Author: Marc Alan Di Martino

The Teabagger Socialist-Free Purity Pledge

Well, Pharyngula is my new favorite blog, replacing the much overrated Pariz Hylton. 

This pledge is mainly a list of things in the United States run (or made possible) by the government of this country (by which I mean the United States of America, not Italy). Now that so many Americans are apparently opposed to their own government, this is worth examining in some detail. The authors of this document, thankfully, have both the time and inclination that I don’t.

This list reminds me of all the things one must boycott if one is to seriously boycott the State of Israel, as opposed to changing the color of one’s avatar or updating one’s Facebook status:

A Price Too High: A Conversation with David Ranan

This is the extended version of an interview first published in The American.

I first met British author and social critic David Ranan in a Rome bookshop in the summer of 2007. He was spending a few months in the city absorbing the cultural climate of the Vatican’s hometown. He’d just published his book, ”Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church,” a critical reflection about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. He was curious to get to know Romans — and their priests — firsthand.

Ranan grew up in Israel and Holland, where he attended an English boarding school. He served in the Israeli Defense Force, later obtaining a BA in economics, an MBA, both of them in Israel, and a PhD in London. He worked as a banker and strategic consultant before turning to research and writing. “There is nothing very titillating about me,” he says.

A tall and weighty man with a big, bellowing voice that betrays strong traces of both Israeli and German accents (he comes from a German-Jewish family), Ranan is an atheist who considers religious belief a curiosity. He speaks with the playful authority of someone who won’t tell all. During his sojourn in Rome, he spent his days attending Mass and approaching Catholic priests on the street, tossing out questions like, “What made you decide to go into the priesthood?”

Since his Rome sojourn, he’s published “God Bless America,” a personal and political reflection written in New York City during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama. These are excerpts from a recent email exchange.

Were you ever religious?

I didn’t grow up in a religious family, and from childhood on I was very skeptical of the power of religion. I was more than skeptical, indeed I was angry: angry because of the power wielded by the Jewish religious establishment in Israel through the willingness of the secular regime and political parties to coerce the rest of the population into adherence to religious laws.

I read your book Double Cross from beginning to end. It draws a pretty poor picture of the Catholic Church and its actions from the time of the early popes right on up to John Paul II–basically, your account is of an almost uninterrupted stream of treachery and dishonesty, colossal misconduct and psychological bribery. With such a sordid past, why do so many people–and so many non-Catholics–continue to see the Church as a force for good in the world?

Well, I am not sure that I agree with your statement that ‘so many people…see the Church as a force for good in the world.”

I disagree. I think many people have a kneejerk kind of respect for the Church. I wonder–in the light of massive scandal–why this is so. I am speaking not of simple charity work, a là Mother Theresa, but of seeing nuns or Catholic priests in public and treating them as people deserving of a special kind of respect–at least, more respect than one would pay to a mechanic or a lawyer. This is quite curious, no?

I think you have just explained it yourself. To begin with kneejerk is just what it is and not logical.

But importantly you are describing respect that is often shown to priests and/or nuns and not to the Church. This respect is for their willingness to forego the pleasures – material and physical – of life to lead a life according to their values. This in itself is worthy of respect.

When we speak of the Church as a ‘force for good’ we normally think of the charitable work undertaken by members of religious orders and other lay members in areas of health and education. They are driven by their faith and their religious role models to take on social responsibility. This important and often vital work is admirable indeed.

Then there is the emotional sustenance and support that religion and faith in general offer their adherents. These have been proven to be of great importance to millions of faithful of all religions, including the Catholic Church. This may be considered by some as a force for good in the world. I would not consider this to be good caused by the structure (the Church) but rather good caused by faith.

The author Sam Harris wrote a very persuasive book condemning the idea of faith as a force for good. He regards it as a shield for fanaticism. Have you read The End of Faith? Might the Church be protecting its power behind a mask of faith?

