Feed on
Posts
Comments
I'm working on other books these days. While I'll still update this blog as time allows, more frequent updates can be found at my personal site, joelgrus.com.

Mormons, in case you didn’t read the pamphlets at the latest Glenn Beck rally, like to cast magic spells on you after you die. And not the good kind of magic spells, like the ones that use horcruxes to bring you back to life in a creepy noseless body. No, their spells are intended to turn you posthumously Mormon, at which point, um, well, nothing, I guess. If you weren’t a Mormon when you were alive, then presumably you don’t believe in Mormonism, and so probably also you don’t believe that Mormon magic spells actually do anything, in which case it’s hard to see why you’d care.

Nonetheless, a group representing Holocaust victims found the practice utterly objectionable, arguing, um, well, … ? OK, I’m not really sure what their argument was, although I imagine it involved the Holocaust somehow, and maybe magic or Mormonism or golden plates or plural marriage or something. Anyway, the upshot is that about 15 years ago the Mormons agreed not to cast any more spells on Holocaust victims, except (of course) for those with living Mormon descendants, since, um, err, well, I’m not sure why that makes a difference, but just accept that it does.

Anyway, “database monitoring” by the NSA revealed that the Mormons were in fact continuing to cast magic spells on Holocaust victims, but (luckily) a crack team of magicians and database engineers have fixed the problem:

The Mormon church says it has changed its genealogical database to better prevent the names of Jews [sic] Holocaust victims from being submitted for posthumous baptism by proxy.

In a joint statement issued Wednesday, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a coalition of Jewish leaders said a new computer system and policy changes related to the practice should resolve a years long disagreement over the baptisms.

Finally, the Holocaust victims can, um, something?

  • Share/Bookmark

I’m not sure if you’ve been following the congressional debates on immigration reform, but they’re quite interesting. Both sides have pretty good arguments. For instance, the pro-immigration-reform forces make a powerful case:

Southern Baptists respect and strongly support upholding America’s laws, [Southern Baptist leader Richard Land] said, but they “also recognize a biblical mandate to care for ‘the least of these among us’ (Matthew 25:34-40), to care for the ‘strangers’ who reside in our land (Leviticus 19:34; Hebrews 13:2) and to act justly and mercifully (Micah 6:8),” Land told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law.

If I understand him correctly, he’s saying that while Baptists “support” upholding the law, they’re also eager to change the laws so that they more closely concord with the ideas in Bible books like Matthew and Leviticus and Micah.

(This also helps explain why they won’t ever shut up about the “Linen and Woolen Act of 2008.)

Now, apparently Biblical arguments are not uncommon in the HJSICRBSIL, as those opposed to reform also used them:

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, read a quote from Romans 13:1-7 that crystallized the argument for enhanced border security and strict enforcement of existing federal immigration laws: “Let every person be subject to governing authorities.”

“I suspect we will hear today that it is somehow immoral or unethical to enforce our nation’s laws and that we should ignore our laws,” Smith said. “For those who want to take this approach, there is just one problem: the Bible contains numerous passages that support the rule of law.”

If this is truly Smith’s philosophy, I guess this means that his Bible supports copyright maximalism, the PATRIOT Act, and criminalizing non-violent marijuana users.

In any event, it’s hard not to be proud that a several-thousand-year-old book written by cavepeople plays such a prominent role in our public policy discourse. It appears that Smith’s wife is a faith healer, so perhaps he’ll draw on this additional expertise as the HJSICRBSIL works through the nuts and bolts of health care reform.

  • Share/Bookmark

Door to Door Atheists

It looks like this is pretty old, but I’d never seen it before, and it’s pretty funny:


EMBED-Door To Door Atheists Bother Mormons – Watch more free videos

  • Share/Bookmark

Before leaving on summer vacation to check out the new Harry Potter theme park, the Pope gave us a teaser of his autumn plans:

Pope Benedict XVI is creating a new Vatican office to fight secularization and “re-evangelize” the West — a tacit acknowledgment that his attempts to reinvigorate Christianity in Europe haven’t succeeded and need a new boost.

