Let's Reverse Shoes

No doubt by now many of y'all have heard of the great conservative wailing about the recent writing of one Timothy Shortell, a sociologist from Brooklyn College who made some unflattering remarks about religion and is now at the eye of a hurricane of public outrage. Seems his referring to the overly religious as "moral retards" got a lot of people's shorts in a knot.

To be fair, there were no doubt more elegant ways to express the same idea, but I don't really think that's the point. The First Amendment doesn't say "freedom of speech as long as you don't hurt someone's feelings" or "freedom of speech as long as the majority approves of it" -- it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Now granted the Constitution has taken quite a beating from Demopublicans and Republicrats alike over the past 100 years, but I think this text is pretty clear and easy to understand.

Moreover, imagine if Shortell had said that atheists and agnostics were "moral retards". Do you think that would have even gotten a peep out of the press in this country? Remember the first President Bush? Here's a conversation between him and a reporter when he was running for President in '87:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27, 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

So there you have it folks. A major party candidate for president (and later President) can say that he doesn't know if atheists should be considered citizens or patriots ... and nobody gives a damn. But let a college professor call believers "moral retards" and the spit hits the spam.

If GHW Bush should be free to express his opinions without repercussions, so too should Timothy Shortell.

Put Your Shirt On

"Don't set out to raze all shrines — you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity — and the shrines are razed . . . " (Ellsworth Toohey)

When I first read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, I initially failed to grasp that this quote from the novel's arch-villain concisely explained why what passes for "music" these days often sucks so badly.

Granted, Ayn Rand isn't everyone's cup of tea. Many have objected to her championing of individuality and capitalism, while others have pointed out (rightly so IMHO) that her moralizing often appeared to contradict her philosophy of freedom and individualism. But, just because an author may be objectionable in one way or another, one shouldn't throw away the baby with the bathwater. After all, Karl Marx didn't understand economics at all, and he was totally wrong about workers being important, but he did identify the true nature of religion really well.

So too did Rand really peg the way music has been destroyed in the past several decades. This struck me when I was perusing one of America's great satirical publications, The Onion, and I saw a shirtless picture of Usher with the subtitle: "Usher To Put Shirt Back On When Usher Ready To Put Shirt Back On". Mind you, I don't have any personal axe to grind with Usher. Hell, I wouldn't know him if I met him on the street. I gave up on pop music in about 1975 and I've never looked back. But, thanks to my better half (otherwise known as "she who must be obeyed"), I am occasionally exposed to modern stylings, and I'm consistently underwhelmed in the process.

I think this is just another by-product of the trend toward lowered expectations that has permeated education, politics and life in general for the past 20 or 30 years. Once the notion of equality before the law morphed into equality of outcome, the die was cast. To put it another way, reverence for achievement has been replaced by envy, as well as an ever-increasing demand that unequal earnings of every kind be equally distributed (which explains all of this American Idol nonsense).

How does this apply to music? Simple. To be a good musician -- to really master an instrument and play it with technical precision and creative passion -- is really difficult. It doesn't matter how much you "love music" or how well you feel you play .... the proof is in the performance. Either your chops are solid or they're not. Either you've got soul or you don't.

Yet this very notion of mastering an instrument seems to deeply offend many. Over the years I've heard lots of wannabes (i.e. people who are unwilling to put in the time and effort to master an instrument, but can beat on it sufficiently to pass as a player) actually express their dislike for highly skilled musicians. The terminology varies. I've heard really fine music derided as being "busy", "boring", and "egotistical". I've heard homilies about the virtues of "primitivism", "straightforwardness", and "rawness". People who can't tell a diminished 13th from a power chord stand in judgement of their betters and assume a tone of moral superiority precisely because they can't play nearly as well -- and they're resentful as all hell about it. They're actively razing the shrine of excellence and enshrining mediocrity.

Don't believe me? How many of today's stars write their own material? How many can really play an instrument well (if they play at all)? How many just stand there with a microphone and lip-sync (or grunt in illiterate English) to pre-recorded tracks while dancing around simulating sex? These people aren't creative musicians, they're flavor-of-the-year cookie-cutter clones who can be (and are) easily replaced after promoters and record companies milk them for everything they're worth. Yet millions of people obediently love and support them -- and will love and support the next one that comes along.

