atheism

Judeo-Christian roots? There’s no such thing

The pope is naked. Judge Luigi Tosti has torn his dress off and thrown it to the wind. And along with it goes the masquerade of Europe’s “Judeo-Christian” roots.

I asked permission to place a menorah next to the crucifix as a reminder of pope Ratzinger’s words, which assert Europe’s “Judeo-Christian” roots. I did this because I know that Catholics are racist hypocrites and they’d never have allowed a Jewish symbol to be placed by the crucifix.

It’s a pity, really. A lot of people seem to like the idea that Europe’s once-Christian majority decided to share its cultural wealth with the Jews. Of course, that was after centuries of the most terrible persecutions and having denied them just about everything imaginable in the realm of rights. After Nazi Germany, Europe could no longer bury its head in the sand.

One problem is that Europe is no longer very Christian. And it hardly has any Jews left. So – from a Jewish perspective – it’s too little, too late.

Another problem is that if anything unites the European Union, it is certainly not adherence to biblical authority. That, after all, is what is implied by the term “Judeo-Christian roots.” It’s a trope, and a clever one; however, Jews and Christians disagree on the most fundamental things – those very things that keep Jews Jewish and Christians Christian.

What about the Greeks and the Romans? Didn’t they help to lay the foundations of what we now call European civilization? Christianity was late in the game, picked up the pieces of a broken empire, and proclaimed itself ruler over Jew and Gentile alike. The Gentiles were Christianized by the sword; the Jews, persecuted, massacred, coverted by torture and ghettoized by the same Christians that now wish to share their bounteous “roots” with them. Again, too little, too late.

We’re so used to hearing “Judeo-Christian roots” that it no longer even registers. Besides being an exercise in phony diplomacy, it’s exclusionary towards anyone neither Jewish nor Christian.

Another use of the term is as a weapon against that very secularism that binds Europe. It’s a favorite of Catholics, for instance, who wish to defend their theocratic ambitions in Italy. “Judeo-Christian” lets them sound ecumenical to the uninitiated. It lets them play peace-love-and-understanding. But it’s pure unadulterated bullshit.

Judge Tosti knew this when he asked permission to place a menorah next to the crucifix in his courtroom. He knew his request would be denied. He knew those smooth-talking Catholics were hypocrites who don’t put their money where there mouth is.

I submit that the only Europe worth living in is a secular Europe. The Enlightenment project is what allows Jew, Gentile and everyone else to live here together without a holy war in every city. It’s hard enough, but its the best way we’ve ever discovered.

Today the pope is naked. No amount of fancy dress will cover up that fact.

New atheist meme: atheists are friendly, etc…

Greta Christina has an ongoing series of atheist memes on her blog. I’m sure she’s proposed this or something similar already, but this kind of thing can’t be stressed too much or too often. If you like it, please RT (or print it out and paste it to your car bumper). We need to fight this thing.

That kind of says it all, right?

 

A minority within a minority

I’m always happy to see atheists coming out in minority communities. My advice: be honest. If others can’t deal with it, try to talk about it openly. If that still doesn’t work, resort to humor. Eventually, they’ll come round. And if not, it’s not your problem anymore; it’s theirs.

(via Black Atheists of America.)

I don’t want to get in the middle of this debate

The other day I was catching up on the latest brouhaha in the atheist blogosphere (Jeremy Stangroom vs. Badnewatheists). I hadn’t really been keeping up, you see, as we just moved and have a seven month old daughter. Not ideal conditions for up-to-date blogging. But the internet works fine here, so I dipped my big toe in and…ouch! The water was scalding.

Stangroom is upset that gnu atheists are occasionally rude. Make that nasty. Make that abhorrent. Find the worst adjective you can and apply it to Jerry Coyne, the most evil motherfucker on the web. He just ran over your blind grandma with his Triumph, then stopped to watch her writhe and bleed to death on the pavement. Did I mention he was smoking a Cuban cigar at the time? And listening to Black Sabbath on his iPod? That’s pure gnu atheist style devilry at work.

I don’t really want to get in the middle of this debate. Yes, I do. Sort of. The issue is, do people have the right to be occasionally rude? I think so. You may disagree, of course. But you’d better disagree with a gentleman’s manners.

The comments are closed to most of Stangroom’s recent posts. And don’t bother twittering at him, because he has little patience for that kind of thing. His essential gripe is that the gnus have written things on their blogs that make people upset, and apparently some of those people write him emails kvetching about the horrible manners of a handful of science bloggers. So maybe he’s getting sick of playing school counselor. I don’t know. But it seems odd to me that the words of Jerry Coyne or P.Z. Myers carry such tremendous weight in the psyches of their debate partners (or that anyone debating them is unprepared for their style). If they are too rough and tumble, why are these tender souls even in the ring?