I know Sam Harris’s book. 1) His conclusion is that faith is dangerous. But, the fact that faith sometimes shields fanaticism does not mean that it cannot also be a force for good. 2) I actually spoke about the subjective importance of faith for many who feel they need the support of faith in order to cope with life. To those who need the support and feel they get it from faith – faith is a force for good. Those for whom the vehicle for their faith is the Church, will feel that the Church does them good. The Church, like all institutions, will do whatever it can to protect its power. This naturally includes manipulating faith.

Double Cross is not a general history of the Church but rather an investigation into the cost, the very high price that society has been paying for centuries for this ‘force for good.’

Might there be a good side that outweighs the focus of your book?

Can there be a good side that outweighs such evil? I think not. Above all, I have demonstrated that the structure and the rules of the game continue to lead to ‘evil’. A recent example is the organised coverup of child abuse by Catholic priests.

The last chapter proposes an improbable solution to the Church’s seeming inability to reform itself and truly repent for past deeds. You propose dismantling the Catholic Church from top to bottom. This appears to be a drastic measure. Is there any hope that the Church will reform herself without outside interference? Is this wishful thinking?

In Double Cross I have established the inability of the Church to truly reform. My straight answer to your question is that there is no hope for true reform. Anything less should not really be wishful thinking. When I say ‘true reform’ I am talking about democratising the structure, introducing transparency and changing the basis of faith from devotion to texts, narratives and icons to commitment to values. The question is whether it would then still be the Catholic Church. It would not. And I believe that the Church’s leadership understands that. And don’t forget, the Catholic Church is the longest surviving power structure in the world. What pope would dare to bring about such change that might cause a total breakup?

How could such a “reform” feasibly come about in your opinion? Do you hold other authoritarian states to the same standard of forced democratization and transparency?

Should we hold authoritarian (and other) states to standards of democratisation (not forced) and transparency? Yes, we should. Indeed, it would be nice if we could but we can’t. The global political structure has rules about interference in internal affairs of countries. The Catholic Church, however, is a voluntary organisation and as such it is subject to the legal framework we have constructed for non-state organisations.

How deep is the Church’s responsibility for the Shoah? Is it unfair to tie Catholic anti-Semitism in with the more lethal Nazi brand?

The Nazi regime was indeed a secular regime but tens of thousands of willing executioners were the product of generations of dehumanisation of Jews by the Church, her leaders and her theologians. In my book I have clearly demonstrated that there is a direct line and hence responsibility of the Church for the Shoah. However, the Church does not share my view and has not accepted responsibility. Her mea culpas in this respect are seriously flawed.

What about Vatican II and “We Remember: A Reflection On the Shoah?” Where are the flaws in these efforts at reconciliation with the Jewish people?

I do believe that there is a genuine wish within the Church leadership to reach a reconciliation with the Jewish people. This does not mean a willingness to accept responsibility. Vatican II was not set up to deal with the Jewish question; the Jewish question was one of many issued discussed. Indeed, “We Remember” was relegated to a rather lowly place in the Council’s documentation. After the Holocaust, the Church could not have an important Church Council without talking about the Shoah. But, if you analyse the text of the resultant documents you very clearly see that the Church does not accept responsibility for the anti-Semitism that informed and educated the Christian world, led to hatred and finally to the “final solution’. The “After the Holocaust” chapter in Double Cross demonstrates “We Remember” to be flawed, selective in its memory, intellectually dishonest and in bad taste. Some of the subsequent documents did a somewhat better job.

You recently wrote on your blog, in response to Jewish uproar over the infamous “Easter prayer” (which prays for the conversion of the Jews), “It is no longer necessary for Jews to appeal to the Popes to revoke anti-Jewish legislation or actions.” I was surprised to read these words in the wake of Double Cross. Does the Church’s wide influence (Catholicism is still one of the largest religious denominations in the world) not make such attitudes unprogressive? Why shouldn’t Jews fret when the Church reverts to such archaic attitudes?

