abortions for everybody!

If gays are allowed to marry, then straight people will stop having children. Gay marriage will open the floodgates: suddenly, everyone will get married to someone of his or her same sex, and there will be no children to populate the future.

As stupid as that argument is, there are a lot of people who seem to believe it. These are the same people who believe that, if abortion is legal, then the government will force people to have abortions regardless of whether they want to or not. They are also the same people who believe that even minimal exposure to evolutionary theory will undermine people’s sense of right and wrong, because, if we are nothing but animals, then we have no choice but to act like animals.

These are examples of all-or-nothing thinking, and this type of mentality is symptomatic of religious fundamentalism. The fundamentalist is unable to understand that not everyone has to live according to the same set of rules; that people can make their own choices in personal matters, and society will not collapse. That is because fundamentalism is about enforcing the beliefs of its adherents on the whole of society. The fundamentalist necessarily sees others as wanting to force their own beliefs on the fundamentalist, because that is what the fundamentalist wants to do to them.

Fundamentalists – fundies, from here on – are stuck in an unenviable psychological dilemma. They are bundles of anxiety, afraid of the world around them. They are unable to deal with social change or with individual freedom – that is, liberalism. Thus, they worry about the gay agenda, or the atheist agenda, or liberal agenda, or even the “Satanic” agenda. All the while, of course, they are members of the only social movement with a real agenda, in the sense that, for them, it truly is all or nothing: agree with them and live by their rules, or – well, there is no “or”.

Take school prayer, for instance. There are no laws prohibiting children from praying in school, whenever or however they want to. Yet fundies are constantly claiming that liberals are trying to prevent Christians from exercising their religious rights in school. What they mean is that they do not want their own children to be able to pray as they want to; they want everyone to pray their way. They want Christian prayer to be mandated and official. To them, that is “religious freedom” – the freedom to believe the way they do.

Fundamentalism is inherently a theocratic movement. Its reaction to social change is not to adapt, but to take control of society and force it to conform to its way of thinking, such as it is. Its only mechanism of ensuring this outcome is organizational control, starting with local school boards and ending with the federal government itself.

Fundies cannot live and let live. They cannot learn to live and let live. The only way that they can do so is by abandoning their theocratic straitjacket.

TAGS: fundamentalism, religion, christianity

faith vs. anxiety

PalMD at denialism blog asks a great question: Why is the faith of creationists so weak?

The very concept of faith is that an individual can endure in his belief no matter the lack of empirical evidence or the attitudes of his neighbors. The individual in question is capable of considering ideas with which he disagrees, though he does so through his lens of faith and will not necessarily agree with them. That is to be wholly respected, because it represents commitment as well as open-mindedness.

The goal of creationists, however, is not to live their lives in commitment to their personal faith. Their goal is to impose their beliefs – not their faith – on others. This stems both from an obvious desire for social control, but, on a more basic matter, on a deep psychological unease. It is symptomatic of fundamentalism, no matter what specific form it takes or from what religion it derives.

Fundamentalism arises in a traditionalist culture when that culture undergoes extraordinary change that dramatically alters its social status. The culture, due to its blind adherence to tradition, is unable to adapt to changing conditions, and turns inward. Its adherents seem to think, “We tried to do God’s will, but God abandoned us. This cannot mean that we were wrong, but that we were insufficiently devoted to the dogma of our religion. The only obvious response is to become even more dogmatic and extreme in our beliefs, and impose them on society to prevent further change and draw back the change that has occurred.”

The world has seen a modern example of this in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which was the product of both European colonialism and its downfall, and social liberalism. The Taliban perfectly epitomize fundamentalism in their extremist beliefs and practices; they also epitomize the dead end that fundamentalism represents, because imposing God’s will on the world turned their adopted homeland, Afghanistan, into a sub-Medieval nightmare.

Christian fundamentalism emerged in the American south following the Civil War. It was a direct response to the south’s defeat in that war and, in particular, the abolition of slavery as a legal institution in the United States. Southern society had been based on slavery to such an extent that it was no longer an economic institution, but a cultural one. Christian leaders, particularly in the south, had played a direct role in this by rushing to the defense of slavery at every opportunity; the Southern Baptist Convention itself arose solely over a dispute over abolitionism (it was on the anti-abolitionist side). Slavery was regarded effectively as a tenet of Christianity, and opposing slavery was seen as opposing God’s will.

