Review: Religulous

I finally got the chance to see Bill Maher's new movie "Religulous". It was hilarious, but would probably only be so to the "choir".

Which "choir" am I talking about? Well, to give you an idea, there were only about 15 people in the theater at the 8 o'clock showing, including the five in my party. What did all the members of my party have in common? We are all atheist or agnostic, and I would bet a large sum of money that they other 10 people in the theater are as well.

A theater filled with 15 non-believers. We knew what we were going to see. And we got what we wanted. Maher practices the Michael Moore technique of crash interviews with all sorts of different religious folks, and he's not shy about expressing his views or asking difficult questions. The comedy often comes from the interviewees themselves, as when a U.S. Senator admits that you don't have to pass an I.Q. test to get into the Senate. Occasionally, the laughs are provided by text or images being spliced into the footage that call out the irrationality or outright craziness of the answers Maher is receiving. The film is sometimes shocking to the sensibilities, and sometimes employs a little silliness, but all of that comes together to provide nearly two hours of laughs, giggles, and gasps at what one of my friends called "the stupid."

Maher's pull-no-punches style would make most religious individuals fume rather than laugh. I can't imagine a devout Christian or Muslim or Scientologist sitting through the whole film unless they were paid to review it. Their core beliefs are raked over the coals, although not on an intellectual level. Maher isn't trying to convince the non-believer; he's ridiculing religious belief. He's pushing a boundary that most in this country insist must not be crossed. That is intolerable to most, if not all, believers. But it's an important task. If we, as a society, are every going to finally evaluate the truth of religious claim on a grand scale - that is, if we are ever going to grow up and examine our beliefs in an honest way, we must first take them off the pedestal they have been placed on. For too long religious beliefs have been given a special position in which they receive no scrutiny and they are not forced, as other ideas are, to brave the brutal gauntlet of the marketplace of ideas. It's time that we put religious beliefs through the same scrutiny, intellectual and otherwise, that all other belief systems must face. That is obviously one of Maher's key goals in this film.

Most of the film is dedicated to clever mockery of religion and some interesting inquiry about the approaches we take to religious belief (particularly Islam). It isn't until the end that Maher's second goal becomes apparent. The last ten minutes of the film are a brutal reminder of the power that religion can have, and the risk we take in allowing it to continue to drive those in power. It was a bit too much for me, to be honest, but I suppose that is exactly what Maher wants, since it is clear that he is attempting to move the non-religious to "come out" and make their own voices heard.

Well, I'm already doing my part. Are you?

Read Full Post

Sarah Palin is Insane.

Below is video of Sarah Palin speaking to graduates of the Master's Commission at her childhood church.

What's really freaky? She's praying that Iraq is a task from God, rather than, say, using her reason to discover whether it's actually the right thing. She thinks a pipeline in Alaska is god's will (but for some reason people still need to pray for it). And she thinks a police force and education are useless if people aren't "right with god".

Honestly? Education is worthless if you don't believe that there is a sky daddy who put his human creations in a garden with a tree that would give them knowledge of good and evil and told them not to eat from it (how would they know disobeying his command was wrong?); but then a walking, talking snake came along and convinced them to eat from it, and because of this all their descendents are marred with a sin that someone else committed; and to deal with this, sky-daddy impregnated a virgin with himself so he could sacrifice himself to himself as a payment, and after this sacrifice sky-daddy rose from the dead but will come back and put all those people who don't believe this cockamamie story through eternal torture.* But he's just and he loves you. Yeah. Someone's education certainly was worthless.

I know that probably appears a bit offensive to believers. But it's basically an accurate description of your garden variety fundamentalist christianity. If you're not a fundamentalist, then it shouldn't offend you, because you don't believe that. Sarah Palin does. And I'm all for people being able to believe what they want. But please don't tell me that belief in this rather extraordinary story that must be taken on faith is necessary for education to be worthwhile. Not only is that a gigantic non-sequitur, but it's insulting to anyone who has a desire to learn about the world but doesn't accept that the Christian bible is literal truth. Believe what you will. Your faith is your business. But don't insult our intelligence.



*Apologies for the run-on, but it just sounds better that way.

