Grant Rants

Archive for the ‘religion’ Category

The stupid it burns: anti-vampireism and bald as a hair colour edition

- May 14th, 2012

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens, and the rest of you!

Ok, I have some ranty mojo brewing today and I’m in need of a target. Fortunately, the world is a big place with more stupid than it is possible to catalog, and it was easy enough to find one. Just up the highway in fact. In Toronto, that mythical center of the known universe.

Specifically, a column by rabbi Dow Marmur, who evidently doesn’t like us heathens very much.  The problem with we atheists, he says in a meandering column in the Toronto Star, is that we are pretty much like jihadists:

I’ve, therefore, consistently refused to engage in debates with atheists. They may consider me a cowardly man of little faith who’s afraid of exposing himself to the truth, but impartial observers will know that contemporary atheists are often even more fanatical than religious fundamentalists. Their zeal seems to know no bounds.

Interesting. Last time I checked, the most fanatical religious fundamentalists in North America try to have their dogmatic nonsense taught in science classes and are obsessed with telling women what they can do with their bodies, including a hilarious Republican bill that passed recently in Arizona that defined pregnancy as starting two weeks before conception. (no, that is not a punch line.) In even more extreme cases in North America, Europe, and of course, the middle east, the fundamentalist set is busy killing other people, often using that delightful method employed by the truly deluded, suicide bombing.

Atheists write books and blogs.thestupiditburns Oh, the horror, the horror.

He Marmur points to Alian de Botton’s weird newish book Religion for Atheists, where in de Botton says he wants to build atheist temples, as some manner of evidence that atheism itself is becoming a religion (which is why we are worse than the worst religious fundamentalists….you know without the bombs and such) and in fact, heathens have “religion-envy.”

Ok, look, first de Botton strange book was greeted with disinterest by the atheist community, such as it even exists, and the most anyone could say about it was “uh, what?”

It’s true, there are atheists who seem to want to ape the group cohesion provided by most religions, but it’s an attitude I’ve always found puzzling. It’s why I don’t belong to any skeptic/atheist/humanist groups nor go to regular meetings. I don’t have any need to get together with people to talk about what I don’t believe in. I tend to, this rant notwithstanding, focus my commentary in his regard on attempts to breach the wall between church and state, or religious attempts to undermine basic freedoms like freedom of speech, or attempts to win converts by stealth (like the ongoing efforts of the Gideons to be given access to elementary public school children.) But sit around and talk about why I don’t believe in the existence of gods? Zzzzzz. Please. I’d almost rather watch Glee.

Marmur’s entire argument crumbles because it starts with a false premise. He treats atheism as though it’s a thing like Christianity or Scientology or Jedism something. The tacit assumption he makes is that atheism is a complete philosophical entity, with dogmas, and rules and holy books and, I would guess, priests or clerics or some sort that one obeys. And uses this argument as he defends the excesses and violence of religion:

Because religion is articulated and administered by human beings, it often falls short of its stated ideals — just like atheism.

Really? Really, Rabbi Marmur? And what ideals are those exactly? Where do I find them? Where, in the name of Zeus’ holy toga, do I find the “stated ideals” of atheism?

Look man, atheism is barely a thing at all. All atheism is just not believing in a god or gods. Period. QED. End of frakkin’ story. The only reason we have a name for it at all is because historically everyone around us has been totally hell bent for leather on this whole god business.

I mean, even the name “atheism” is pretty stupid because it dignifies the thing that it denies. Look, I don’t believe in vampires or big foot either, right? But there is no need to run about calling myself am “anosferatuist,” or an “asasquatchist,” is there. The bottom line is that atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour. The “ism” at the end makes it all sound fancy, I guess, but it isn’t.

I pretty well agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson on this front when he says “at the end of the day I’d rather not be any category at all.”

Even the so called “atheist community” is a disjointed lot that is only bound by the disbelief in the supernatural and generally shared respect for science, evidence and reason. There is also some broad agreements on the values of democracy, freedom of speech and the like. Beyond that, it is pretty well, to use the cliche, like herding cats. Disagreements abound. Yes, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, PZ Myers and a few others are the most public and well known of the so called “New Atheists” (which is only new by the authors refusal to shut up when told.) but they constantly disagree. Tyson and Dawkins’s disagree over how to talk about science and religion in popular culture. Myers recently took Harris to task over issues of racial profiling at airports. And I’ve lost track of how many non-believers were sharply critical of Hitchen’s views on the Iraq war.

But I am sure Marmur will tell us where in that mess there are the “ideals” of atheism. Or is that the sound of cricket’s chipping?

About the only thing that Marmur gets right is that religion allows people to form a community of believers and atheism doesn’t do this. Well, yes. So what? De Botton’s goofy book aside, how is that supposed to an argument against atheism, or put more correctly, for religion? Does it demonstrate the existence of a god? Because that is what it would take, son. That pesky thing call evidence sort of matters.