I like to think that I know a little something about “secularism.” In that spirit, I offer up 10 commandments suggestions to help the Pope with his, um, crusade:

10. Create colorful infographics showing that more children are molested by wicked (presumably secular) step-parents than by priests. (If anyone complains that the priests would look worse per capita, excommunicate him.)

9. Point out how “secular” referees can’t even judge whether a soccer ball goes in the goal or not, whereas the Pope is infallible.

8. Highlight how postponing retiree benefits until after death has allowed the Vatican to escape the fiscal woes plaguing its European peers.

7. Contrast between Papal support of gun control and “secular” American love of firearms ought to appeal to gun-hating weenies.

6. Start own MMA league (e.g. “CatholicForce”) and pay whatever it takes to get Brock Lesnar to join.

5. Sponsor a Judd Apatow movie starring Will Ferrell as a wacky priest, or a Michael Bay movie about robots that turn into priests. Or both!

4. Somehow convince Lady Gaga to use Catholic imagery in one of her videos.

3. Announce a ban on Your Religion Is False. (It could really help with sales!)

2. Reverse the Church’s position on masturbation. (That doesn’t just mean “use the other hand,” although I guess it could.)

1. Abandon mysticism and superstition, embrace science and reason.

They’re yours to use if you want them!

  • Share/Bookmark

21st Century Religion Apps

I was pretty excited when I saw an article about how apps are bringing religion into the 21st century. I’m pretty familiar with the 21st century, so I imagined changes like

  • abandoning belief in “infallibility” of centuries-old, mistranslated texts
  • embracing equal rights for women
  • accepting that evolution is the best paradigm for understanding biology
  • eliminating barbaric practices like genital mutilation
  • boring church services replaced with thrilling Words with Friends sessions

Unfortunately, I then read the article, at which point I discovered that the changes would be better described as “bringing the 21st century into religion”:

There was a time when Werle carried her leather-bound and dog-eared Bible everywhere she went, scribbling in the margins as she read. These days she accesses the Word and makes her notes on her iPod Touch.

It’s practically a new Reformation!

Twerski has apps that let him read the Torah, the Talmud and the Siddur, the book of daily prayers; recite the appropriate blessings for meals depending on the food that’s served; and vet the thousands of ingredients in his work inspecting Kosher food factories around the state.

“When I used paper … I could be sitting a long time. Now, it takes me just seconds to look for an ingredient,” he said.

So basically, it’s like the 20th-century religion (which was like the 19th-century religion, the 18th-century religion, and so on) but faster!

“It goes with me everywhere,” said Daniel Johnson, president of Wisconsin Lutheran College, who uses his iPhone to access the Bible, daily devotions, Christian music and sermons. “There’s not been a time in the history of man when it’s been as convenient to focus on one’s relationship with the Lord.”

There’s also never been a time in history when it’s been as convenient to focus on the merits of belief in the “Lord.” But to do that you’d have to, um, bring religion into the 21st century.

  • Share/Bookmark

Pork Street Party

The “tolerance”-driven Islamicization of Europe proceeds apace, with the cancellation of the first annual “Sausage and Booze” party:

Police said the party, called “Sausage and Booze,” could have been viewed as a provocation in the Goutte-d’Or neighborhood of northern Paris, where many Muslims pray on the streets because there are not enough mosques. Alcohol and pork are forbidden by Islam and the party had been slated for just after Friday’s main Muslim weekly prayers.

This sort of “provocation” is, of course, part of living in a “free” society. You’re free to believe any number of moronic things, while the rest of us are free to mock all of your cherished supernatural beliefs. Your god hates gays? Then we’re going to be as gay as possible! Your god hates shrimp? Then it’s seafood cocktail time! Your god hates thetans? Then we’re going to put on funny “V is for Vendetta” masks and let people know about your top-secret sci-fi beliefs.

Incidentally, this is why I’m unsupportive of the various “ban the burqa” movements. In a free society, people wear what they want, and then we make fun of them for it. You’re free to put on a moronic “ABSOLUT SAVED” or “GOT CHRIST?” or “JESUS LOVES YOU BUT EVERYONE ELSE THINKS YOU’RE AN ASSHOLE” shirt (ok, the last one is actually kind of good), and we’re free to take your picture and put it on the internet with a degrading caption and post it to our “tumblr” blog and twitter about it and put it on our Facebook walls.