Read Full Post

Taking Tolerance Too Far

There is a great op-ed at the Arizona Republic. But while the author – Linda Valdez – is dead right about the fact that religious tolerance, something carefully pushed by the GOP, is infringing on individual rights, there is one thing that bothers me about her piece. She is adamant in her assertion that “it is time for some lines”. But this seems to indicate that we need to work on balancing our tolerance of religion with individual rights. I disagree. Rather, I think we need to scrap this idea of religious tolerance altogether.

Religion has been given a special place in our society. A prime example in current events – the successes of pharmacists who are fighting not to do their job because of religious beliefs. But why should we be tolerant of religion? Sure, tolerance in general is a good thing. But under this idea of “religious tolerance” lies the repugnant notion that religions and religious dogma cannot be challenged, cannot be questioned. Think about it. Someone tells you that they believe an embryo has a soul, as does an individual in a persistent vegetative state. You ask for their reasons. They tell you its part of their religion. This is almost always a conversation stopper, unless you are willing to “attack their religion”. And if you do that, then you are immediately open to a charge of intolerance. Why? Because religious tolerance involves deference to religious practices and, in this case, religious beliefs. Any attempt to undermine those beliefs from outside the religion in question is automatically intolerant.

Ms. Valdez is correct that religious tolerance leads to infringements on individual rights. But her desire to draw lines between tolerance and rights is misguided. Dogma does not respect the boundary of individual rights. You cannot insist that that creationism is false, and hence should not be taught to children, and still be deferent to religious origin myths. You cannot claim that women have a right over their bodies, and yet still be deferent to religious claims that they do not. You cannot claim that homosexuals should be treated like everyone else and still be deferent to religious claims that homosexuality is an act worthy of stoning. You cannot draw a line between deference to religious dogma and rights, for any line you wish to draw will immediately be seen as intolerant.

Now, in claiming that we should scrap the idea of religious tolerance, I'm not advocating any sort of legally forced belief systems. Nor am I advocating discrimination against those who hold these religious beliefs. We should be tolerant of other people. But tolerance of people who happen to religious is not the same as tolerance of religion. Our tolerance of religion has not been just a tolerance of the people who adhere to religion. That is as it should be. Rather, our tolerance of religion has extended itself to encompass a different sort of tolerance entirely - a tolerance of belief without evidence, one that requires that we not challenge this special class of religious beliefs the same way we would challenge other sorts of belief. If we are to protect our rights, that sort of tolerance has to stop.

Read Full Post

A Little Angst - What the Heck Does it Mean to Be Spiritual?

This has confused me for some time. Lots of people will say that they are spiritual, but there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus on what this means. Some “spiritual” people tell me that they believe in ghosts, others laugh at the idea; some tell me they know how many kids I’ll have based on the lines on my hands, others say that’s a bunch of hogwash. Some say they can feel good energy and bad energy; others say there is no such thing as good or bad energy, only how you use it. According to Sam Harris’ understanding of ‘spiritual’, I’m spiritual; according to the guy in the coffee shop, I’m not. The only thing that seems to be consistent with the “spiritual” people I’ve met (Sam Harris likely excluded) is that they all seem to treat me with the same attitude – “Oh little atheist, you’re young. You just don’t understand. Eventually you’ll come to know what I know, and then you’ll be spiritual too”. Well, okay. I’m listening. Quit condescending and help. What should I learn? What is the sweet, young, misguided atheist missing? Because I’m starting to think that people who are “spiritual” (Sam Harris excluded) use this as a blanket term for “I believe in woo, and being spiritual involves believing in the woo that I believe in.”

Read Full Post

I'm In Love!

Okay, okay, it’s just intellectual infatuation… with a youtuber named ProfMTH. If his videos are any indication, this guy gives great lecture. A taste of the sort of video he puts out below the fold, but I would suggest checking out his channel page and watching some more. The videos are so good I can even ignore the fact that he supports Obama!

Read Full Post

Why do atheists care about religion?

So, while I was meandering around YouTube (rather than doing the grading I ought to be doing... I'll go back to it in a sec. Promise) I discovered this great video explaining why atheists care about religion (with Pantera playing in the background. Nice!) I thought I would share it. You can find it below the fold.

I often get asked why, as an atheist, I care about religion, or why I spend so much time talking about god. Well, I care about religion for much the same reasons the youtuber who made the video cares. Religion has a detrimental impact on my life and the lives of others. And I spend so much time talking about whether god exists or not because almost all religions (particularly the most harmful ones) are based around a deity. Do away with the deity, do away with the religion.