Ultimately, Marmur’s entire argument seems to boil down to the idea that religion makes you feel good, and atheism doesn’t. I suppose that could be right. Atheism provides no guidebook, no bromide of any sort. Attempts to make it do so are as foolish as attempting to grasp quicksilver. To me, not having that kind of crutch is freeing. Yes, life can be miserable. It can suck. It will, as Rocky says. “beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently  if you let it.”

Speaking only for myself, I would rather harden myself to deal with it than rely on help that isn’t there because it makes me feel good to believe there is. I would rather deal with life as it is, honestly, and be miserable than to cling to some manner of false hope. If atheism is a thing at all, it’s living life on your own terms, taking the awful and the good as they come.

In the inverse Law of Bill Donohue

- April 13th, 2012

There is a universal fact. Like gravity. Or the awesomeness of Mass Effect 3. (yes, yes some fanboys are having mental melt downs about the endings, but I figure they have been indoctrinated. If you don’t get that joke, go play the game! Seriously…go!)

Essentially, if Bill Donohue’s Catholic League in the United States hates something, it’s probably something worth checking out. His most recent explosion of hot hair is about the Three Stooges remake. There are lots of reasons to be offended by this remake. Remaking the Stooges is like remaking Casablanca. Sure you can do it, but there isn’t a single reason for it. The trailer for the thing looks Zeus awful and pretty well indicates the Stooges, classic though they were, were indeed products of their own time. I can easily think of a bazillion things I would rather do than see it. And yes, bazillion is a word.

However, this is not what upsets the always upset Bill Donohue, the grand pooba of the Catholic League. What upsets him is that a nun in the film appears in a bikini, aka the “nun-kini.” I guess Billy is upset because nuns cannot wear bikinis. It says so in the Bible or something, maybe. This the same guy who attacks films, books and other art if it offends his porcelain sensibilities in the slightest. This is the same guy who claimed that Hollywood was run by, and I quote: “secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it.” (He said that in defense of the ghastly “Passion of the Christ” film.  So bikinis on film bad. Two hours of watching a guy get graphically tortured, that’s ok. Just sayin’)

Anyway, in keeping with the Inverse Law of Donohue, and although it will likely injure my brain, I’ll have to check out the movie.

I get email: God needs a sponsor

- April 10th, 2012

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens, and the rest of you!

So by now I am used to getting email from religionists who are hell bent, if you will excuse the phrase, on converting me. Mostly Christians. On very rare occasions Muslims. Never Jews or Buddhists though. Weird that.

Anyway, I am actually not sure what religion this email is supposed to represent. ChristIslam or something I guess. It’s an email asking me to sponsor “God Allah” (which technically speaking would translate to “god god”. But never mind the fine details.) for the resurrection. So I guess this is like a walk-a-thon of some kind? You sponsor god, and for ever $5 he raises he resurrects a Hebrew carpenter? Well, you tell me then!thestupiditburns

Also it appears that god will just take anyone to be sponsor him. It’s been a while since I have been in Sunday school, but I distinctly remember the big fella being somewhat more discerning about who he choose to as someone to smite or be a minion. And of course, as always, it appears god needs money. Like the late George Carlin used to say, he’s all powerful and all knowing but he just cannot handle money!

Finally, since when did god get an email address? What happened to the burning bush method of communication? Who’s his service provider? I assume he is using wireless tech. Not sure how one extends a coaxial cable into the afterlife…

Anyway, this certainly goes  in my file of “most bizarre and nonsensical emails that do not involve a politician or Glee.” Enjoy:

Official Third Millennium Arrival of GOD ALLAH
**********************************
Allah wants to partner with you for the purpose of saving planet Earth.
Allah wants to locate sponsors for The Resurrection.
All applicants automatically accepted ; however, We require more sponsors which may include business, organizations, communities, and groups.
Please do reach out to Us over email; We respond within twenty-four hours or sooner. Thank you for your review.
Love,
ALLAH

I get feedback: the gay conspiracy agenda edition

- January 30th, 2012

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens, and the rest of you!

So it seems my last column has touched more than  few nerves, given by the piles of emails that hit my inbox over the weekend. No surprise really, given that I was poking Ontario Catholic educators in the eye for their “alternative” to gay-straight alliances in their schools in recent guidelines that create “respecting differences” groups for students that do none of the things gay-straight alliances do.

Essentially, I have hard time accepting all the talk of respect and dignity in recent Catholic school guidelines that turn to the Catholic Catechism as it’s foundational document — a catechism which regards homosexuality as being fundamentally depraved. This cannot, I wrote in the Grant Rant, either respect and help gay students, nor will it do much to prevent bullying.