Some might argue that this has gone on forever, and to a certain extent they're right. However, the big difference is that in the past, no matter tacitly it was acknowledged by some, there was an underlying understanding that there was a qualitative difference between crap and art. Achievement (and the hard work that goes along with it) were seen as virtues, and the rewards that one reaped were seen as justifiable compensation for the effort it took to get there. No longer.

Today, the mediocre is everywhere, and people feel good about it. No longer are individuals judged by their shortcomings, or held responsible for their actions, or evaluated based upon any kind of objective standard. It's all about how one feels about oneself and nurturing one's self-esteem regardless of ability. It's turned education into touchy-feely, politically correct indoctrination; it's turned politics into substanceless, hysterical sloganeering; it's turned music into cRap.

Exhibit B

Lest anyone think that I'm unfairly critical of Christianity, let me use this entry to dispel your concerns. In fact, if I didn't live in a country that was overrun with Christians, I doubt I'd pay all that much attention to the religion. It's kinda like the bank robber in the 1930's who was asked why he robbed banks. His answer? "That's where the money is."

However, from time to time other religions become annoying and worthy of rational attention, and today's lucky winner is none other than that religion of peace and enlightenment --- Islam. I mean, the American Taliban of the Christian right are certainly frightening enough, but at least they don't totally control every aspect of government (especially large numbers of people with guns and few restrictions on how they use them). In the Islamic world, superstitious maniacs not only run the whole shootin' match and have guns, but they've also got almost unlimited funds due to the fact that they just happen to be lucky enough to be sitting on huge reserves of fermented dinosaur juice (for those of you who went to government schools, I'm referring to oil).

Plus, these folks can be offended at the drop of a hat. You thought the Reverend Lovejoys of the world were bad when they carp and moan about titties on TV? Well, it could be worse. At least they don't organize a mob, burn down the TV station, and behead the inhabitants. In Sodomy Arabia, home of the Wahabi sect of Islam, that would probably be considered a mild response. In fact, Islamic intolerance of any viewpoint other than their own is even beginning to get some coverage in the press -- no doubt to the dismay of the multiculturalists and assorted other lefty whiners who seem to believe that the only country in the world that can ever do anything wrong is the USA. But, as someone once noted, facts are stubborn things, and a critical analysis of Islam can only lead one to the conclusion that a large number of its adherents are indeed firmly stuck in the 12th century.

This reality, however, is often misinterpreted by many of our citizens as "proof" that our superstition is better than their superstition. From talk radio bigshots to local wannabes, you can't escape this bizarre conclusion that there's some kind of inherent superiority in christianity that makes it oh-so-different from those primitives in the Middle East and elsewhere who get so frightfully worked up when their holy book is allegedly used for less-than-holy purposes. Yet, were it not for a remarkable twist of history, we'd be doing the same thing.

So the next time anyone goes down this road, please take the time to remind them that the only thing that really differentiates our superstition from their superstition is a period of history generally referred to as the Enlightenment, i.e. an 18th century movement in Europe that rejected, among other things, the divine right of kings, as well as the whole notion of divinity and state as a single entity. It was this period that led to things like naturalistic science (sorry Kansas, but without naturalism it just ain't science), critical inquiry, evidence-based research, and above all the notion that humans are, just like any other life form on the planet, a product of the ebb and flow of evolution -- i.e. not a special creation of some divine watchmaker. Were it not for the aftereffects of this movement, we'd still be stuck in the 12th century too.

But doesn't Christianity have a better track record than Islam with regard to human rights and other such things? Recently, yes -- but let us not forget that the kinder, gentler form of Christianity we see in the world today is a very recent development. In fact, without the Enlightenment and subsequent schools of thought, modern Christianity would still very much resemble the bloodthirsty European variety that launched the crusades and presided over what historians refer to as the Dark Ages (and for those of you who were educated in government schools, "Dark" doesn't refer to a pronounced lack of electricity).

In other words, it has been movement away from strict and unquestioning belief that has tamed Christianity, and it is the retention of strict and unquestioning belief that makes Islam so damned volatile. Ideally the day will come when we take this movement away from superstition to its logical conclusion and recognize that in the beginning man created god in his own image and not the other way around. But in the meantime, this is why the American Taliban scare me so much. Just replace the crescent with a cross, and you've got the same kind of irrational fanaticism.