The number one reason that I spend so much time and effort talking about religion and god, though, is that religious belief and theism are based on the same thing - faith. Faith is a bad epistemic method. And continuing to accept it in our society is damaging in more ways than one. Not only does it breed religious belief, but it also leads people to accept spurious claims - to rely on woo, waste time searching for ghosts, and to reject the opponents of faith. Opponents that have brought us so much good (and, yes, in the wrong hands, some bad - but way more good). I talk about religion and god because I support reason and evidence. Because I support science, and because I see the foundation of religion and theism -faith - as antithetical to these pursuits.

Read Full Post

Oh, Atheist, Your Life Must Be So Empty and Depressing

I hear this all the time from theists and “spiritual” people alike. And I get really sick of it. Apparently, PZ Myers doesn’t like hearing it either. Well, theistic or “spiritual” people, my life is not empty or depressing. A lack of theistic belief does not take any beauty out of the world, or any meaning from my life. In fact, one of the most liberating aspects of recognizing that there is no god is the realization that the world is so incredible, that it is all here as the result of a slow and painful process of development out of itself. That is incredible. That is awesome. I don’t need to add a conscious superbeing to nature to make it beautiful or incredible. It’s that way already. I don’t need to think of certain beautiful places as sources of “healing energy” or “power” in order to see them as beautiful. I can have a phenomenological experience that changes my understanding of myself or the world without thinking something supernatural made it happen.

Another of the liberating aspects of abandoning theism is the realization that I am not dependent on something wholly external to myself for the “meaning” of my life. I give meaning to my life, and I am responsible for my life. I strive to be the ubermensch – to “give style to my live”. And this allows me to feel much more powerful, meaningful, and alive. I know what the meaning of my life is because I am the one who determines it. And I would think not knowing what meaning or purpose your life has, along with knowing that you have no control over the purpose of your own life, would be very depressing.

Read Full Post

Why Non-Believers Need to Question the Reliability of Church Leaders

As we already know, religious believers are not likely to be skeptical of what they are told by church leaders. This is part of what sustains religious belief and the church as an organization, and it is part of what makes the church so dangerous. In many cases, the idea that the church leaders know what's going on - that their wisdom is the way to heaven, and should be heeded - is constantly reinforced, albeit subtly, by the church. Bible study and sermons are periods of instruction given by church leaders to the congregation. As the de facto head of the church, they are, as Jesus supposedly was, shepards of their respective flocks. Priests and Pastors (where did that title derive from, I wonder?), we are told, are people that we should go to when we have problems. They are tauted as confessors, counselors and teachers. The are often viewed as the wise men in the community, especially when it comes to religious doctrine. Have a question about religion? It's much more likely that you'll ask your pastor then that you'll try looking it up for yourself. And for many believers, the case is the same with regard to questions about morality, or difficult life issues. This is especially true in the Catholic Church. So when church leaders make a statement, the religious tend to listen, and they act accordingly. This can be dangerous, as not only does it compound the problem with faith - that of not thinking, reasoning and checking - but it can also lead a large group of people to think, speak, act, and vote as they are told to by a small minority of individuals.

The freethinking community needs to deal with this. The attack on faith is certainly a crucial step, but I think another step must be taken first. Before you can attack an individual's reasons (or lack thereof) for believing in something, you have to make sure that they are actually thinking and believing for themselves. If they are following their church leaders, your attack on their faith will be useless.

Think of it another way. I trust (as a result of past evidence) the leaders of the scientific community when it comes to science. I've also done some reading on my own about natural selection and evolution. I've looked at some of the evidence for common descent on my own (I didn't gather it, mind you, but I've looked at it). On the basis of this, I believe that evolutionary theory is true. Now, if you try to attack my reasons for believing evolutionary theory to be correct outright, you won't get very far. Why? Because I still have trust in scientists. I trust that they have gathered their evidence correctly, that they have tested and retested, and that they wouldn't hold evolution to be the basis of biology if they didn't have good reasons. So you might get me so far as to say, "okay, well my readings don't really give me sufficient evidence, but it's still there - the leading scientists have it". In order to get me to question my belief in evolutionary theory, then, you'll first have to put the ball entirely in my court. You'll have to destroy my confidence in the leading scientists of the day. That, of course, would be a difficult task, but it is what would have to be done.

