals simply pretend we don’t exist.

But silencing never works, and it only increases the problems.

It is important to understand that anti-Muslim bigotry is real. At the same time, the reality of the need for Islam to be critiqued has to be acknowledged by the Left, and by Muslims who live in liberal secular democracies too.

Some British Hospitals Are Beginning to Report Numbers on Female Genital Mutilation… and They’re Shocking

In April, U.K. hospitals began to be required to keep records of patients who had undergone female genital mutilation (FGM). Half a year later,

Shocking statistics obtained by ITV News Central reveal that more than 400 women in the Midlands have been seen in hospitals with FGM in the last six months — including four children.

The Midlands have a population of some 9.5 million people. I could not find statistics on the percentage of Muslim females who live there — the group most likely to be subjected to the barbaric practice. The number reported by ITV is undoubtedly just the tip of the iceberg, considering that the vast majority of women in the at-risk group would not have visited a clinic or hospital in the past six months, and that most of those who did were not there for gynecological procedures that would have exposed the damage.

In addition,

The statistics from four health trusts across the Midlands reveal a snap-shot of the extent of FGM. But as many other hospitals failed to give ITV Central their statistics, health experts believe the figure is far higher.

The ITV article quotes Birmingham-based FGM survivor Adama Jabbi, who says she nearly died after she was genitally cut when she was a child.

“They will grab you, blindfold you and two elders will hold you and they will take your legs apart and someone will hold you hands and cover your mouth so they don’t hear you scream. It was so painful and there was no anaesthetic. I nearly died because the bleeding was so much I collapsed. I was eight but I can remember everything even now.”

According to Britain’s National Health Service,

It has been estimated that over 20,000 girls under the age of 15 are at risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the UK each year, and that 66,000 women in the UK are living with the consequences of FGM. However, the true extent is unknown, due to the “hidden” nature of the crime. The girls may be taken to their countries of origin so that FGM can be carried out during the summer holidays, allowing them time to “heal” before they return to school. There are also worries that some girls may have FGM performed in the UK. …

FGM is usually carried out on young girls between infancy and the age of 15, most commonly before puberty starts. The procedure is traditionally carried out by a woman with no medical training. Anaesthetics and antiseptic treatments are not generally used, and the practice is usually carried out using knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass or razor blades.

Under British law, those who carry out or facilitate FGM can be jailed for up to 14 years. Apparently, though, any deterrent effect of a jail sentence is no match for the demands of religion and culture.

(Image via Shutterstock)

An In-Flight Safety Video for Ultra-Orthodox Jews Who Refuse to Sit Next to Women

Just over a month ago, an El Al flight from New York to Tel Aviv became an “11-hour nightmare” when the ultra-Orthodox Jews on the plane refused to sit next to any women. Many of the men stood in the aisles to avoid sitting next to the ladies, forcing the plane to delay takeoff until the situation could be resolved.

Now, the Levinson Brothers have created this helpful in-flight safety video to show on future El Al flights:

A silly video for a ridiculous request.

(via Tablet Magazine)