Creationism is not distinct from Christian fundamentalism, and shares the same origin in racial hatred: the core purpose of creationist ideology was to reject the implications of biological racial equality inherent in Darwinian theory.

Having lost their racially biased social system, which they believed had been ordained by God, the emerging fundamentalists believed that they had failed to be sufficiently devoted to the dogma of their religion, and reacted by forming a movement that would impose their beliefs on the world to halt or reverse the spread of civil rights legislation. Fundamentalism and creationism have remained rooted in this racist ideology ever since, even though the public pronouncements of adherents have changed over time to avoid unwelcome social stigma – to hide their true motives from outsiders.

Fundamentalism is therefore never about faith, but about anxiety over the insufficiency of faith. The fundamentalist is at the most basic level a bundle of Freudian defense mechanisms: denial, projection, reaction formation, etc. Like any individual experiencing such anxiety, the fundamentalist’s primary option is to avoid or stamp out the things that cause him anxiety. As a movement, this involves removing evolutionary theory from science classrooms, barring homosexuals from legal marriage, opposing immigration reform, using any method available to undermine reproductive rights, etc. All the central issues of the modern fundamentalist movement in America are civil rights issues, in that they reflect the fundamentalist’s – or creationist’s – attitude toward the valuation of individuals and their social interactions.

Of course, not every member of the fundamentalist movement is a confirmed racist, homophobe, or misogynist. Their leaders are, however, and, by using the mechanisms of religion, they have deluded their followers by appealing to the ever more irrelevant concept of “faith”. These leaders, and their deluded followers, continue to engage in a program that is designed not to deal with the real world, but to block it out so that they can live in a world of fantasy. On a social level, they are enacting the very same behaviors that an individual experiencing extreme anxiety would enact.

TAGS: creationism, fundamentalism, christianity, racism

funhouse mirrors in oxford

I watched/listened to the entire debate, while looking for a missing piece of paperwork. Throughout, Barack Obama trounced John McCain. Of course, my opinion might be biased: although my opinion of Obama changed significantly in June with his vote on the FISA bill, but I still prefer him next to McCain. Nevertheless, with McCain’s vague non-sequitur answers, his occasional senile outbursts, and his refusal to look at Obama even once during the entire debate (including when the two shook hands at the end), Obama seemed to come way out ahead.

With the debate over, coverage switched to the talking heads. Chris Matthews, in particular. There seemed to be this insistence on promoting McCain as having done a good job, while focusing on things Obama could have done better. What a perfect example of the corporate media bias in favor of McCain – yes, even on MSNBC. They like him, even though he has treated them like garbage recently; they are drawn to Republican talking points, because they think they are somehow “moderate”; they want him to like them.

Only during Olberman, when the poll numbers started coming in and the general consensus was that Obama had indeed trounced McCain, did the attitude start to change. By the time Olberman finished his hour of pointing out McCain’s shameful performance, Matthews was back with even Republobot Pat Buchanan now acknowledging the reality of the last couple of hours.

I can’t wait to watch Sarah Palin embarrass herself. If the McCain campaign lets it happen. The electorate doesn’t need to be informed, after all.

(Oh, and that piece of paperwork: it was the very first item in my personal documents folder. I had overlooked it several times.)

TAGS: 2008 presidential debates, corporate media, Barack Obama, John McCain

body language

Yeah, I’m watching the debate.

My impression so far is that Barack Obama is doing much better. He has provided real answers to the moderator’s questions, regardless of what you think of those answers. John McCain, on the other hand, has been vague; when he has provided specific examples, they are almost irrelevant. He has made a couple of good points, but those are commonsense ideas that could have come from either candidate. He has also told multiple provable lies.

However, much more than the content of their speech, one thing in particular has stood out to me. That is the demeanor of the two candidates.

Obama has the appropriate debater’s stance. He appears open and energetic, and he divides his attention between the moderator, the audience, and his opponent. When he speaks to McCain, he looks at him; when McCain is speaking, Obama looks at him.