Well, I suppose it was inevitable that someone would try to defend these guidelines. And it was equally inevitable that gay bashing would be part of it. To whit, I offer this bit of feed back to the column for a reader who goes by the handle “thatsallfolks”:

Typical left-wing, religion-bashing distortion. LaFleche is trying to restate Catholic beliefs by accusing Catholics of labeling homosexuals depraved when their teaching clearly reveals that it is “homosexual acts” which are “distorted” and “depraved”. There is a BIG difference between the sin and the sinner. Christianity commands us to love the latter and hate the former.

Wonder when Mr. Grant will do a piece on the inappropriate homosexual indoctrination which is occurring in the youngest grades of our PUBLIC school system via a cloaked anti-bullying curriculum? Can’t we just have generic “bullying” education REGARDLESS of race, sex, and gender? Funny I can’t recall anyone reaching out to the obese, the less than beautiful, or the “four eyes” population like myself?

Oh where to begin?

First, he is technically correct when he says the Catechism describes homosexual “acts” as fundamentally depraved and disordered. And this becomes the first line of defense for this kind of discrimination. You know, the whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” stuff.

First, it’s a fairly absurd precept to being with. It’s a bit like saying “oh well love Darth Vader, but hate Death Star.” I mean, what?

More important for our discussion here, however, is to point out that people are what they do. To say that is fine and dandy to be gay so long as you never have an actual relationship with another gay person is like saying “oh it’s ok for that animal to be a bird, so long as it doesn’t fly.”

Ultimately, it’s just a cover. A po’ duck game of semantics that is used to try and defend a point of view that is fundamentally unfair, unrealistic, outdated and discriminatory. Attempting to the draw the line between gay people and gay sex is a meaningless distinction.

But Mr. Thatsallfolks and a few others readers — not many, mind you, but enough to get my attention — go a step further than this Through the Looking Glass rationalization. I am referring of course to talk of the evil gay agenda bent on turning school children to a legion of homosexuals who will, from what I can gather, destroy the world. Or at least join the cast of Glee or something. Well, you tell me! It’s like these bozos think that gay people gather together in secret meetings and plot the take over the world, one child at a time, until there isn’t a straight person left. It’s never made even a little bit of sense.

The talk of “homosexual indoctrination” and the “gay agenda” is exactly the consequence of the kind of policy the Catholic Church is trying to enact in Ontario’s (public funded) Catholic schools. Once you point to a segment of the population and say “oh THOSE people are screwed up” which is what the church does, it becomes easy to define them as a “them” against you “us.” And of course “them” are always bad, always up to do something to undermine the “us”. I mean, if you listen to all the talk of the gay agenda and replace “gay” with “Jewish” you have something that resembles the paranoid rhetoric from Germany circa 1939.

So I will say it once: there is gay agenda bent on destroying school children in the same way there is Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, UFOs, a good James Bond movie before the Daniel Craig version and sugar coated happy endings for all us. IT DOESN’T EXIST!

(On the other hand, there is an identifiable Catholic “agenda”. The entire outfit exists to spread the faith by converting, well, everyone. There aren’t gay churches designed to turn straight people gay, are there? So…just sayin’.)

The bottom line here is that that is being established in Ontario’s Catholic schools with public tax dollars is institutionalized discrimination, and that is something that needs to be very carefully looked at.

The Burning Stupid: Mock the Pope edition.

- January 10th, 2012

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens, and the rest of you!

I know I haven’t been been blogging much lately. There was the pre-holiday crazy, the during-the-holiday madness, the post-holiday blues, the post-post-holiday blues hangover,  and House MD marathon.

So I sat down this morning and figured it was time to return to the blog. What, but oh what, could I write about?

Turns out I didn’t have to look that far. After about three second of looking through Google news, I hit upon this fun story about the Pope claiming the future of humanity was in danger. What, you may ask, could threaten us as a species? Mecha Godzilla? The cast of Glee taking over the world? Zombie-robot apocalypse?

All good ideas, dear reader, but no. The thing that threatens our very existence on the planet is….dun dun duuun! GAY MARRIAGE.

Seriously. Pope Benedict is claiming that gay marriage is a threat to the species:

The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage in a new year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican in which he touched on some economic and social issues facing the world today.
He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper “settings” and that “pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman.”
“This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself,” he said.

Let that little bit of burning stupid bounce around in you skull a bit. If it makes any sense to you at all, let me know.

I mean, there are things that could potentially threaten the future of humanity, like say the planet getting hit with a giant asteroid. Or the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Or our continued and careless misuse of our natural resources. Or the scarcity of clean water. Or growing global economic inequity. Theocratic governments with powerful weapons. Evolved bacteria resistant to our medications.

But the Cardinal of Rome has precious little to say about any of that. No, no, no. The real problem is two men, or two women, living together and getting the same tax breaks as a straight couple. Ooooh scary.thestupiditburns

When, by Odin, will this anti-gay marriage claptrap end. WHEN? Cause I have to tell you Popey, and the rest of the bigoted “gay marriage is s threat to everything” crowd, you don’t have an argument. You don’t even have something that smells vaguely like an argument. Calling this line of reasoning an argument is like looking at a gold brick and saying that it’s Saturn.