The case is similar with religious belief. An attack on an individual's faith in god or religious doctrines is useless if their belief system is partially supported by an appeal to authority. The difference, of course, is that I have good reasons for trusting the statements of leading scientists, which is something that can not necessarily be said with respect to the believer's trust in religious leaders.

Read Full Post

Vote Pro-Choice and Sit With Satan

Joe Feuerherd is wondering whether voting for a pro-choice democrat will endanger his immortal soul. I've posted on this issue before, but I think it's important to continue dialogue about it. Feuerherd is pro-life, but takes other issues facing the country to be more important. As a result, he plans on voting for a democrat despite the fact that church leaders (in this case, the Vatican) have said that doing so may result in eternal damnation. Now, I certainly do laud Feuerherd's bravery and integrity. He's willing to risk it, presumably because he thinks that, on this issue, the church is wrong. But how many others will be frightened away from voting their conscience by the warnings of church leaders that if they vote for anyone who supports abortion rights they will have to spend eternity at Satan's place? Can we really expect a large portion of the "flock" to go their own way, under the threat of hellfire? I don't think so. And that's scary. This is one of those points where the organization of religion is more dangerous than religious belief itself (although, it is, of course, sustained by religious belief).

Religious leaders should be ashamed of themselves. Not only is there no real theological or biblical foundation for the idea that abortion is a sin, but even if there were, it is sheer arrogance on their part to assume that they know which issue is more important in any given election. And it is even worse for them to try to frighten people into voting one way rather than another. Religion may be motivated by fear, but that doesn't mean voting should be.

Read Full Post

To Moderate Christians - Come Out of Hiding!

If only more Christians were of the same mind as John C. Danforth. The episcopal minister and former Missouri Senator has an op-ed piece at the New York Times calling on moderate Christians to speak up against the radical right.

According to Danforth, for moderates

...the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith.

I'm often told that the arguments of many of the new atheists are fallacious in that they attack a strawman. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and their ilk are attacking the radical views of a few wackos, the argument goes, but most religious people don't believe those things. They are moderates.

Now, I have to admit that even when it comes to so-called moderate religion, I'm still troubled, for even the most moderate Christianity involves believe in a personal god for which there is no evidence. And the same goes for more "eastern" or "new age", "spiritual" belief systems, that lack a personal god, but include weird talk of spirits and energies for which there is no evidence. I sincerely believe, however, that if moderates exist, the discourse between such people of faith and unbelievers could be much more civil, and hence much more productive.

The problem is that I can't seem to find them. Sure, I'll encounter someone who refers to himself or herself as "spiritual", which usually amounts to their being an atheist but not wanting to accept the label, or viewing "atheism" as involving commitments which it does not. The religous people I encounter, though, and the religious people that I see in the media, or in online forums, are not moderates. They are fundamentalists. They are people who think that it's an attack on their faith to demand that their belief system not be given special treatment. They are people who think that they know god's will and they have a duty to enforce it on others. I'm coming to realize that there is no reasoning with these people, and that is because, when it comes to anything attached to their religious beliefs, there is no reason there. It is impossible to defeat dogma via reason and evidence. That's what makes it dogma.

So, where are you, moderates? Danforth has come out, and, while I may disagree with some of his beliefs, it seems much more likely that unbelievers and people who have faith in the way that he does would be able to work together. I'm on board with Danforth - the rest of you moderates need to come out of hiding. You need to make your voices heard. You need to come together with your unbelieving and "spiritual" brethren to work against the radicals in this country. Because they aren't stopping. They don't believe you are "true Christians". And if you really are out there, and as numerous as we've heard, then it is really only with your help that we'll be able to stop the crazy fundamentalists. If you don't come out and stand up against the well funded and very powerful religious right, your moderate stance may eventually put you in the position of atheists in this country. And believe me, you don't want that.

Read Full Post

Pharmacists and Plan B

Another idiotic ruling with regard to pharmacists and Plan-B has been handed down. At the core of this dispute is, to my mind, the special treatment given to religion in our society. If a vegetarian got a job at McDonalds and then refused to serve meat products because he believed their consumption to be grossly immoral, do you really think a judge would claim that he has a right to keep his job but not fulfill all the obligations that come along with it? Of course not. I have a personal hatred of guns. It's part of the core of my belief system, but I'm pretty sure that if I started working for Walmart and refused to sell the guns they keep in stock, no judge would say that I should have an exception. But because these pharmacists are objecting on religious grounds, they can get away with not doing their job and denying women much needed services. What a load of BS.