McCain will not look at Obama. He keeps himself turned away from his opponent. When Obama speaks to him, McCain keeps his head down or turned away. On the few occasions when he has spoken (semi-)directly to Obama, he doesn’t even look at him then. He even has his body turned away from Obama.

That is bizarre. It is either defensive or dismissive. Regardless, it is rude, and displays a lack of respect for his opponent. That violates one of the most basic rules of debating, in which both individuals, no matter their difference of opinion, treat each other with general respect.

McCain is a liar. By this point, his entire campaign is based on lies, which have come almost on a daily basis. It is remarkable that his behavior during the debate is that of a liar: the downcast eyes; the defensive physical posture; the refusal to look at his accuser directly.

So McCain is either displaying the characteristic behavior of someone feeling shame, or he is being intentionally disrespectful of his opponent. Either way, I can’t imagine how that could play well with a general audience, though I’m sure the right-wing racist Christofascist base will love it.

And then there is McCain’s death’s-head smirk.

TAGS: 2008 presidential debate, Barack Obama, John McCain

there is no god. apparently, there are no adults either.

The “atheist blogosphere”, you say? Hmmm, what exactly might that mean?

Atheists do not live their lives under the delusion that the world’s problems can be fixed by imposing their religious values on everyone; after all, we do not have religious values to impose. We have examined religion, often from the inside, and know its shortcomings; we understand that every religion, no matter its pretentions, is little more than an insular cult, more concerned with its temporal power than helping its would-be adherents.

So what do we, those who should be offering ours as the voice of reason in the world, do while the world crashes down around us?

Take a look around the atheist blogosphere, and what do you find? Childish bullshit, mostly. You get the very real impression that you are back in high school, trying to win a seat at the popular table with the football players and cheerleaders. There is little to no discussion of the important issues of the day. In fact, those atheist bloggers who do discuss such topics do not really belong to the atheist blogosphere; they typically fall under the liberal or leftist political wing.

This is bullshit. We should be talking about these things, instead of engaging in juvenile social networking and asinine online poll crashing. Ripping the occasional creationist wackaloon a new asshole can be fun, but creationists and anti-abortion crusaders are a real danger; they are the vanguard of the fascist movement that has provided the core of Republican politics for the last several decades. That fascist core has a new postergirl in Sarah Palin; what prominent atheists have risen to challenge her vapid but dangerous aspirations?

None? You’re fucking right, my droog.

Here’s a current example: the $700 billion Wall Street bailout/utter subversion of the very concept of democracy. Slacktivist gave it the dissection it needed; however, Slacktivist is not an atheist, but a rational evangelical. We atheists should be making connections with people like Slacktivist, but instead we have spent our time just giggling at his fantastic dissection of that horrible Left Behind book.

Vapid and meaningless, and I’m sick of it.

There are real voices in the atheist blogosphere. Well, there would be real voices, if they ever rose high enough to gain the attention of the big boys. You want to get noticed by PZ Myers? Don’t write something meaningful and insightful; just beg him to fucking notice you and you’ll get your own post! Pharyngula is probably the biggest atheist blog, and it has turned into a joke. I’m sick of sticking nails in crackers; let the Catholics fume, and get on with something that might make a real difference in the world.

I’ve read too many atheist blogs that are dying for lack of attention, while the most prominent atheist bloggers wonder fretfully why there is no atheist activism. Maybe that has something to do with this insular and sycophantic and childish behavior?

I am one of the former: a blogger who came very close to throwing up his hands and quitting because he did not want to obsess over trivia with the Heathers. I came back, though, because I cannot stay away; I merely broadened my targets.

TAGS: atheism, atheist blogosphere, politics, activism

up & down - a request

In August, I got a job. I had been unemployed since leaving the Army, and I was starting to get worried. I had my savings, but they would have run out eventually; what would I have done then?

Then I got the job. It was the one I had been hoping for, and it was more than halfway across the country. For the first time, I got to leave the place of my birth and irrelevance without shackles (the Army may be great in many ways, but it comes with many conditions that put restrictions on your life).

So I moved, and I like my job, my coworkers, and my new home. The only thing that I dislike is the drive to work in city traffic every morning. For the first time, it seems that things are starting to work out for me.