I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that made any sort of sense whatsoever. “My holy book says so,” isn’t an argument. If you are not gay, and don’t want to marry a gay person, you don’t have to! But to claim that civilization, nay, humanity itself, is threatened because of gay marriage is akin to Walter Ostanek opening for AC/DC. It’s INSANE. How does gay marriage threaten the future of humanity? Well, according to the Pope, it just does. QED.

Ugh. I need a bottle of aspirin here.

Yes, I know, you are going to claim, Mr. Pope, that you are just following what’s in the Bible, and if it is in the Bible, it totally cannot be bigoted right? I mean, it makes no sense that bronze aged texts written by people who whose sum total knowledge about the universe was nearly zero might contain unethical and immoral pronouncements about people who didn’t fit their social norms, right? Human moral and ethical reasoning could not have possibly grown and evolved over the last 2,000 years of civilization. That is just crazy talk, isn’t it?

Look, hiding behind ancient texts, and claiming those texts are the infallible word of a god no less, to attempt to strip people of their civil liberties and demonize doesn’t make them less cruel, less out of touch, less useless or less harmful. It’s just feeble reasoning that has no basis in anything other than old hates. That is all Ratzinger is doing. Keeping hateful ancient, narrow minded, memes alive.

(Oh and if anyone tries to say “hate the sin, love the sinner”, I might punch you. Or at least mock you until you weep.)

He doesn’t deserve respect because of his title. Nor because of group of gruesome old celibates voted him to be their leader. Nor because he presumes to tell the world what they should do in their private moments. Nor because he has the gall to try to tell democratically elected governments how best serve their citizens. His status as a “holy man” shouldn’t protect him from criticism.

So long as the Pope and his followers choose to demean and attack people whose only “crime” is choosing to commit to someone they love, he deserves nothing but barbed mockery until he decides to catch up with the rest of us who live in the 21st century.

The stupid, it burns: converting the heathens edition

- July 26th, 2011

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

There are some things that one has to accept, if not particularly like, as a “public” atheist. That is to say, someone who talks about atheism in a public forum – even someone with a modest audience like myself – just has to accept some things unavoidable. Near that top of that list are attempts by believers to convert you.

Nearly every month, at least one brave soul (if you’ll excuse the phrase) sends me an email or letter trying to convert me to their version of Christianity. (I’ve never had a Muslim or Jewish or Scientology believer send me a letter, oddly, even though I’ve taken aim at all of those religions.)

What is staggering about it all is that each and ever letter writer seems to think they have come up with some new argument that I’ve never heard before. These run the gambit between the plain burning stupid (“You have a Jesus shaped hole in your heart” No I don’t) to the ignorant (“you are just rebelling against god!” No I’m not) to the somewhat sophisticated (“have you considered the cosmological argument?” Yes I have.)

Of course, I have not heard a new and convincing reason to become a religious believer in more than 20 years. I’ve heard it all. I’ve considered it all. None of it matters. In fact most atheists who think about these things have heard all these arguments multiple times, from multiple people.

That they don’t hold water with us because of their complete inability to demonstrate the truth of faith claims doesn’t seem to stop anyone though. This article from the National Catholic Register was emailed to me on Monday. In it,  Jennifer Fulwiler claims that she has five Catholic arguments that will “make sense” to atheists and thus, turn us in to good little Catholics. The person who sent it to me really thought Fulwiler had “slammed dunked” atheism…

To say she falls flat on her face on the first “argument” is an understatement. You know, like saying that Glee is an abomination. Sure, that’s accurate, but it just never seems to go far enough.

The first argument that will make sense to me as an atheist lead me to the doors of the Vatican? Purgatory.

For those who did not have the happy-joy-joy experience of going to Catholic school like I did and are unfamiliar with the concept, purgatory is basically like god’s waiting room. After you die, if you were not that a godly a person but not enough of a schmuck to get sent to the basement to toast marshmallows,  you get sent to the waiting room. Like a time out. You wait for a couple of eons and then you get to heaven. Basically it’s like waiting to update your driver’s license at the MTO. You’d eventually get to the front of the line, it will just seem to take several life times.

Of course, the idea of purgatory has been part of one of the greatest con-jobs in history – the Catholic indulgence. In the middle ages the Vatican had a cash flow problem, so cooked up this idea to sell certificates called indulgences that were, in effect, get out of purgatory free card. The more you spent, the more time you’d get off your postmortem sentence in limbo. Really it was the predecessor today’s miracle cure, snake oil salesmen and faith healers, and the practice was one of the things that really irritated Martin Luther, whose criticisms of the Vatican kicked off the Reformation.