We’d be much better served, I maintain, by a mock the burqa movement. For instance, we could exhume Sho Kosugi and film a movie (“Pork Street Party”) about a group of ninjas who cross paths with a bunch of burqaed women, with the result being all sorts of hilarious confusion. Or what about a crime caper (“Pork Street Party’s Revenge”) involving bank robbers who use burqas as disguises but cross paths with an overbearing sheikh who thinks they’re part of his harem and drags them back to his palace? Steven Spielberg (or his non-union Mexican equivalent), call me!

Anyway, back to France. It turns out that the “Urban Affairs Minister” isn’t actually against Pork Street Parties; she’s only against this Pork Street Party:

Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara — who is of Algerian descent — said that she doesn’t ordinarily believe in banning street parties. “I’m for people gathering, drinking and having a laugh,” she told RTL radio. But she said it was right to ban this party because it would have been “extremely dangerous” given its ties to the far right, “and all that implies about the hatred behind it.”

Therefore, I’m sure she won’t object to the next Pork Street Party. Right?

  • Share/Bookmark

Unable to make up her mind about a pending “civil unions” bill, Hawaii’s governor is doing what any sensible person would do — getting advice from dueling rabbis:

Rabbis Itchel Krasnjansky and Peter Schaktman hail from different branches of Judaism and hold starkly contrasting views on whether same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions in Hawaii.

What they have in common is the ear of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, who has until June 21 to announce whether she may veto the only pending civil unions legislation in the nation.

Lingle, in the final months of her second and last term, faces a momentous decision that carries political and legal implications. For the rabbis, with whom the governor has consulted on the issue, her choice is about much more.

For our benefit, both rabbis have written op-ed pieces outlining their views.

The anti-gay rabbi, for instance, wisely observes that a 12th-century Torah scholar believed that homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice:

Whether homosexuality is a choice or a predetermined tendency. According to the famed medieval Jewish doctor and philosopher Maimonides, an early codifier of Jewish law, it is a matter of choice. And, as with all matters of free choice, one can choose to either surrender to or deny these inclinations.

Maimonides also believed that the earth was at the center of the universe, surrounded by “heavenly spheres” that are in fact “angels.” It’s too bad the rabbi couldn’t somehow work this into his argument, but you know how editors are.

The pro-gay rabbi, on the other hand, insists that ancient views of ‘gay’ sin no longer apply in today’s Hawaii:

Those who object to the bill on religious grounds tend to be literalists who justify their view by pointing to Leviticus 18. The problem is that by reading this text so literally, they completely remove this Scripture from an ancient social context that could not envision the possibility or appreciate the reality of loving same-sex relationships.

Why do ancient views of anything apply in today’s Hawaii? I can’t wait to read his next op-ed and find out.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Claremont School of Theology is in the news for its ambitious plans to create a new interdisciplinary theology program:

At a press conference this morning, we announced our agreement to co-create the first graduate consortium in the world that will provide theological education for Christians, Jews, Muslims, as well as students from other faith groups. Each group will maintain its own curriculum and have the opportunity to contribute to a unique shared interreligious curriculum designed to provide students with the experience of interreligious dialogue and study alongside students from other religious traditions.

I know what you’re worrying — if Christians are exposed to Muslim teachings, and so on, some of them might change their minds about what they’re studying! After all, isn’t that how education works? Someone goes to college thinking he’s going to study chemistry, and then he takes a philosophy course and switches his major, and then he takes another philosophy course and switches it back, and then he breaks too much glassware, so he switches to physics, and then he breaks a really expensive atom-smashing apparatus, so he switches to math, and then math is too hard, so he switches to sociology?

In secular studies that’s an OK thing to do. The chemistry department and the physics department might have different explanations for a few things, but at a deep level physics and chemistry complement each other. Believing the principles of chemistry doesn’t logically require you to disbelieve the principles of physics, nor vice versa.