There is an important difference between the forced conversions achieved through the state power the Church used to wield and conversions resulting from normal missionary work. People should be free to choose the religion they belong to and if they are convinced by Church propaganda – let them. I do not think that Jews need to ‘fret’. But, you are right, of course the Church’s attitudes are un-progressive. That is in the nature of religious structures; not only the Catholic Church. I do not think that there is much progressive thinking to be found within ultra-orthodox Judaism or Islam.

Near the end of your book, you write, “Everything Christianity has taught about Jews and Judaism is false.” Can you elaborate on this?

This sentence sums up what I demonstrated in the first chapter about the Church and the Jews, a chapter in which I highlighted and analysed texts from the New Testament, writings of Church Fathers and theologians. It is a determined and intensive character assassination of the Jews.

You spent some time in Rome talking to priests about their faith. Did you learn anything about their point of view? Why, in your opinion, do people choose such a life for themselves?

I had interesting conversations not only with priests but also with young seminarians who had just recently decided to dedicate their lives to an idea they believe in. I am not a psychologist and did not try to delve into the ‘why do they choose such a life for themselves’. But I have respect for those who are willing to do so.

The Bidet as Metaphor for Healthcare Reform

On trips to the United States, I often find myself detailing the differences between life in the New World and the Old. I’m often asked what I miss most about Italy, and I dutifully list such obvious amenities as cheap, strong coffee, excellent olive oil and bread you can sink your teeth into. Sometimes I veer off on a tangent and mention less obvious things like well-dressed people in public spaces, hugging (and being hugged by) people you hardly know, and the generally invasive nature of Italian social life. In America, I would never dare to embrace even my closest friends, let alone peck them on the cheek; in Italy, it’s de rigueur.

Which brings me to my new favorite topic: anal hygiene. Or, more specifically, the bidet. Americans don’t just hate the bidet, they hate the very idea of the bidet. Say the word out loud and faces sneer up pathologically, as if there were something repulsive about keeping your money maker spanking clean. In America you can talk about anal sex at dinner with your in-laws, but the bidet is branded taboo by even the staunchest liberal conversationalist.

Why do American noses point skyward at the mere mention of this eclectic cleaning device? My mother (yes, her again) expressed skepticism when I suggested that Americans didn’t know what they were missing. Here’s an excerpt from our conversation:

“You take a dump and wipe yourself with half a roll of Charmin, then diligently wash your hands and Purell them to boot, all the while forgetting that the poop-producing orifice is still unclean. I bet if people actually thought it through they’d come around. In a decade there will probably be a bidet in every new American house. All it needs is a proper sales pitch.”

“I don’t feel unclean,” she said. “Besides, how do you pull your underwear up if you’re all wet down there? I hate wetness. I have to feel dry. That’s a definite setback.”

“But you have a towel. You dry yourself with a little personal towel, then pull your pants up. It’s quite uncomplicated,” I replied confidently.

“All those little towels! What about a public bathroom? How the hell could they have such a thing in a public bathroom? And a woman my age, in my physical condition–how could somebody in my shape pull off a balancing act like that? What, you hover over it while water squirts up into you? And if you fall? How embarassing! Then they find you passed out with a toilet nozzle in your tuches? What will people think? The whole thing is crazy.”

“It’s really not a problem, but I can see your point. You wouldn’t have to use it,” I reassured her. “We still have toilet paper in Europe. It’s not either-or.” I was beginning to equivocate.

“Never. Not in a million years in this country will you see a bidet, except maybe in the houses of the rich, who can’t say no to tchotchkes.”

It was beginning to sound like universal health care. I could already envision the protests, the angry town halls, the Joe Sixpacks and hockey moms stirring up a grassroots revolution on behalf of Big TP. “Don’t take our toilet paper away! The bidet is un-American! The government can’t tell us how to clean our asses!!”