Stangroom surprised me, though, in a brief email exchange. After his pounding the nail on the head about how terribly nasty the gnus are, I expected him to be the very picture of politeness. Especially with his critics. But right out of the gate (on Twitter, no less) he told me I was making a fool of myself, intimated that I was out of my league, and that my opinion “wasn’t worth 2 cents.” One step short of telling me I had a stupid face, really.

I haven’t asked him for permission to quote his emails; and I don’t expect he’d give it to me, either. I don’t even want to play his game and point the finger at his sense of exquisite incivility. I did point out to him this one little thing, though. I wrote:

“I might just break out in tears because you told me I was making a fool of myself on Twitter. Has that thought occurred to you? Do you give a damn?”

I hope it gives him pause for thought, at least. He doesn’t know me. For all he knows I might be a basket case. I might even write to Ophelia Benson in tears that I’d been reduced to emotional oatmeal and my life had been rendered meaningless. But maybe he was having an off day. Or maybe he found my inquisitiveness nauseating. I don’t know and I really don’t care. He was rude to me and I don’t hold it against him.

And he should stop holding it against the gnu atheists. As far as I can tell his is nothing more than a sanctimonious pose. Given the chance to be an example of decorum, he blew it in one tweet.

Happy Darwin Day 2011!

I don’t have a great deal of time this morning – or really any morning – to blog (thus, Twitter). So, to celebrate Charles Darwin’s 202nd birthday and his enduring contribution to modern creationism (anyway something about apes – I can’t be bothered with the details), here is an intelligently designed cartoon depicting the errors of modern evolutionary thought for which Darwin is so deliciously to blame. Via Atheist Cartoons. (I’m sure this will pop up on a thousand other blogs today. Enjoy.)

Introducing Monicks

There is a blog I’ve been reading for a few days now by a woman named Monica (hey, my sister’s name is Monica!), who calls herself Monicks. She has made a super-long list of atheists on Twitter to which my name (@godlessinitaly, duh) should be added sometime soon, I hope. So if you’ve never checked out Monicks Unleashed I suggest you do so. She’s way cool.

Whatever Works: a great atheist comedy

When I saw Whatever Works last year I loved it. The person I saw it with told me I reminded her a lot of Boris Yelnikoff, the lead character played by Larry David. I took it as a compliment. Plenty of people have told me I remind them of Woody Allen, which I also take as a compliment (though I know it isn’t always meant as one.)

My impression was that the movie kind of got slammed as one of Allen’s least-best, which is hardly criticism. I just watched it again. It’s actually a moving atheist comedy about Bible-Belt American Christians losing their old-time religion, following their passions and embracing a secular lifestyle in New York City.

There’s a great scene where Ed Begley, Jr., who plays the father, falls to his knees and begs Jesus for forgiveness for his sins. His daughter Melody, by now married to Yelnikoff – a misanthropic Jewish atheist – smiles sweetly and says, “Do you want to tell him or should I?”

“Tell me what?” her father responds.

“There’s nobody out there. Honest. You’re prayin’ to no one!”

Here’s the New Year’s scene at the end, which I’d wanted to post a few days ago, but what the hell. It’s a great movie, even if it’s not Annie Hall.

‘Buddhist’ is just a nicer way of saying ‘atheist’

My wife really dislikes Facebook; even so, she feels compelled to share at least some information about herself. Last night she was filling in a few new interests on her profile when she came to “religion.” “What should I write?” she asked. “‘I love Jesus? Liberal? Agnostic?'” “Why don’t you just tell the truth?” I said. “Write ‘atheist.'”

“That sounds too harsh,” she replied. “I’ll just put down ‘Buddhist’ instead.”

Jewish Christmas Explained

It’s a simple explanation for a complex phenomenon, after all.

Meet “Sam”

I know I shouldn’t be doing this, but this comment is so stoopid it’s irresistible. Blame P.Z. Myers.

“First off, there is no such thing as atheist (but is there such thing as “Sam?”), it is indeed plain simply (I think you mean “plain and simple”) arrogance and utter rudeness to the scientific community let alone the religious one (I never made any promises), their claim in itself is a positive one (which claim?), u (you) can( )not provide proof of his existence (whose existence?), whihc (ahhhh!) make u logically at best agnostic who lack(s) humility (who me?) to accepting lack of knowledge (of what again?).
in so far as the quran goes, seems like u were expecting mathematical notions, or some scientific formula “although there scientific stuff in there” (there be science!). are u mad (those be my initials, genius)?
t(T)he point is about, the highly likelihood of his being, rather than nothing coming out of nothing, and forget about the quantum fluctuation and string ripples (what’re you smokin’, dude?), the numbers dont add up (what numbers???). and there is already been proved that universe paradox, is a logical fallacy in itself. (pot, kettle)

In case anyone is wondering, this was posted as a comment to Another atheist reads the Qur’an. I don’t mean to make fun of “Sam”, but he could’ve put a bit more thought and effort into making himself comprehensible to someone so hard-hearted he offends both the scientific and religious communities in the same breath (in your dreams, pal!)

I should’ve taken that job as a proofreader.