Theology is different, though. You can’t logically believe both “Jesus Christ is both god and the son of god” and “Jesus Christ was just some dude with long hair.” That doesn’t work.

Fortunately, it turns out that “learning about other religions” doesn’t really mean learning about other religions:

Another truism is that interreligious dialogue is more about deepening the existing religious identity of an individual than it is about conversion to another religion. Furthermore, research shows that individuals who learn in religiously diverse environments usually do not convert to another tradition.

So basically, the classes about Islam “deepen” Muslims’ conviction that Islam is correct, and they “deepen” non-Muslims’ conviction that Islam is wrong. Similarly for the classes about Christianity, about Judaism, and about other religions.

This is, if you think about it, a pretty impressive thing to accomplish. Nonetheless, I’m not sure whether “strengthening students’ pre-existing superstitions” really should count as a “new paradigm for theological education.” Isn’t that what they’ve been doing for centuries?

  • Share/Bookmark

Times aren’t just tough for mortgage brokers and incumbent Senators. No, the economic downturn has hit closer to home (assuming you live near a church):

According to the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, there are more than 600,000 ministers in the United States but only 338,000 churches. Many of those are small churches that can’t afford a full-time preacher. Among Presbyterians, there are four pastors looking for work for every one job opening.

It’s got to be difficult finding out that your once-lucrative “divinity” degree now isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, and that you’d probably be better off if you’d taken fun classes about Judge Judy and “Star Trek” instead of all those seminars on “homiletics.”

But the even worse part is losing your “calling”:

says Proctor, “It’s hard for any man who is called to preach to sit in the pew.”

And here I’m not without sympathy. After all, I was called to be a Superbowl-winning-quarterback-turned-movie-star (you can’t prove I wasn’t), but every Sunday during the NFL season I also find myself sitting in the (metaphorical) pew. In fact, this year the Seahawks wouldn’t even let me into their so-called “open” tryouts.

Yet I made the best of God’s bad advice, and so I have confidence that these struggling would-be clergy can do the same.

Hopefully their divinity skills like “New Testament Greek” and “Denominational Polity” and “Biblical exegesis” will transfer to some of the more in-demand jobs right now, like oil-spill-scrubber and national-debt-counter and census spy.

  • Share/Bookmark

A recent poll in the UK revealed that the man on the street doesn’t think much of Islam:

# 58% associate Islam with extremism
# 50% associate Islam with terrorism
# Just 13% associate Islam with peace

Part of the problem is that people are getting information from completely biased sources:

# 57% obtain most of their information about Islam from the TV news
# 41% obtain their information about Islam from newspapers
# Just 3% get most of their information on Islam from Muslim organisations

After all, when you want to know about (say) the BP oil spill, you don’t go to the TV or newspapers. You want a website run by BP itself, since they’re the unbiased experts on the topic.

Accordingly, a bunch of Muslims have put together a site talking about how much they like Muhammad. It’s got video testimonials, inspiring quotes from modern-day scholars like H.G. Wells, timely examples from the Ottoman Empire and Muslim-occupied Spain, and a bright and cheerful color scheme.

The one thing it doesn’t do, alas, is provide any evidence to refute the poll results.

If people believe that Islam is associated with terrorism, it’s a complete non sequitur to respond that Muhammad was interested in Women’s Rights and Education.

For one thing, neither of these is particularly related to terrorism. More importantly, it doesn’t matter what Mohammed said. People associate Islam with terrorism because there are lots of prominent terrorist groups who explicitly claim Islam as their motivation. People think Islam has backward views on Education and Women’s Rights, because there are Islamic countries that have religiously-motivated backward policies on Education and Women’s Rights.

If your goal is to convince people that Islam and terrorism have nothing to do with each other, you might want to put up a webpage or two addressing the reasons why people think they do. (For extra credit you might consider condemning the people responsible for creating the impression, who — you’ll be surprised to learn — aren’t the TV stations and newspapers.) If your goal is to convince people that Islam is progressive on Women’s Rights, you might want to talk about the parts of the world where Islam is used to justify denying rights to women.

After all, even BP isn’t trying to deny that an oil spill is happening!

  • Share/Bookmark

Older Posts »