It would never work. Americans are too patriotic.

I decided to take an informal poll of American friends who live or have lived in bidet-freindly countries. One friend suggested to me that Americans just don’t feel comfortable touching themselves “down there.” Another boasted that Americans take showers “like crazy,” as if Europeans bathed once a week in a public bath house (implying the dire necessity of the bidet.) A third responded with an aw-shucksy anecdote: the first time her nephew eyed a bidet, he inquired what a second toilet was doing in the bathroom. Wasn’t one enough?

The bidet, contrary to prejudice, is not a substitute for the shower. It is not a replacement for full-body hygiene. It is used by women and men alike to clean the nether parts when they’re dirty, and finish the job that toilet paper starts. Rumor has it the Japanese–among the world’s biggest bidet maniacs–have largely dispensed with the latter all together. Walking around has never felt so nice. Not to mention sex.

Think about it: it’s a discreet way of communicating with your partner. Instead of awkward interrogations of the “Are you clean?” variety, you just know they are. Someone who washes after every trip to the can cannot be anything else–and if they are, do you really want to be sharing an intimate moment together?

On my recent trip, however, I noticed a slight ripple of change, a tiny snippet in Newsweek arguing that the bidet is not only essential for combating “fecal contamination” (yuck!) but also in terms of green:

“Tossing all the TP in America would save 15 million trees, 17.3 terawatts of electricity, and more than 473 billion gallons of water annually; the environmental impact of bidets is minimal in comparison.”

Which would be good news for everyone, except maybe Big TP.

Published in The American

A Nation Stricken with Grief

Asaf Ramon, the son of Ilan Ramon, was buried today next to his father in Israel’s Nahalal cemetery. Like his father, he was a captian in the IAF. Like his father, he wanted to be an astronaut. His father Ilan died in the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, which exploded upon re-entry.

Asaf’s fighter jet exploded during a routine training flight.

I’ve been working on and off on a poem about Ilan Ramon. After the explosion, scraps of his space diary were found on earth and pieced together by forensic scientists in Israel. It is an amazing story. I wonder how people can praise God in such situations, though.

Ronald Aronson on Gratitude

Here’s my thought for the day, which is a useful substitute for writing a new post. It comes from the book Living Without God, published last year by Counterpoint.

“Our daily survival and functioning depends on dozens, hundreds, thousands of links. We belong to family and to all the obvious structures, networks, and processes–of work, friends, neighborhood, city and nation (as well as natural environment)–and to a social universe of which we usually remain unconscious. If we train our awareness on how structures and networks and processes are actualized around the world, we will eventually notice those whose work daily makes our lives possible, just as our work in some small way contributes to making them and their lives possible–our interdependence.”

You can watch Aronson speak about his book here:

The Fuss Over American Grrrls

First I clicked here, then here, then here. Then I wrote my sister and asked whether Lucy had one of these. She wrote back saying that she did, but not one of those. I said, “You should get her one.” She agreed, and then it occurred to me that maybe I should get it for her instead. Be an uncle, I thought to myself.

He Was the Ed Sullivan of Italy

…and the Johnny Carson, Chuck Barris and Regis Philbin combined. RIP Mike Bongiorno.
The other guy
The other guy

Why Buddhism?

Many people I know like to define themselves as Buddhists. Apparently, is has become the most chic religion in the west, partly because it is not a religion in the monotheistic sense. As a moniker, it seems highly compatible with a personal quest for spirituality and tolerance for others. “I’m a Buddhist” is shorthand for “Your thing is cool with me, as long as my thing is cool with you.” Somehow, Buddhism is challenging secular humanism as the choice ideology of the non-religious.

Despite the much-heralded rise in traditional religious belief, our monotheisms are going through a tough phase. For one thing, they can no longer accomodate the worship of nonviolence. Read the Bible, read the Koran. Read the Iliad, for that matter. Humanity has, until fairly recently, always flaunted and celebrated its ability to shed blood. It meant power, wealth and posterity. And–for the record–it appears that animals do it, too.

