My Life as a Creationist

Well, it didn’t last long. I had just discovered God and was attempting to bend the world to my perception of the Bible. I remember being in a plane, crossing the Atlantic, when I read an article about the Dover School District creationism scandal (must’ve been 2005–so long ago!) My gut reaction was, unsurprisingly, “Of course evolution is bullshit! The handiwork is God’s and His only.”

What is surprising–or surprisingly unsurprising–is that this holier-than-thou attitude followed a lifetime of secular normalcy. It was due to my recent “discovery” of God, and my consequent insistence on fitting the universe into my nutshell conception of that God, that was responsible for such a foolish thought. This now seems inconceivable to me, like a brief loss of memory before I awoke to my rightful place among thinking, reasoning humanity.

Creationsim is not science. The Bible is, in many ways, a fascinating and wonderful book (so is Moby-Dick, for that matter). But it is not the true tale of how things have come to be as they are on this earth. It is a collection of writings by humans who knew far less about the nature of the universe than we do, and even the least educated among us is better informed scientifically than the authors of the Torah and Gospels.

I just wanted to get that off my chest.

The Economist Weighs in on the Goldstone Report

It sounds (almost) as if The Economist was about to express a less than negative opinion of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Almost. You can read the entire report here. UN Skeptics can have fun with this.

Two questions face countries that have gone to war. Was the cause just? And, where possible, did the troops do their utmost to spare civilians? It was over the second of those questions that Israel found itself under a cloud on September 15th, when a United Nations mission accused it of having deliberately committed war crimes during its three-week attack on Gaza that ended in January. Yet this week’s report was deeply flawed. In a conflict where missed opportunities are as common as Qassam rockets, the risk is that both sides will now conclude the wrong thing: Arabs that Israel has just been found guilty; and Israel that it will never get a fair hearing in a hostile world.

From the very start, this report had to overcome the taint of prejudice. It was mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, an anti-Israeli outfit notorious for having congratulated Sri Lanka’s government on brutal conduct that led to appalling loss of life among Tamil civilians. Israel refused co-operation. But the mission was headed by a respected international jurist, Richard Goldstone. A Jew himself, Mr Goldstone insisted on scrutinising the conduct of Hamas as well as Israel. There was hope that he might wrestle the inquiry into balance.

Yet the report takes the very thing it is investigating as its central organising premise. Israeli policy in Gaza, it argues, was deliberately and systematically to inflict suffering on civilians, rather than Hamas fighters (see article). Israel’s assertions that, in the difficult circumstances of densely populated Gaza, it planned its military operations carefully and with constant legal advice are taken by the report as evidence not of a concern to uphold international law but of a culpable determination to flout it. Israel’s attempts to drop warning leaflets, direct civilians out of danger zones and call daily humanitarian pauses may well have been inadequate, but the report counts them for nought. As many as 1,400 people died in the fighting. It is a grisly thought, but if Israel really had wanted to make Palestinian civilians suffer, the toll could have been vastly higher.

Israel has argued that Hamas fighters endangered civilians by basing themselves around schools, mosques and hospitals. The mission had Hamas’s co-operation, but its fact-finders could detect little or no evidence for this—despite plenty of reports in the public domain to support it. The report does criticise Hamas for firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel and for using the conflict as cover to settle scores with its Palestinian rivals. But its seemingly wilful blindness to other evidence makes that look like a dash for political cover.

To some, Israel’s Gaza war will always be in principle unjust: a disproportionate response to Hamas’s rockets. Indeed, the suffering in Gaza, from war and the economic blockade, has been grievous. They may be tempted to applaud Mr Goldstone’s report for that reason alone. Yet if the mere fact of Israel’s attack were enough to condemn it then Mr Goldstone’s report was pointless all along. And there is a danger of double standards. American and European forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo also caused thousands of civilian deaths, without attracting a Goldstone.

The pity is that the report frustrates the objective that Israel should be striving for: to hold its politicians and soldiers to the highest standards of Israeli and international law. After its costly war in Lebanon in 2006, Israel plainly chose to minimise its own casualties by using massive firepower in Gaza. It went too far. There have been credible allegations that individual soldiers broke rules banning the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields sent first into properties where fighters may be holed up; that civilians known not to pose any military threat were killed in cold blood and that Israeli forces used white phosphorous over built-up areas. Israel is pursuing 23 criminal investigations so far into the Gaza operations. It must finish the job. Unlike Syria, say, Israel is a democracy that claims to live by the rule of law. It needs to make its case by moral force as well as by force of arms.

The UN report has not come at a good moment. Barack Obama is trying to restart direct talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The peace process was never going to be easy. With its thimbleful of poison, the Goldstone report has made the job all the harder.

 

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