Anyway, getting back to the matter at hand, I have to point out the irony of a Catholic trying to convince an atheist to become a believer by referencing a belief in a supernatural waiting room. So for those of you who think this woman is on to something and will try to use this line of crazy “reasoning” let me explain to you a couple things that might help.thestupiditburns

So an atheist doesn’t believe a god or gods exist, right? I mean, that is what being an atheist IS. So if I don’t believe god exists, why would someone blathering on about limbo convince me of anything? It’s like when believers try to convince me by claiming the devil is going to get me. Again, if I don’t think your god exists, why oh why would you think that I’m going to be frightened by your boogie man in red pajamas?

Tip to Miss Fulwiler – NONE of your five arguments make sense to an atheist. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You can talk all you want about a loving sky god, or the communion of saints or the pope’s fashion sense or whatever. None of it going to get you anyplace with an atheist unless you can first do one thing: demonstrate with evidence that your faith claims regarding the existence of god are true. QED. If you cannot do that, you aren’t getting any place with the heathen.

The Blonde Nonbeliever blog has a pretty good break down of what these conversations are like from the point of view of, well, a nonbeliever. Worth a read.

The stupid, it burns: Facebook vs. my sanity edition

- July 11th, 2011

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

I’m convinced that Facebook is waging some kind of psychological warfare on me. It’s relentless. Merciless. It stops at nothing to inflict upon me the hottest, fiery burning stupid it can possibly create.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that  Facebook is an epic domain of the burning stupid in a way that can eclipse even Glee.  It’s staggering what you can find on there if you spend a few minutes looking. I mean it’s common place to see a couple having it out in series of posts and the whole time you are thinking “why aren’t you two having this conversation IN PERSON. We’re not cyborgs yet!” (Although the robot apocalypse is surely coming.)

Then there is the guy who took a woman hostage, had the police outside, and posted about the whole thing on Facebook until he finally was arrested. First off, everyone knows that Twitter is really the more effective forum for this sort of thing and two, just how far gone do you have to be? Bad enough you took someone hostage and shot at police, but you are going to document the entire thing in public? Criminals are stupid.thestupiditburns

But the serious assaults launched upon my brain by Facebook comes in a much more subtle fashion, mostly from the ads that frequently vie for your attention on the right hand side of the screen. Facebook must use some kind of algorithm to place “personalized” ads. Like if you were constantly posting stuff about, say, how much you love Glee, you would always see ads about the Heart of Darkness and brain damage. In my case, I get carpet bombed with ads about religion.

This is because, I suppose, I often post links to stuff by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and the like. Atheist stuff. You know, cause I’m an atheist. In the warped mind of the Facebook adbots, this means I must want to buy religious stuff. It’s like if you posted a lot of stuff about the Beatles, and then got lots of ads about buying Glee CDs. You’d just want to pull your hair out.

I get ads for the oxymoronically named “Liberty University” – the outfit started by Jerry Falwell that regards evolution as affront to their religion – faith healers, psychic fairs, and Muslim dating websites. (I know, I was surprised those existed too.)

But this latest one takes the cake. I defy anyone to explain what in Odin’s empty eye socket this is supposed to be selling. Take a look:

CrazyasYup. They are selling a “blessed divine mercy quantum pendant” PLUS the science of wellness energy for life! Not to vent about this, but that is that even supposed to be? It’s totally meaningless. You just strung together a bunch of words, you jerks!

It’s like I could sell “Thor’s Mango Singularity Bracelet + Science of Quasar Cooking” I mean, what? How damaged would your brain have to be to think that meant anything?

Also curious is the price point. Apparently this blessed quantum pendant is normally worth $200. I can only surmise that it is initially constructed using the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva and then shipped to the Pope to be blessed. Hence the 200 clams they would usually ask. But NO! For a limited time you can buy this insane junk meant for suckers pendant for the low low price of $29! I guess quantum powered knick knacks just don’t sell like they used to.

I actually decided to check out the website in the ad, mostly because I must be into self abuse. In a completely bizarre video, they claim that these pendants were made using volcanic lava (as opposed to the other kinds of lava one can find on every street corner, I guess.) and will protect your family using something called “scalar energy.” (scalar fields are part of quantum theory in physics, although never observed in nature, contrary what the snake oil pendant sales folks will tell you.) If you Google it, you’ll all manner of loony references to scalar bracelets and pendants and whatever.

It’s really no different than those insipid Q-Ray Bracelets. Remember those? The hideous bracelets with teeny magnets in them that was supposed to cure all that ails you? You can still find infomericals about them from time to time, although they no longer contain specific claims about health and wellness because Health Canada told them stop. Turns out, you just cannot run about making health claims about something that does absolutely nothing. If only Health Canada would crack down on the homeopaths and Feng Shui peddlers too.

Anyway, the point being that if you are ever considering buying a super blessed, quantum scalar amazing health wellness Thor’s mango pendant…don’t. It’s just junk and has nothing to with science, or health, or wellness, or mangos.