Exhibit A

People think I'm exaggerating when I point out that we're locked in a cultural war with America's Taliban. I often try to emphasize that this is not about "equal time" or "respecting divergent views" -- this is about a motivated, superstitious group of people trying to turn this country into a christian version of Iran.

Well, here's a bit more proof -- from the wonderful world of NCAA college football. If you're a sports fan, you've probably noticed that the American Taliban have targeted athletes for evangelical activity. Athletes not only make big money (which they can in turn donate in large quantities to missionary work and fatcat, con-artist preachers), but they're also not the sharpest tools in the shed, so they're easily manipulated. Turns out the head football coach at the US Air Force Academy is coming under fire for having a sign in his locker room that says (among other 'motivational' nonsense) "I am a Christian first and last ... I am a member of Team Jesus Christ." The government (which runs the Academy) apparently views this as establishing religion, which is at least technically prohibited by the First Amendment. So who comes riding to the rescue? None other than good old Bobby Bowden (and if he keeps this up I may seriously reconsider my support of FSU football). Seems Bobby could give a flip about the Constitutional separation of church and state. In fact, he's of the opinion that it's really jihad time. Speaking to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, old Bobby leaves us with these gems of wisdom:

"The coach has a responsibility to these boys to try to influence their spiritual life, their physical life and their academic life. ... We know we're going to get challenged on it, but that's what we believe in. I ain't gonna back down."

And

"The problem with us Christians is we won't speak out."

Excuse me? You can't swing a dead cat in this country without hitting a christian who's speaking out. What you almost never hear is a skeptical voice trying to inject a bit of rationality into the mix. For instance, everyone in the media pretty much acts like the existence of god is a given. Do you ever hear anyone seriously challenge this most basic religionist assumption??

"Christians won't speak out" my ass. What christians won't do is shut the hell up.

"Assault" On Faith

High on my list of people who need a hard slap upside the head are these self-righteous whiners who feel that any attempt to resist their crusade to return us back to the 13th century is an "assault on faith". I suppose it would bother me less if they were more honest about it. Why not just say: "Look, our goal is to create a conservative, christian theocracy in America that reflects our interpretation of our holy book -- and if that means doing away with what's left of the Constitution then that's OK too." But then again, to be honest about one's motives frequently requires being honest with oneself, and I suspect that we'll never hear this admission precisely because these people are so heavily invested in bullshitting themselves that introspection pretty much hasn't got a chance.

For instance, the "assault on faith" line is just the latest in a series claims that all center around the mindset that christianity is somehow persecuted in the US. (For those of you who just spit whatever you were drinking on your monitor in disbelief that anyone could ever claim such a thing, go get a paper towel and clean up .... then read on.) I wish I had a dollar for every lobotomized Jesusoid who's told me this in some form. And what's worse is that they absolutely believe it with every fiber of their being. Any time their religious sensitivities aren't respected -- and it can be anything from not saying "god bless you" when someone sneezes to not letting them ban evolution from public schools -- it's always the "oh we're so persecuted" line. Since martyrdom appeals to these folks at some rather organic level, I say that it's time for us to stop farting around trying to be nice and really commence an assault on faith that's worthy of the name.

Why should we assault faith? For the same reason we assault other forms of human stupidity (spending more than you earn, having children you can't feed, tattooing your scrotum, etc.): because that which is not logical and rational is, by definition, illogical and irrational. While individuals should of course be free to peacefully pursue irrational pursuits, no one should be obliged to help them pretend that they're not doing something stupid -- and this is where the assault on faith could really shine. After all, if you think about religion logically, the claims are at best naively childish. The big magic man in the sky (and he's a man -- make no mistake about that all you tree-hugging pagans) will take care of you for all eternity in return for your total obedience and devotion. In other words, god is a stereotypical Jewish mother (with a penis, of course). Moreover, the holy book of the big magic man in the sky (which is a carefully edited anthology - not a book - but no one really likes to talk about that anymore) has everything we need to know in it -- including, as Ned Flanders observed, all the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. And yet, despite this, we're supposed to all pretend that faith is a good thing?? Are these people high?? They're going through life with a medieval view of life, death and the universe, and then they expect us to pretend that it's somehow good and noble to do so?