Read Full Post

Meta-Atheism - A New Tool for Unbelievers?

Christopher Hitchens has an op-ed piece posted on the Council for Secular Humanism website that caught my attention. Most of it is Hitchens slamming Mother Teresa in his usual biting and brilliant prose. But there is one bit, I think, that brings up a subject that should really be explored in more depth by the freethinking community. With regard to the priests who molested children, Hitchens says,

Their foul crime is not one of hypocrisy. No priest who sincerely believed even for ten seconds in divine judgment could conceivably endanger his immortal soul in this way, and those in the hierarchy who helped protect such men from punishment in this world are equally and obviously guilty of a hardened and obscene cynicism.

Upon reading this statement, I was immediately reminded of an article written by the ever insightful UMD Philosophy Professor Georges Rey on what he calls Meta-Atheism. You can find the full article here and a nice summary here. The basic idea, though, is that many of those who profess religious belief do not actually believe, and that their unbelief is demonstrated in their actions. If one truly believes that upon death a true Christian rises to heaven to rest in the arms of god, then funerals shouldn't be so somber, and Christians should not fear death, but rather welcome it. But this is not the case. And it seems to me that if this is right, freethinkers should use it to their advantage.

If Rey's thesis (and that expressed by Hitchens) is true, this may serve as an inroad for those who wish to see the light of reason illuminate the darkness that faith has brought to the minds of so many. It would be one more argument to use against the religious believer, one more contradiction to force the theist to face. We should continue to point out the evils that religious has wraught, and the irrationality inherent in belief systems based on faith, rather than evidence, but we should include in our arsenal the reminder that with regard to much of what the religious claim to believe, it is not just that they fail to practice what they preach, but they fail to behave as though their beliefs were true.

In addition, making it clear to people that they do not behave as though they really believe might make it a bit easier for them to accept unbelief. They are, if Rey and Hitchens are right, halfway there already.

Read Full Post

The Problem With Mixing Faith and Politics

Ira Chernus has an article over at AlterNet about how having faith in politics is damaging to our democracy. While I couldn't agree more with his thesis, I have to disagree with his reasoning.

When faith and politics are allowed to mix the result is disasterous. Anyone who disagrees with this statement needs look no further than the theocratic states across the sea to see violent and repressive counterexamples to his view. But what is it about this blending that is dangerous? According to Chernus, it is the certainty that comes with religious belief systems:

When religious language enters the political arena in this way, as an end in itself, it always sends the same symbolic message: Yes, Virginia (or Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina) there are absolute values, universal truths that can never change. You are not adrift in a sea of moral chaos. Elect me and you're sure to have a fixed mooring to hold you and your community fast forever.

This notion of absolute truth, Chernus tell us, is antithetical to democracy:

The essence of our system is that we, the people, get to choose our values. We don't discover them inscribed in the cosmos. So everything must be open to question, to debate, and therefore to change. In a democracy, there should be no fixed truth except that everyone has the right to offer a new view -- and to change his or her mind. It's a process whose outcome should never be predictable, a process without end. A claim to absolute truth -- any absolute truth -- stops that process.

This sort of anti-realism, embedded within the relativism that Chernus takes to be central to democracy, is the result of the postmodernist view point that has infected both the academy and, now, the general consciousness. But the postmodernist's core thesis of relativism is at best false and at worst completely meaningless gibberish. The core of our democracy is not that there is no absolute truth "written in the cosmos". If there weren't, science would be a futile enterprise, and our debates over policy would be completely pointless. If there is no truth to be found, then there is no reason for us to argue over what it is, and the search for it that is the foundation of science is nothing more than a quest for an illusion.

The core of our democracy is not relativism. Rather, it the notion that the people have the right to govern themselves. In order for this to work, however, we must be allowed to debate the proper way to govern ourselves. We must be allowed to reason together to determine the best course of governance. But inherent in the idea that there is a best course of governance is the notion that there is a fact of the matter. Either a certain policy is the best or it is not. The free market place of ideas, without which democracy would be a sham, is how we go about trying to figure out what the best policy is. The problem with bringing faith into the mix is not its claim that there are absolute truths, but rather its claim that it has access to these absolute truths without any evidence.

