So, how is it trying to separate us on 9/11? By burning a Quran, of course, as a symbol of a hateful, warlike religion that’s all about converting or destroying the heathen non-believers. Separate, separate, separate. It’s a good thing all of those religions are all about finding peace, love and acceptance. As I thought about this little act of fiery protest, I couldn’t help identifying with it, though. The only difference is that I would take it just a tad further. Maybe there should be a ritual burning on every 9/11…maybe that’s just what the world needs. But I would say that ritual burning needs to be of all the religious texts. The Bible, the Quran, the Torah (technically covered with the biblical burning, but just for symbolism), the Bhagavad Gita, the…Tao Te Ching?, I dunno…any book that seeks to control your life and threaten the lives of others. It would have to be up to the individual. Burn Oprah’s magazine, or The Secret, for all I care. But burn the book that controls you, rather than the one that controls others.

I would like to stress that I don’t advocate burning books to control information. And I don’t want all religious texts to disappear. I want their control over their followers to disappear. What I’m talking about is a ritual cleansing. A ceremony in which people decide to cast off religious isolationism and proclaim their new-found acceptance to the rest of the world.  To stop saying “us and them” and start saying “we.” What better way to prevent future events like 9/11, than to cast aside divisive theology?

I think I know just the place for the ceremony, too!

Imagine no religion.

                          

Recently, within that group, there was a minor stir when Phil Plait, former President of the James Randi Educational Foundation, made a little speech about the tone of skeptical arguments. His message, as he often sums it up, was simply “don’t be a dick.” It’s a catchphrase he borrowed from internet maven, Wil Wheaton. He is “concerned” that skeptics are engaging in “childish, demeaning behavior” and “taking the low road.” He’s afraid that people are being aggressive, and calling people “retards” and “idiots.” He’s playing the role of the tone police, for lack of a better term.

Now, ignoring the roots that I think that this entire speech has in some higher profile atheist disputes within the community, I can’t help but laugh at this topic.  Looking at this commentary, and the way in which it’s delivered, I can’t help but think of a whole range of conversations in my life.  The thing that sticks out to me, here is the hypocrisy of the “nice guy.” This is the guy who says, “I’m nice. You are not. You need to be like me.” He says, “I’m doing things right, and you are ruining it.” He says, “My way is the only way. Yours is abhorrent.” So, what bothers me about this argument? It’s fucking rude, for one. It’s wrong on top of that. But most of all, in telling you so very frankly how you should be acting (namely nice, like him), he is becoming the very thing that he wishes you were not. He’s being a dick.

Go back to that link and watch Phil’s speech, and tell me what words come to mind with his tone. Friendly? Fun? Scientific? Sorry, no. Try sanctimonious. Try preachy. Try accusatory. (Try unfounded…while we’re at it.) This is the irony of the tone-nazi. In an attempt to call out the imaginary devils of the skeptic movement, he becomes a devil himself. He’s stirring the pot, creating internal strife, and deriding his fellows. And worst of all, he’s doing all of it in the most unskeptical manner possible: with assertion, after assertion, after assertion. This is the “just-so” fallacy of skeptical speeches.

And did I mention it’s pretty fucking rude too?

Note: Am I being rude, in turn, by calling out Plait on his speech? Sure, possibly. But I’m not the one advocating his “don’t be a dick” policy. I happen to think that a firm and strident approach can be quite effective. Hell, I’d even defend a skeptic calling people “retarded” in certain circumstances. But Tone-Nazis are after one thing, and that’s to exercise control over you. Why do you think it was long considered taboo, for example, to discuss religion and politics in “polite company?” And notice, that the only two examples even lightly touched on in that video (one by Plait, and one by Bidlack in the Q&A) were….yep….religion and politics. I say, talk it up. A skeptic has nothing to fear from scrutiny.