But are we seeing Buddhism as it is, or as we wish it was? Robert D. Kaplan has a recent piece in The Atlantic about his travels in post-bellum Sri Lanka, which sheds some light on our conceptions:

Buddhism holds an exalted place in the half-informed Western mind. Whereas Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism are each associated, in addition to their thought, with a rich material culture and a defended territory, Buddhism, despite its great monuments and architectural tradition throughout the Far East, is somehow considered purer, more abstract, and almost dematerialized: the most peaceful, austere, and uncorrupted of faiths, even as it appeals to the deeply aesthetic among us. Hollywood stars seeking to find themselves—famously Richard Gere—become Buddhists, not, say, orthodox Jews.

Well, they may not be deciding on orthodox Judaism, but many of them are drawn to things like Kabbalah for its promise of “spirituality.” The less daring go for a new-agey romp in Oprahland with The Secret. Barbara Ehrenreich has a new book out called Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America, and I look forward to thumbing through it. 

Are we just looking for a bright-side which doesn’t exist outside of our own minds? Think Susan Boyle. Don’t think. Think again.

The End of Anonymity

Who are you?
Who are you?

I was catching up on Ron Rosenbaum’s recent posts when I came across this article about a super model who took her anonymous internet slanderer to court. She apparently pressed Google for the specifics (and got them), resulting in what they are calling the first case of anonymity-busting in internet history. True or not, I’m glad to see one of these anonymous bozos get whopped. There is too much abuse of anonymity–bloggers and commenters alike–and one day we will look back at now as the lawless frontier days of the early internet.

Of course, this doesn’t rule out the reality of those who are in real danger lest their identities be discovered (think Iran or China). But what these self-aggrandizing abusers are doing is damaging the online environment for those in real need of anonymous expression.  

Kevin Kelly, of Wired, wrote in Edge:

There’s a dangerous idea circulating that the option of anonymity should always be at hand, and that it is a noble antidote to technologies of control. This is like pumping up the levels of heavy metals in your body to make it stronger.

Privacy can be won only by trust, and trust requires persistent identity, if only pseudoanonymously. In the end, the more trust the better. Like all toxins, anonymity should be kept as close to zero as possible.

In a similar vein, Yaacov Lozowick suggests that the recent CiF Watch website–created to monitor the Comment is Free blog at the Guardian–would benefit from not being anonymous. He reasons thus:

The one quibble I have is their choice to remain anonymous. I’m not a fan of such decisions. They don’t live in Hamas-controlled Gaza, or Iran, or Egypt, or Syria, or all the many other places in the world where it’s dangerous to have an opinion.

Comment may be free, but opinion apparently is not.

The Obama-as-Hitler Meme and the Conspiratorial Mindset

Lexington writes:

Belief in conspiracy theories can be comforting. If everything that goes wrong is the fault of a secret cabal, that relieves you of the tedious necessity of trying to understand how a complex world really works. And you can feel smug that you are smart enough to “see through” the official version of events. But widespread paranoia has drawbacks. For a start, it makes calm, rational debate rather tricky. How can you discuss the trade-offs of health-care reform, for example, with someone who thinks the government is plotting to kill grandma?

The answer is, of course, you can’t. Which is the same reason you can’t teach a creationist evolution, or a Holocaust-denier twentieth-century history. Either they don’t want to know, or they’re so far gone down that winding road to nowhere that they can no longer process contrary information.

So, for the record, the Obama-as-Hitler meme appears not to be the imagined rantings of the Obamaniks. Nobody is saying all conservatives are wingnuts, but the wingnuts are out there and they are carrying Nazi paraphernalia diguised as “patriotism.”

Here’s the meme in all its glory (I never get tired of watching Frank nail this bozo to her seat):