Public debate, the cornerstone of a free society in which the governed are also the governors, succeeds only when those who are involved defend their claims using reason and empirical data. Any faith based belief system violates this. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. The faithful make their claims without justification. Faith, then, does not play by the rules of the game. Rather than bringing a sound argument, or good empirical data, to the marketplace, faith brings only itself. And this is why faith is detrimental to our democracy. Rather than adding to the discourse, faith provides only a distraction - an easy way out. Faith erodes our democracy by giving people an easy way to avoid moving the discussion forward. It erodes our democracy by allowing people to make quick policy decisions without having to think about them. The problem is not that the faithful claim that there is an absolute truth; it is that by putting their faith into the sphere, they prevent us from discovering what that truth really is.

Read Full Post

What Happened to "Know Thy Enemy"?

So, a group of parents in Maine is upset about the fact that birth control is a topic in a high school biology class. To be completely honest, I often have a really hard time understanding this idiocy. Why, I ask myself, would parents want their children to be uneducated about anything? It seems to me that a good parent would wish for their children to know as much about this world as possible, since not only is knowledge key to coping with the world, but it is also valuable in and of itself. So why fight to prevent your children from learning? But then I remember that the most likely reason that these parents wish to keep their children ignorant is... you guessed it... religion! Ignorance is a driving force behind any religious commitment.

But then I wonder what happened to that insightful old adage "know thy enemy". The religious right in the United States has been fighting for a while now against anything having to do with sex in the public sphere. In particular, thay have fought to restrict access to birth control and abortions. I assume that the parents who are trying to fight this battle today are hoping that their children will continue to fight it in the future. But wouldn't they be better prepared to get rid of birth control if they knew what it was? Isn't understanding what you're against crucial to defeating it? One would think so. And the fact that these parents, and many like them, do whatever they can to prevent their children from learning about "the enemy" is, I think, extremely revealing. Their attempt to guard their children from learning about contraception, evolution, etc indicates that on at least some level, they recognize that "the enemy" is right. If it really didn't make sense to allow women access to contraception, or to believe that life evolved, then there wouldn't be anything for these parents to worry about... especially when it comes to their high school age children. Their terror at the idea that their children might learn about these things reveals an understanding of the tenuousness and unfoundedness of their position. It reveals that deep down they know they're wrong.

Read Full Post

Huckabee and "God's Standards"

If the fact that Huckabee has now stated that the Constitution should be amended "so that it is in God's standards" doesn't give you the chills, well, then you're probably a fundagelical who's arrogant enough to believe that you know what God wants - and you're just as scary as Huckabee is.

H/T Heretic54

Read Full Post

Huckabee Either Intentially Misleads or Is Ignorant of His Own Scriptures

In the recent Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, Mike Huckabee repeated claims about the position of a woman within the context of marriage. This was his statement, which you can find in the complete transcript of the debate:

"... the point, and it comes from a passage of scripture in the New Testament Book of Ephesians is that as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it's not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other. It's both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord."

Well, actually, here's the key passage in Ephesians that he's talking about:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to
their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Now, it seems pretty clear what's going on here. The Bible is telling wives to submit to their husbands, just as they sumbit to god. So, you should act toward your husband as you would toward god, with all deference, fear, obedience, etc in absolutely everything. On the other side of things, husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ did not love the church as an equal, but as its savior (note the reference to Christ's sacrifice) and leader. This is obviously not a description of an equal relationship or of one of "mutual submission". It is the description of the relationship between a groveling and obedient woman (don't tell me you wouldn't grovel before god if he actually turned up) and her "savior" husband.

In making his statements, then, Huckabee either didn't know the scripture he was referring to, in which case he's rather ignorant of the religion that so apparently motivates his policy decisions, or he intentionally misconstrued it in order to avoid having to face negative backlash over the outmoded and misogynistic teachings that he adheres to. Ignorant believer or anti-feminist liar? I'll let you decide.

Read Full Post

You Can't Be Religious AND Be a Feminist

It is about time that someone wrote this article. Read well, because she is absolutely right.

Read Full Post