Update: Phil has posted another addendum to his blog on this topic. Sure enough, his speech is really ringing true with, guess who? The religious skeptics! They feel that when other skeptics critically examine their beliefs, they are being personally attacked. I wonder if, as a thought experiment, we replaced all the crying religious skeptics he mentions with crying psychic skeptics. Would there be as much “let’s be nice” sentiment? I think not.

                          

The first article mentioned the recent death of Mormon leader Gordon B. Hinckley at the ripe old age of 97. It was mostly a news article, and fairly written, if a bit gushing rather than factual. It’s most biased line was the opening sentence which stated matter-of-factly that Hinckey “was revered by LDS members as a prophet of God.” While perhaps not technically incorrect, I can’t help feeling that there is a weaselly tone, particularly in the use of the capital-G “God.” Okay, so technically the Christian god is named by the title (or is it a name) of God, but I can’t help thinking that a better wording would be to say that he “was revered by LDS members as a prophet of their religion.” Or perhaps simply “as a prophet.” Eh…I’m nit-picking there, I’ll admit it.

The other article, entitled 4 Sale: Bones of the Saints, was about the sale of religious relics, such as Saints’ bones and shrouds and such, on eBay. I certainly won’t dispute the interest that an article like this might have for readers. I myself was interested. But again, upon reading this article, I found a sneaking, weasely wording in use by the author. One description of what a relic is states that “they remind believers of God’s promise that in his kingdom, everything broken will become whole again.” Huh? Is this a news article or are we in the pulpit? Then the author goes on “to put it very crassly, these are tiny antique body parts, usually in pretty little frames.” How is this a “crass” statement? The author implies that to state simply, and logically what these items are, without engaging in reverent speech is vulgar and unrefined! It’s a preachy sort of tone I would expect to find in the Christian Science Monitor, but not Newsweek! Then the writer moves on to talk about one Christian zealot’s boycott of eBay, for the “abomination” of selling such holy items, and talks about his work to “protect the world’s holy relics from profiteering entrepreneurs.” I should clarify, these are the author’s words. She is not quoting the religious zealot. This wording by the author in the body of her article seems to suggest that such relics are genuine, and worthy of protection. Finally the writer wonders if it is “really possible to purchase a piece of God’s grace and mystery with a credit card? Or are such gifts given by God alone.” Well, at least she finally questions the reality of magic bones, even if she doesn’t do the same for her god.

This is a major news periodical! I mean, I half expected to see the article closed with “amen!” I can’t help feeling that an article like this is the worst kind of proselytizing…the subtle kind. There was no mention of relics from other religions, no speaking to religious experts about the history of relics (most were created in the middle ages for the express purpose of profiteering by both the entrepreneur and the church). There was no mention that not a single relic has ever been proven to truly be a “piece of the true cross” or a “shard from the crown of thorns.” Nothing stating that some of the most famous relics, like the shroud of Turin, have been proven to be fakes. Newsweek simply decided that if they label a section of their magazine “belief watch,” they can write whatever they want without research or investigation. Bravo, to Newsweek for their journalistic integrity!

                          

Clearly this is godless cinema.

I have to say that I’m holding my breath to see some news coverage about the bias of the Narnia series. There’s another one coming out soon, as if the first wasn’t bad enough, I think it’s called Prince Caspian. I can’t wait to hear major media outlets heaping scorn on it for subversively trying to make our kids believe in god. Ha! That’ll be the day!

Actually, from what I’ve heard, Prince Caspian is actually one of the least allegorical C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, but I’m sure the Religious Right will use it… as a brainwashing tool nonetheless. Evidenced by this cover of a Christian magazine, which has the gall to speak about a fantasy novelist as a purveyor of the “truth!” Nice.

Well, I’m sure this will be ignored, and Atheists will sit by quietly as the Catholic League shows off their hypocrisy to blind masses. Ironic, I think, that this demonstration of the ‘golden rule’ will show so favorably for the godless. Of course I can’t resist , in an article so filled with “golden” things (rules, compasses…er…compii?), giving a ‘Golden Sheep Award‘ to the American Moviegoing Public. Good of them to so dutifully obey their church overseers.