So here are my guidelines for the assault on faith. Much like my hero George Carlin, I believe that this is a protracted battle of words, so we need to carefully choose our language to demonstrate our unwillingness to help the American Taliban pretend that they're anything else but old-school, hard-core fanatics. First of all, never use the terms "faith", "religion" or "belief" when describing these mindsets. It makes them sound too respectable. Call it what it is: "superstition". If throwing salt over your shoulder or not walking under a ladder is superstition, so too is lighting candles, handling snakes, and beseeching a non-existent thing to intervene in your life. Secondly, stop calling alleged deities by their given names. It makes them sound like real people. I suggest "the magic man in the sky", "your imaginary friend", or "the voices in your head". It's really important to point out that if you see people and hear voices, you have NOT had a religious experience. You might, however, benefit by taking medication for schizophrenia. A few additional snappy answers will also aid in this campaign. The next time some tells you they know something in their heart (i.e. "I know in my heart that god is with me"), point out to them that their heart is a muscle that pumps blood and not a place where cognition takes place. Nothing shows just how out-of-touch with reality the faithful are than their retention of this piece of anatomical ignorance. The next time someone justifies some nonsensical action with the hackneyed cliche "but it's biblical", remind them that so too is stoning people to death for adultery and sending your wife away for having her period. (I think - technically speaking - polyester is also a sin. If it isn't, it should be.) Finally, the next time someone says that they're going to "put their trust in god", take the opportunity to point out all of the poor souls who've lived horrible lives and/or died horrible deaths over the years despite taking this step (innocent victims killed in wars, victims of disease, etc.). Given the magic man in the sky's track record over recorded human history, I'd say trusting in a deity is about as logical as trusting a used car salesman.

Ultimately, this is going to be an uphill battle. We might as well do it, though, since we're gonna continue to hear about how faith is being assaulted any time we refuse to cave in to the demands of the religionists. Moreover, many once sacred American notions have been changed by this kind of verbal judo, so it's worth a shot. If you don't believe me, just think about how "handout" has become "earned income tax credit", or how "brainwashing" has become "sensitivity training."

Spendthrifts....

Y'know, I caught a lot of flack during the last exercise in futility that passed for an election in this country. Frequently my insistence that it didn't matter who won irked people (and I still stand by that assessment). As far as I could see, government was going to get larger (and correspondingly liberty was going to shrink) whether we got Shrub or Swiftee in the White House.

One particularly interesting response I got was to a mock campaign button I forged. I took a standard Bush button, and then cleverly superimposed the words: "Making Socialism Acceptable For Republicans" over it. Granted it wasn't an original thought --- but I was in a mood and it seemed like a good idea at the time. Needless to say, many a Bushie was taken aback. How could I possibly equate their man with the spread of socialism??

Well, if you care about these issues, may I direct your attention to
this story from my good friends at the Cato Institute.

Looks like I had that little old slogan right after all .....

You go Bill Cosby!

Happened to catch a news talk show tonight where Bill Cosby's recent attempts to bring a little dose of reality to some of our less affluent brethern came under fire. Seems the author of a recent book takes exception to old Bill's critique of hip-hop culture and the mores and morals of the inner city. Much of it was the usual anticapitalist, race warlord rhetoric (which I'm sure I'll deconstruct one of these days just for giggles), but the line that really struck me was the author's assertion that Cosby was wrong to say that giving your children "strange" names would hold them back in life. In fact, this author made the comment that he was more worried about "Condolezza" and "Clarence" than he was the names people gave their children.

Let's think about this for a moment. Does anyone honestly think that we're ever gonna have a Secretary of State named "sha-THEED" (but spelled s-h-i-t-h-e-a-d)? I know of at least one poor child who carries this name. Can't you just see that headline on the New York Times: "President Appoints Shithead Johnson Secretary of State"? Or how about a Supreme Court Justice named Lemonjello (pronounced le-MON-jell-o)? I can hear Bernie Shaw now: "Supreme Court Justice Lemonjello Smith today ruled that making fun of a person's name is NOT protected by the First Amendment". Sheesh.

Earth to morons: tying an albatross around your child's neck is NOT doing them a favor, and it probably won't make them proud of their heritage. Just ask any kid whose parents were stoned out of their minds during the 60's and named their kid Flower, Gangbang, Wildfire, or Bong-Hit.

Go Bill Go!