Look there is a basic rule I have about people who start talking about quantum mechanics. It’s a very complex and confusing science. There aren’t many people who understand it and those that do tend to be highly educated brainiac types. Your average Joe Slob, like you and me, don’t understand it. We cannot even really come close to understanding it unless we decide to really invest time in serious physics education. So when you hear someone start talking about quantum physics in relations to jewelry, or spirits, or religion or whatever, just throw a pie in their face. It’s like the physicist Richard Feyman once said: “if you think you understand quantum theory, you don’t understand quantum theory.”

Bishop DiMarzio? Meet Thomas Jefferson.

- June 29th, 2011

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

It’s been a few days since I last blogged, readers of the Rant. Been on vacation, then got my powers back after walking to my North Pole fortress, saved the world, fixed the White House, flew into orbit and smiled for the camera….no wait, that’s Superman 2….my bad.

Anywhoo, what did catch my eye upon my return from vacation was that New York State became the sixth state in the US to allow gay marriage. This is good news, thinks I, because it could well be a signal that this long, tired and pointless debate might soon be over.

Wishful thinking right?

The notion that gay couples deserve to be treated under the law the same way as straight ones strikes me as a no brainer. Democracy might not be prefect but, to paraphrase Churchill, it’s better than anything else on offer. One of its great redeeming qualities is that bit by bit, the promise of freedom and equality under the law extends to all citizens. In Canada, this is – fortunately – a largely settled issue save for those who are increasingly becoming the lunatic fringe. Even our newly elected Conservative majority government has no appetite to revisit the issue in the House of Commons.

(although, it should be said the recent hoopla over Toronto Mayor Rob Ford declining to attend that city’s annual Pride Parade has managed to light a spark under the issues – it won’t change anything but it sucks up time on talk radio programming.)

Not so much in the US though, where the gay marriage debate continues to be a polarizing one, even as increasingly public opinion moves away from the theocrats. New York’s recent decision to allow gay marriage is just another step in that direction.

But what often gets regarded as the burning stupid in Canada is still seen as a legitimate political issue in the US as though there is a reasonable argument to deny homosexuals the same legal protections as straight couples.

There isn’t. I mean, consider the rationale of the Catholic Church after the New York decision. The state’s bishop claimed that allowing gay marriage was a “another “nail in the coffin” of marriage” because, apparently, if a married couple doesn’t produce children it’s all a sham. Society itself will then fall into some kind of dystopian chaos. Like Mad Max or something I guess. And, he goes on to say, the only people fit to raise children happen to be straight couples. Gays and lesbians need not apply.

There is absolutely zero data to suggest that a gay couple would make unfit parents just because they are gay and I’ve lost track of how many stories I’ve read or written about kids being abuse in so called “nuclear families” the bishop would approve of, but never mind that. Marriage is for straight people who spawn. Period.

And the bishop’s solution this is grave injustice thrust upon the lives of straight, child producing couples everywhere? Well, try to use religion to pressure politics of course:

As the chief shepherd of the Catholics in our City’s two most populous boroughs, Brooklyn and Queens, the decision of our Catholic Governor and State Legislature to overturn the common understanding of marriage that, despite many developments over thousands of years, has always been understood between a man and woman. That there was virtually no public debate on the issue and that the entire matter was concluded in just over thirty-minutes late on a Friday evening is disgraceful.

As a protest, I have asked my collaborators not to bestow or accept honors, nor to extend a platform of any kind to any state elected official, in all our parishes and churches for the foreseeable future.

That’s right. The theocrat wants to ban elected officials who did not tow the Vatican line from churches. The message here is “I know you are elected by the people to represent them and the values of a free and democratic society, but do what Rome tells you to do, or else!” (One has to wonder if he would sing the same tune if his churches stopped receiving tax breaks from the state.) Still, any politician banned from a church for defending the rights of his constituents should take that as a badge of honor.

503px-Thomas_Jefferson_by_Rembrandt_Peale,_1800

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson

The bottom line, I think, is this. If there is an argument against gay marriage that even smells reasonable, I’ve never heard it. I suspect it probably exists in the same way little grey aliens, Bigfoot and a strong Canadian Liberal party exist – urban myths the lot of it.

The only rationale against gay marriage that is put out there is a religious one and, fortunately, religious dogma isn’t the law of the land. You want to live in a place where clerics decide the law then pack up and move to some middle eastern nation where Sharia is still enforced.

The framers of the American constitution, somewhat more wisely than our own, enshrined the separation of church and state in the document. So the priestly class can wail and gnash their teeth all they want. They can shun whomever they please. But they don’t get to decide anything for the rest of us.

When it comes down to it, the only argument offered against gay marriage is “god doesn’t like it.” Well guess what, not all of us believe in your god, or your church, or your fashion sense. A priests view of things doesn’t apply to everyone else no matter what he thinks his chosen deity has to say on the subject.