At the same time, two of my friends have suffered serious downturns in their own lives. One of those friends is a real-world, personal friend whom I have known for many years. The other is a virtual friend whom I have known for only about a year and a half, and then only through blog comments and email; nevertheless, I owe her a special debt of gratitude, and feel very close to her despite the fact that we will never meet in person.

It seems terribly unfair, though one could say that I’ve already experienced the suffering portion of life. Just a few years ago, everything in my life was different; my future was only a sliver of hope, and I had no idea what to do about things. If it had not been for my mother, I can imagine what would have happened – though I do not like to do so.

It is because I’ve been there that I believe the things that I do. I have watched religion fail those in need time and again, and I know that the only things we have to rely on is each other. I have seen the self-interest and indifference of those in positions of power, and I know that the hierarchy – any hierarchy – is always going to fail those who near the bottom. I have no confidence in the government to solve our problems in society, because the government is always incompetent – though some shades of governments are worse than others, and we should continue to fight against them.

We live in a world of particles and forces, and the only intelligence comes from our own brains. That is also the only source of goodness, just as it is also the only source of evil. I spent too much time trying to convince myself otherwise, so that I could rationalize the dichotomies in my life. Disillusionment was the result.

I don’t know what to do to help out my real-life friend. However, if anyone stops by and reads this, you can help out my virtual friend, Deb, by going to her fantastic site, clicking the PayPal button, and helping her save her mother. If there is anything else you can do, then please do it.

Remember: if we do not have each other, then we don’t have anything at all.

i'm back, and more pissed off this time

What, you didn’t think some whiny little bitch and his childish stunts would keep me down forever, did you?

Actually, I did consider shutting the blog down forever. For the second time in a year, I had become disillusioned. This time, it was about the “blogosphere”, and I had to stop and consider whether I still wanted to have anything to do with it.

You see, when I started this blog in March 2006, I naively believed that there really was a serious conversation happening online. I wanted to contribute my voice to that conversation. I never hoped to be one of the big blogs that receives millions of hits a day, but I did hope that others would find my observations worthwhile and worthy of notice.

Instead, I discovered that I had willfully blinded myself to what really appeared online. I had noticed only the substantial posts, and not the effluvia – and I certainly had not noticed that the effluvia predominated. Even on the big blogs – the ones with millions of daily hits – the majority of posts were of no real consequence whatsoever. Yet these seemed to be the most consistently popular! Commenters engaged in no discourse with one another, but seemed only interested in seeing their usernames in pixels; hundreds of posts would say nothing worth reading.

Even worse, the blogosphere seemed almost designed to prevent anyone new from getting noticed. Established bloggers linked to one another, and never cast their nets wider. Even Technorati, the essential index required for even moderate publicity, was biased against new blogs: by default, it is set not to return search results from blogs with less than “some” authority (whatever “some” means). It was like being back in high school again.

Let me be honest: what happened a couple of months ago hurt me. I had never attempted any cheap stunt to get myself noticed; I wanted to be noticed because I had written something worthy of notice. My first post was noticed, but by only one person, who has the same problems I do when it comes to publicity for her blog. When PZ Myers, whom I greatly respected, chose to reward the childish whining for publicity of some third-rate blogger by giving him his own post – yeah, it hurt me. I looked through that guy’s site; if it deserved notice, it certainly was not on the level that Pharyngula would give it. Meanwhile, I languished – what was it? – 28 pages down on Myers’ blogroll.

For over a year a half, I placed quality before quantity. If I had nothing to say, then I said nothing. If a post did not come together, it did not get published. In the end, it meant nothing. I realized, to my great personal shame, that I had deluded myself when I started adventures of ponzo, and I was no longer willing to continue in that delusion. All the posts I had written from that perspective had to go; they have been archived, but only for my own reference: they will not appear here again.

Yes, adventures of ponzo is herewith relaunched. This time is different, though. Like the title says, I am “more pissed this time”. And not just at the same things my would-be peers are; I am also pissed off at them. In the end, they could not keep me down, but how many others have abandoned trying to contribute their ideas to the world because they were not cute and perky enough?

Fuck them. I once said that the “adventures” part of the title of this blog was no longer relevant, but I was wrong: my adventures will just be very different from what I though they would be when I started out.