Some, like the New York bishop, try to rephrase this by saying when gay people marry, marriage itself is under threat. Really? HOW exactly? I have asked this question repeatedly to those who think that homosexual marriage is a grand threat to the fabric of society and I have yet to get an answer that makes any kind of sense. How does a gay couple in Vancouver getting married effect in any way, shape or form, the lives of a straight couple in Montreal? Is the answer anything other than “it doesn’t?”

Basically if you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t marry a gay person. QED. But you don’t get to try and prevent your fellow citizens from enjoying the same liberties that you do.

Thomas Jefferson once said that history “furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” I have no idea if Jefferson would have accepted gay marriage or not, but on this score at least, his aim was true.

Well, the world didn’t end and the scam goes on

- May 26th, 2011

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

Well as you know by now, the Rapture didn’t happen. Not exactly a shock, right? Truth be told I was sorta hoping it would have least happened to Glee, but thems the breaks.

For those who missed this month’s ode to the burning stupid, a bunch of Christians led by a self styled profit in the US named Harold Camping, said the end of the world was to being with global earthquakes on May 21. This would coincide with the chosen faithful being beamed up into the sky to hang out with the sky god. Oddly, believers in this Rapture scenario usually say the clothes of the faithful are left here on Earth. I’ve never understood this. Is it the job of the heathens left behind to collected the clothes and donate them to the local Sally Ann? Do we get the left over cars and houses and money? If these people are beamed with nothing but their birthday suits, does that make heaven some kind of cosmic nudist colony? It’s all very perplexing.

Of course, Camping and his followers are nuts and not exactly what you could call the Christian mainstream. They are to “regular” Christianity what the Bee Gees St. Pepper movie was to the Beatles.

Ok, well that is not entirely fair. In fact, there is a large percentage of Christians who believe in the same sort of end of the world scenario that Camping does, including the whole being beamed up in the buff the deal. So before you say “hahaha, my religion isn’t that crazy!” consider that a recent Pew survey showed that some 40% of Americans think that Jesus will definitely return to end the world by 2050. (Interestingly, the idea of Jesus’s imminent return has been part of Christian theology since the beginning. So that is nearly 2000 years of people being very disappointed when the wake up in the morning!) Typically, Canadian data does not differ that drastically with the U.S.

The primary difference between this “mainline” belief and Camping, is that most Christians believe there is no way to determine when the end will come. Just food for thought there.

Anyhoo, this wasn’t the first time Camping predicted the end was nigh. He did it in 1994 and, oh the suspense is killing you I know, he was wrong. According to reports at the time, Camping and a gaggle of his loony toons stood outside in 1994 with open Bibles lifted up to the sky waiting to be  beamed up. One can only imagine how that went down:

Camping: “The time is now! Take us home, Jebus!”

Follower 1: “Yes! I am so happy to be here waiting for gruesome end of human civilization!”

Camping: “It will happen NOW!”

Follower 2: “Now!”

Follower 3: “Now, now, now!”

Follower 4: “She turned me into a newt!”

Camping: “Um….now?…..er….now?….hmmm. I, uh, say do you feel any different?”

Follower 1: “My arms are tired from holding this Bible up for the last hour. I’m sorta hungry, too. You?”

Camping: “Uh….well, er,…wow, ok that didn’t go as I thought it would. Wanna go down to the IHOP?”

Follower 1: “Ok!”

Now we can all laugh and joke and go “ha ha, look at the stupid heads.” Which, lets face it, they totally deserve and is entertaining as hell in a petty sorta way.

But there is an uglier said to it all. Reports over the last several weeks in American news media told stories of people selling their homes, giving up their jobs and basically ruining their lives and hurting their families in the deranged belief that they were handpicked by a god to be whisked away while civilization falls in an orgy of suffering and blood shed. Today these people have nothing. Their money was spent  buying billboards, like the one in St. Catharines on St. Paul Street, to support Camping’s cause.

Camping has shown no remorse or indicated he will help those credulous fools who think he has a hotline to the Almighty. Instead, he claims – as he did in 1994 – that he made a mistake in his calculation. (This, by way, requires a total redefinition of the word “calculation” to mean “completely insane guess based on the voices I heard in my head.”) and the REAL end of the world starts on Oct 21.

This means a host of desperate and foolish people will again give up what little they have to support the cause of an obvious con man. Sure we can laugh at their stupidity and Campings increasingly delusional preaching. But the fact is people have come to real harm over this and it is likely to happen again in the fall.

I get feedback: End of the world edition

- May 11th, 2011

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

So my last Grant Rant column has apparently upset a regular reader and commenter who goes by the handle “DayOh”. I don’t know who this person is, although his or her handle always puts a Harry Belafonte tune in my head.

Anyway, the Rant was about how the election of a majority Conservative government doesn’t mean the end of the Canada as we know it because, for simple, practical political reasons, Stephen Harper cannot dismantle Canada and turn it into some kind of fundamentalist loony land, even if that is something he wanted to do.

In the course of the piece, I threw at jab at the end-of-the-world crowd who believe a version of the Christian judgment day is coming on May 21. (I’ve blogged about this in greater detail here.)

Anywhoo, DayOh figures I am generally too hard on religion and specifically too hard on this end of the world stuff because, he says, science makes just as many ridiculous claims about the end of the world. In an exchange with another reader he claims that scientific observations of the asteroid Apophis is just as looney as the god is coming to destroy us crowd:

… NASA has predicted a NEO called Apophis of having a 1 in 250,000 chance of impact with the earth, thus eliminating life as we know it. This is well over 100x more likely to occur than you or I winning the lottery next week. Of course NASA and other scientists have updated this scale repeatedly as their prediction has changed based on new observations….

That doesn`t matter if it`s May 21, 2011 or 2036 (Apophis). In other words, the doomsday folks, whether in the name of God or not, are equally correct…

Grant has habitually picked on one people group (often the religious amongst us) and make no mistake, I’m no fan of the fanatics as outlined in his column. However, he routinely overlooks the equally contentious claims of science…

If we examine this sort of talk for even a moment, it falls like castles made of sand.

First, we can safely dismiss the idea that following NEOs (Near Earth Objects) is the same thing as some religious loon claiming the world is coming to an end.

The end is nigh crowd (which is not limited to Christian fanatics by the way. In Italy and Taiwan this week doomsayers predicting horrible earthquakes set off panics) use, well, nothing to claim we are all about to die. They use a bewilderingly ridiculous interpretations of holy books or other cockamamie “signs”. A lot of the time – as is the case of the May 21sters – they also ask for donations. Cause you know, if the world doesn’t end they need money to keep their scam church going. (In Taiwan, the doomsayer was getting people to buy shelters in a mountain top compound. Fraud charges are likely pending.)

Now is this the same as watching near earth objects, as DayOh suggests?

Not at all.

For those that don’t know, near earth objects are mostly asteroids, large chucks o’ rock  left over from the formation of our solar system. Mostly this space debris is found safely orbiting the Sun in the asteroid belt past Mars or the Kuiper belt out on the fringes of the solar system.

However, some of them wander around and drift near earth. Now, collisions in space are very common. It’s even common in our solar system. where we are lucky enough to have Jupiter acting like a blocker in football pushing away stuff that might otherwise come to close to Earth. Still,  Earth has been pounded by stuff in the past and odds are it will happen again.

I’m not kidding when I say “pounded” either. The reason NASA keeps an eye on near earth objects is because if one hits us…well, lets just say it would totally harsh your day. A large asteroid impact in the Yucatan peninsula some 65 million years ago is the prime suspect in the global extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs. In fact, there have been at least five global extinction events in our planet’s history, perhaps all of them caused by impacts from asteroids or comets. (I’d blame Glee for it too, but I don’t think dinosaurs watched TV.)

So keeping an eye on asteroids that float in near Earth is just prudent if you think our extinction is, you know, bad.  An asteroid impact would make the recent quake in Japan look like a charming day at the beach.

So what scientists do is track these asteroids to see if any have a chance at intersecting our orbit and if one does, determine the chances of it actually hitting the planet. Should we find one that has a very good chance of hitting us, the idea is we’ll have enough time to try to deflect it.

apophis_asteroid

Apophis, the killer potato from space

This is, you’ll note, pretty much the exact opposite of what a religious doomsayer does. You don’t see astronomers putting up billboards claiming the end is nigh (while asking for money) do you? They are observing actual real things, using real calculations. So the doomsayers and the astronomers are not “equally correct” as this DayOh fellow contends.  The doomsayers are always, 100 per cent wrong. The astronomers, using real evidence, are right. Funny how that works.

So why is this DayOh making bones about Apophis? It’s a pretty big rock that  has a chance of hitting the earth. But keep in mind that  a “good chance” is still less than 3%. Not great odds, but from an astronomical point of view, worth watching. It is scheduled to pass near Earth in 2036 and current calculations give it a one in 250,000 chance of hitting the planet, depending on if the rock passes through a “gravitational keyhole” when it passed by Earth in 2029. (See the video below.) Again, not exactly something to freak out over, just something to keep an eye on.  Certainly, while astronomers will tell us it is prudent to track Apophis, no one is having an irrational melt down over it.

In short the difference is this:

Doomsayer: “We are all going to die! The end is nigh! Repent! And give me money!”

Scientist: “We are watching a potential threat in the form of an asteroid and in the event it is likely to hit us, we are developing plans to prevent that from happening.”

Consider the following discussion of Apophis by the very awesome Neil Degrasse Tyson in comparison some doomsday lunatic: