The Visitor of the Beast!

I would like to congratulate the visitor from Willis, Texas who visited my blog on September twenty-ninth, this year of our Lord two-thousand and eight. You are visitor number six-hundred and sixty-six. You viewed the blog, in all its glory, through Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 rendered at a resolution of 1280 x 800 on your widescreen monitor. It seems rather poignant that you clicked in through google.com with a serch term of "biblical good vs evil pictures", for I'm sure that this visit is an omen of the imminent apocalypse. It is my hope that you are one of the relatively few who are bodily taken up to the glories of god's kingdom. I, unfortunately, will probably be stuck down here. I'll try to wave to you.


Revelation 13:18 (KJV)

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Lending Credence to Disbelief

Here's a recommendation for those philosophical free thinkers out there who aren't afraid to challenge their own beliefs. If you regularly read the comments on my posts you might have noticed that my buddy Megan posted a link to my new favorite website: whywontgodhealamputees.com.

Now, you know how I hate to stir the pot, so I'm warning those who are religious and rigid in the literal interpretation of their specific brand of faith. The website is written from an atheist's point of view. If you're not willing to seriously look at the questions the author poses and examine the way they fit into the dynamic of your belief system, don't bother visiting. Hey, I'm just trying to save you some time.

If, however, you're an atheist who doesn't know how to argue his own point, or you're a follower of an "alternate" faith who wants a really good way to diffuse a zealous conversion attempt by a fanatical Christian, Muslim, or for some strange reason, Jew (I don't know too many Jews that try to convert people), this is the website for you.

I feel it's only fair to say, though, that I don't agree completely with all of the author's conclusions. I agree with most of them and with the most important ones. I just feel he's to quick to assume that everyone's on board with his view of what his questions mean. And his disgust for believers comes through a little too much later in the text, but I did find his questions fascinating and poignant. I will undoubtedly use the material I gleaned from this website in the future, but I will cast it in my own, less disdainful light.

Jihad for Christmas

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I have to say something because things have gotten to a level of ridiculousness that I simply cannot tolerate quietly. I had the displeasure of reading an article today on MSN about how Christian conservatives are up in arms over the White House holiday card and the genericizing of retail holiday promotions. Because I don't want to end up with dead links on the blog later, allow me to summarize the article:

Once again this year, President Bush sent out 1.4 million holiday cards to his close friends and supporters. The card wishes recipients a happy "holiday season", but for some, the friendly message rings hollow. In a time when the more equally applicable "happy holidays" replaces the previously common "merry Christmas", conservative Christians are crying out in defiance of consideration for a more diverse population.

This cry is being heard more and more every year as retailers abandon Christmas sales for holiday specials and public events such as tree lightings are given more "politically correct" titles. Conservative groups claim that there is a "war on Christmas" and have taken actions to boycott retailers and events that have given into the public trend and removed specifically Christian references from public scrutiny. They hope to put pressure on decision-makers and put the "Christ" back into Christmas.


Now, let me go over some specific things in this article that got me worked up.

~ This first one is actually kind of good. It's nice to see that some Christians understand. In this article, Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches is quoted as saying, "I think it's more important to put Christ back into our war planning than into our Christmas cards."

Touché

~ Next, Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. said, "Sometimes it's hard to tell whether this is sinister -- it's the purging of Christ from Christmas -- or whether it's just political correctness run amok..."

Uh, sinister? Yeah, that's right. Satan lurks in the good intentions we have to not only refrain from offending those who don't celebrate Christmas, but also the friendly act of including them in the celebration of a holiday season that has been sacred for the majority of human beings since even before the supposed birth of Christ...

~ On the flipside, "It bothers me that the White House card leaves off any reference to Jesus, while we've got Ramadan celebrations in the White House," Wildmon said. "What's going on there?"

I reluctantly have to say that I agree. If the White House is not so eager to endorse Christmas, they should also keep away from other religions' holiday celebrations. Conversely, I wouldn't mind if the White House honored the diversity of our country and humanity in general by celebrating all kinds of holiday traditions, including Christmas.

~ William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, announced a boycott of the Lands' End catalogue when he received his White House holiday card. True, he said, the Bushes included a verse from Psalm 28, but Psalms are in the Old Testament and do not mention Jesus' birth.

Oh brother! What the hell is wrong with people? This one got me really steamed. I make it halfway through the article merely rolling my eyes, then I find out that there is actually a biblical verse on the card! How finely can we split hairs? Regardless if it is an Old Testament verse, it is still a Christian reference. Okay, so some Jews might dig the message...heaven forbid!

~ Donohue said that Wal-Mart, facing a threatened boycott, added a Christmas page to its Web site and fired a customer relations employee who wrote a letter linking Christmas to "Siberian shamanism."

If I were that employee...I would be dialing me a lawyer. Let's face it, folks, most Christmas traditions are taken from much older religious practices. For example, where in the Bible is the Christmas tree mentioned? Actually, where in the Bible does it even mention the time of year Christ was born? There are clues in the Bible that very strongly suggest it was much earlier in the year than December. If that's so, why do you think the church eventually settled on December 25th? Take a look at religions from around the world and research some ancient religions as well. I think you'll find compelling information about many significant dates at or around the winter solstice, usually around December 22nd.

~ "Ninety-six percent of Americans celebrate Christmas," Donohue said. "Spare me the diversity lecture."

Ah yes, statistics, because we all know how accurate they can be. What that beefed up 96% number doesn't say is how many of those people are conservative Christians who actually care that government, schools and retailers are being considerate to those of alternate or no faith. It also doesn't say how many of them celebrate it as the birth of Christ. Granted, it is probably still a majority, but that should not be the point. And no, Donahue, we will not spare the diversity lecture as long as ignorant, intolerant blowhards like you prefer to ignore the fact that there are other human beings on this planet.

~ And finally, "There's a verse from Scripture in it. I don't mind that at all, as long as we don't try to pretend we're not a nation under God," said the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Ah yes, let us not forget words of wisdom from the infamous, intractable Rev. Falwell. Jerry's "nation under God" phrase is, of course, a reference to the pledge of allegiance, another hotbed of conservative contention. But what I bet the good reverend doesn't know is that the phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950's along with several other religious references in government in order to separate the U.S. culture from communism, whose adopters were typically atheists. Let us not forget that our forefathers had a preference towards deism and transcendentalism and that the original motto of the U.S. is not "In God We Trust", but the more appropriate, and I think poignant, "E Pluribus Unum", "One From Many".


Addendum posted Dec. 9, 2005:

As I look over the content of this post and receive feedback from visitors, I think a little bit of clarification might be in order. I want to make it understood that I am not one of these Political Correctness (PC) enforcers. To me, PC is akin to censorship, which is something I also generally disagree with. I do have a tendency to use some PC terms in my own speech and writing, but my use of them is inconsistent and is occasionally situation sensitive.

The point is, when somebody says "Merry Christmas" to me, I usually smile and wish them the same, or I at least wish them "Happy Holidays". I agree with Elgon in his comment; I do not draw back in horror or tell the well-wisher off. I don't see anything wrong with "Merry Christmas" appearing in holiday retail promotions either. If retailers want to give me a discount, I don't care if they call it the "Go to Hell, You White Honkey Bastard" sale. Just make sure my items ring up right, dammit.

This is my problem with the article, and the concept in general: Conservative Christians are asking us to be PC to the minutest possible detail. Now we can't just offer a generic holiday greeting to cover all of our bases. No, now we have to know exactly what sect of exactly which faith the recipients of our message will be and tailor each individual message accordingly. The Christians will get special promotional ads from retailers that say "Merry Christmas", while Jews will get ones that specify "Happy Chanukah", and Wiccans will get ones that say "Solstice Blessings", etc. Talk about ridiculous!

Ok, so retailers use generic holiday wishes to appeal to the widest demographic possible. They're businesses, that is what it is in their best interest to do. Get over it already. By boycotting them you're only making your holiday shopping more expensive! Wake up and start caring about things that really matter, like the fact that yet another holiday season is passing by, regardless of our faith, and we all still have loved ones risking their lives overseas for a cause that many of us either never believed in or are just starting to doubt. Why don't we worry about how to get George W. to bring our troops back home, rather than what he's putting on his friggin' Christmas cards!

And speaking of W., I just wanted to add this one last thing. He's a politician, so I think the generic holiday greeting is a good move. I know he's a Christian, and however he wants to celebrate the holiday season is fine, but politicians have to be careful about the message they send to the public. Politicians are the ones for whom political correctness is the most important. We must be wary of any message a politician sends to the people that even hints at the public endorsement of a particular faith. Regardless of what the majority of the people in this country believe spiritually, we must not become a religious state. Once religion officially starts meddling in politics, the door is open for the government to begin stripping us of our constitutional rights under the guise of divine reason.

*lays down two pennies*

Speaking of Dumb Questions...

Back in the early infancy of this blog (and I have to specify early infancy because it is still quite young), I wrote a post about stupid questions. I said that there did indeed have to be stupid questions, otherwise we would have to conclude that there are just a whole bunch of stupid people. I mean, I guess we can still come to that conclusion if we like, but I like to at least start out giving people the benefit of the doubt.

In a later post, I spoke about government, politics, faith, and religion. Somewhere in there, I mentioned in passing a question that has been asked by many to call into question the omnipotence of God. I dismissed the question then, but I would like to address it now. And before some of you start worrying about how the rest of this post is going to go, don't. This is merely a hypothetical philosophical discussion that I think anyone, regardless of his or her beliefs, will enjoy.

The question I am referencing, of course, is the one that begs whether God is capable of creating a stone so heavy that he himself could not lift it. When I mentioned it many posts ago, I said that the question simply shows the inability of a creation to understand the incomprehensible nature of its creator. I've come to believe, however, that it's even more basic than that.

God is supposed to be an omnipotent being. This is why the question is asked. If he were capable of making such a stone, it indicates a limit to his power. Likewise, if he couldn't, he is once again limited. But let us, for a moment, remove the identity of this being. Let us instead ask if any omnipotent being could do this. Or more accurately, let's ask if the meaning of omnipotence includes having the ability of one so endowed to create objects heavier than he can lift.

Humans are pretty funny. We spend so much time trying to alter the environment to suit our needs, tastes and whims. In the end, all of what we do in the physical world is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. We are hardly omnipotent, but we pretty frequently make things that are too heavy for us to lift. If we can do it, and do it quite handily, shouldn't a being infinitely more powerful than us be able to do it?

Before we get all high and mighty and say, "Aha! We can make objects so heavy even we can't lift them! Take THAT, omnipotent being," let's just think about this for a moment. Being able to accomplish this task only shows us how weak we really are. Wouldn't it be nice if members of land survey committees could just pick up a skyscraper with their bare hands and move it over just slightly if it overlapped city property? Wouldn't we really be something if we could effortlessly hurl the SUV that stole our parking space?

But that's the point, isn't it? What do I gain from arguing the above? If, by this argument, I'm claiming that said omnipotent being couldn't make an object heavier than she could lift, am I not also claiming a limit to that omnipotence?

Ah! Well, now we come to it. What does omnipotent mean? Houghton-Mifflin has this to say on the matter:


om·nip'·o·tent

Adjective:
    ~ Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.


Ok now, using this definition of omnipotence, let me rephrase the question to say what it is truly asking:

Does an all-powerful being also have the power to limit his own power?

If we answer yes to this, then the moment this being exercises this power, he strips himself of his omnipotence and is, therefore, no longer all-powerful. So, here we go again, around in a circle, right? Well, think about it. What kind of limitation is there really to not being able to do anything that in some way exceeds at least one of your other abilities?

Let me put it this way, what if God can't make a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it? That means that not only could God make a stone of infinite volume and density (i.e. mass) and the requisite source of gravity to make the force of weight appropriately infinite, but he could also lift that very same stone. Omnipotence is pretty cool, isn't it?

What it comes down to is that we have a basic misunderstanding of the word omnipotence. Because of the nature of our language, we're able to make paradoxical statements. For example, what is the truth value of the following statement: this statement is false. If it's true, it's false and vice versa. Obviously, such statements are anomalies caused by the rules of syntax and how we represent words in our minds. The truth value of the statement is moot because no one would ever be inspired to state it as a self-contained statement in a real-world situation. Likewise, as incomprehensible as God's will supposedly is, I am quite certain that such a being would not engage himself in such an endeavor as is posed by the question we're talking about.

So, when you come right down to it, I seem to be saying that God cannot make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it, right?

Right.

So, that does mean there's a limit to his power, Right?

Well, I suppose, technically.

But then, that means he's not omnipotent, right?

No.

Huh?

Okay...here's my proposed solution. We need to redefine the word omnipotent because that is really where the problem is. I'm sorry, but not being able to limit your own power is no kind of limit. Here is my new proposed definition:


om·nip'·o·tent

Adjective:
    ~ Having the power, authority, or force to do anything and everything aside from anything that minimalizes or contradicts that power; essentially all-powerful.


It may not be perfect, but there it is. Also, just as a note, this is not meant to be a proof of God's existence nor a proof of his omnipotence if he does indeed exist. This is actually a proof of the inadequacy of our understanding of the nature of omnipotence. In essence, we are impotent to comprehend omnipotence...whatever that means.

Good vs. Evil

The deep rumble of thunder reverberates across the barren countryside. A shadow looms over the craggy desert landscape as dark clouds fill the sky from seemingly nowhere. Pulsating flashes of light illuminate portions of the dense ceiling, revealing illusions of flickering shapes that skitter along the ground. The air grows heavy with a sudden stifling humidity and a sense that something other than a simple summer storm is afoot.

Soon, the sky's thick shroud obscures the corpse of the land from sight. The intermittent flashes of lightening reveal glimpses of the macabre features below. Jagged formations of red stone jut from the uneven ground, and here and there great gashes in the earth open to depths unseeable. The wounded desert floor ripples and heaves as the spidering veins of electric light in the sky inspire the shadows to take up a lively, if stilted, dance.

Slowly, as the ancient wounds stretch, the very blood of the land rises up to the surface. In its bright yellows, oranges and reds it oozes up through the cracks, steaming from the earth's body heat. And there, crawling from the tainted blood as if a parasitic infection, an angular perversion of all that is natural stretches its oddly-jointed limbs in the open for the first time in millennia. With a gaping yawn, the beast reveals row upon row of perfectly-aligned and deadly sharp fangs. Its eyes glow with the same hue of the fiery lake to which it and its brethren were condemned in a time before written history.

All around, more of these creatures, different in shape but similar in utter contradiction to what had been intended by Him, emerge from the earthblood and flex their tortured joints and muscles. Hell is emptying upon the world, and its inhabitants are ready to exercise their demonic will. Woe be unto the heirs of God's creation on this day of Armageddon.

A light of brightness and purity not seen in two millennia cleaves through the churning blackness above, blinding to those who shun it but enlightening to those who embrace it. The celestial radiance streaks outward in all directions and casts away the troubled sky. The creatures on the ground shrink back in terror, the light burning their otherwise impervious skin.

As the intensity fades, figures can be seen approaching on beams of holy luminance. Astride heavenly steeds of righteousness, the seraphim boldly gallop forth, incarnations of God's perfection of beauty. At their head rides the son of man, His gleaming sword pointing the way, its fateful edge hungry to unleash His wrath upon the wicked.

Arrows of the seraphim, blessed by the very will of God, precede them to the ground, each perfectly aimed to vanquish one of Satan's minions. Lightning infused with His fury erupts from His sword and lays low many a demon. Evil scrambles to be out of the Lord's sight, but there is no place to hide from Him that is called I AM. The devil's soldiers are sent one by one to the only place worse than that from whence they came, their wickedness stripped away. For how can one be wicked when one can no longer be at all?

Almost as quickly as they appeared, the interlopers are gone, dispelled by the power of Him. Up from the lifeless ground springs miraculous greenery, nourished by the light of the Lord. Here they will stand, these cousins of the garden, as guardians over this land, keeping Hell locked in the fire until God Himself decides that the end of time has come. Once again, unbeknownst to His mortal children, premature apocalypse has been turned aside.

*****
Since the beginning of recorded history, and we assume before it as well, humans have been fascinated by the battle between good and evil. It's an ongoing struggle that has raged for millennia and will continue until the end of time. There are some who believe this battle is as concrete and unambiguous as the one described above, but in reality, the various complexities of the good-evil dynamic are tough to pin down. If we want to better understand these standards to which we hold ourselves, we need to figure out where they came from and what their purpose is.

The Christian bible tells us that knowledge of good and evil was imparted to humanity when Eve disobeyed God and ate from the tree that He forbade. She shared this fruit with Adam, hence condemning all future generations of humans to suffer the wages of sin. The story of Adam and Eve, while fascinating mythology, simply cannot be a literal accounting of history. Several obvious logistical problems contraindicate its veracity. Many of these problems are presented elsewhere, so they will not be included here.

So, if we accept that the story of Adam and Eve is mythology, where did the concepts of good and evil come from? Cultures all over the world, some without any exposure to the biblical origins of sin, have a general agreement with each other on what constitutes a good or evil act. Clearly, there is something deep within the human psyche, perhaps something instinctual, that separates these two concepts for us.

Recent research has revealed that humans (and, interestingly enough, macaque monkeys) have an area of the brain that appears to be dedicated to empathy. Specifically localized brain activity suggests that when we see others of our species in pain or pleasure, we simulate the event in our minds, placing ourselves in the situation. This simulation causes a chain reaction that results in sympathetic emotions, as if we were experiencing the event ourselves. People shown images of one of their own in distress ended up having brain activity similar to what would occur if they were in distress as well, likewise for images of happiness and pleasure.

Either way, empathy is certainly a crucial element in our understanding of good and evil. It evokes a "treat others as you would like to be treated" philosophy. Indeed, much of what is considered evil involves bringing harm to others. Murder, thievery and adultery, all fairly prominent in their persistence as acts that are considered sinful, are certainly events that bring people distress. Being instinctually empathetic creatures, we wish to avoid inflicting this distress on others because we are able to manufacture within ourselves the resultant emotions, and we don't like them.

It seems strange that nature would imbue us with something as complex as empathy. After a bit of thought, though, it should become clear why such a trait would be beneficial. Humans typically live in communities. We interact with each other on a regular basis and, for the most part, depend upon each other for survival. Even though one of us is capable of surviving alone, it is obvious by simple observation that we are communal creatures by nature.

Being communal creatures, our chances of mutual survival are maximized when we are able to cooperate with optimal efficiency. Certainly, it is a lot easier to coordinate between individuals who are capable of understanding to some degree the emotional mindset of others. A community is easier to keep together when members generally forgo violent competition with one another because they not only want to avoid distress to themselves, but also to avoid feeling the distress of others. These are just a couple of the reasons why empathy is an advantageous adaptation.

Empathy, however, cannot be the whole picture. Not everyone seems to have the ability to interpret empathy accurately. The most extreme example is seen in individuals with autism. The study mentioned above showed that the same brain activity was not observed in autistic subjects. This may be one of the reasons autistic individuals don't seem to be able to foresee the consequences of their actions. The part of their brains that simulates circumstances to their end results doesn't function properly.

Still, even some without autism seem able to remorselessly commit acts that defy the idea of empathy. There are many factors aside from empathy that dictate people's actions. Given this fact, what is it that prevents us from overriding our empathic judgment? Is there another major influence that determines how we interpret good acts versus evil acts?

Self preservation is a good candidate for this secondary influence. As communal beings, it is in our interest to protect those in our community, if for no other reason than so that they return the favor. This common interest brings about the formation of values and morals, an agreed upon code that protects the health and well being of the community as a whole. Any violation of this code usually carries some undesirable consequence for the offender.

Really, empathy and self preservation provoke one another. It is the general empathic concurrence of a society that determines what the code of morals will be and what the consequences are for violators, and it is the selfish interest of personal safety and well being that ensures that we listen to our empathic voice, even if immediate circumstances are inspiring us otherwise. A sense of self preservation indicates at least a basic ability to understand when our safety is threatened by a potentially dangerous situation. A sense of empathy indicates the same understanding about the safety of other individuals.

In conclusion, the difference between basic good and evil is not only perceptual, but it is also fundamentally based on a selfish desire to remain content and safe. Empathy causes us to be in distress when we witness others in distress. It is a mechanism without which we would not have a moral code for society. We would only have our sense of self preservation to guide us, meaning we could watch others suffering without emotion as long as our own safety was ensured. Even with empathy, we shun evil acts only to protect our physical, emotional and mental well being, while we engage in good acts to promote the same. Regardless, its side effects work out for the benefit of the entire community, which helps make us a very successful species, meaning that the concepts of good and evil are likely to be around for a very long time.

Evolution Ticks Me Off!

Warning! Soapbox ahead!

Okay, maybe not evolution itself, but the whole evolution argument...that bugs me. One of my pet peeves is when people start running their mouths about things they are not qualified to run their mouths about! Evolution is the current most mouth-runned thing and my least favorite. I don't go into people's churches to try and teach evolution. They shouldn't come into public classrooms and try to teach intelligent design.

Of course, I do know the difference between a public school and a church. The issue here is that the religious right wants to march into our biology classes and stamp a disclaimer before evolution. The theory of evolution is a concept that was arrived at by following the same rigid procedure that gave us the theory of relativity: the scientific method. Nobody demands that we put disclaimers before Einstein's theory, at least not anyone who speaks as loudly as those against Darwin's.

In the public's vernacular, "theory" can be almost equally substituted with "guess". But in science, a "guess" must go through a rigorous process before it eventually can evolve into a theory. As a scientist, you must be able to provide substantial evidence and a repeatable experiment with a consistent, observable conclusion. This is something that not a lot of these people understand. They think Darwin was just standing around, scratching his ass, and said (with "Goofy" voice), "Gawrsh, I got me a theory!" Do some research, people! Learn about it before you go mouthing off in a very public setting and making a fool of yourself.

'Cause let's face it folks, evolution is a fact. What I mean is, evolution is a real process that has occurred in the past, occurs in the present and will continue to occur in the future. It is the mechanism of evolution that still claims the title "theory". Scientist still aren't entirely sure why evolution happens or exactly how it happens. Darwin presented natural selection as a possibility, and it is the most commonly accepted theory for the mechanism of evolution. Does it perfectly explain evolution? No. There are still holes in our understanding of it, but virtually no scientist questions the validity of evolution as a real, ongoing event.

Does this mean we came from apes? Well, if you follow the logic, there seems to be a strong indication that this is the case. We know from fossil evidence that, at one time, the diversity of life on this planet was very limited. We know that all living things undergo evolution. We know that, at some point, the diversity of life on this planet increased, indeed is still increasing, however slowly. There was a time when there were no humans, but there were simian creatures, like apes. We have a fossil record of a gradual variation of simian life with ever increasing similarity to modern humans. We know that all simians, humans included, have extremely similar DNA signatures. In fact, we share between 98.5 and 95 percent genetic information with the chimpanzee. So, did we evolve from the chimpanzee? Not likely, but it is likely that we share an ancestor with the chimpanzee.

And all this is just an extreme glossing of the evidence available to suggest this relationship. Does all this mean that it is an incontrovertible fact that humans evolved from a more apelike ancestor? Of course not. Anyone who has ever taken a course in philosophy knows that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be proven 100%, not even your existence. But if we don't exist, why the hell am I even typing this?

See, there's this scale of reasonability. It's reasonable to believe that I exist because you're reading this now, or are you? Seriously though, it's reasonable to believe that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor because there is significant evidence to support it. And just because we believe in evolution, doesn't mean we can't also believe that God or some higher intelligence created us. Clearly, if we were created, then our creator endowed us with the ability to evolve because we are evolving right now. The only thing that is contradicted by a belief in this instance of evolution is the bible and related religious works. But as I've said previously in this blog, there's a difference between faith and religion. Religion makes it next to impossible for you to believe anything it doesn't tell you directly. Faith imposes no such requirements.

But all of this is completely aside from the point. If people are going to oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools, they need to oppose science as a whole. If, however, they are willing to accept the scientific method and all the other facts and theories that we currently owe to it, then they must relent in their singling out of evolution. Biology is a science class, and evolution is a branch of the biological sciences. If parents want to be selective about the science they are taught in school, send them to a sympathetic private school, or home school them. You have that choice. Don't impose your ideology into the public school system, where there are plenty of students who are interested in learning pure, indiscriminate science.

Check out this site for more information on evolution: fact and theory.

Check out Defcon America if you're of like mind and would like to show your support for the continued separation of church and state.

For those who prefer a different flavor of reality, check out the official site of the Christian Coalition.

I beg to differ...

For me, the most effective distraction from writing is more writing. I am still working on the short story I mentioned in my last post, but something has stolen my attention for today. Surfing the internet today I came across a headline on a news site (link no longer available): Top Cardinal Blasts 'Da Vinci Code' as 'Cheap Lies'. Now, generally I will not discuss matters of faith in such a public forum, but this article intrigued me and guaranteed this post.

For those of you who did not get to read the article, let me summarize. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, formerly of the Vatican's office on doctrinal orthodoxy, urges Christians to steer clear of Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code, citing it's raving success as proof of "a great anti-Catholic prejudice".

I, personally, have read the book. After doing so I watched the debate ricochet back and forth between two fronts. There were, and are, those who speculated that the information contained within the pages of the book was an epiphanous compilation of factual evidence to support the validity of the plot's climactic revelation. There were yet others who were furiously incited against the author for presenting it as such. I belong to neither of these groups.

I thought the book was entertaining as a work of fiction, because that's all it was...fiction. Yes, Dan Brown did set up the story pooling various actual settings and presenting certain facts that meshed uncannily with the underlying story. The author also claims that during his research he learned of compelling circumstantial evidence that made him a believer.

But let's face it folks, it's a novel. Regardless of how much factual info Mr. Brown may have used, any reader with a lick of common sense can tell where Dan was stretching things for the purposes of entertainment. He can no more tell people the true history of Jesus' life than I can. I find it fascinating that something like this can so invoke the ire of the upper echelons of the Catholic clergy.

Cardinal Bertone states that the "allegations" presented in the novel are "cheap lies". Yes, everyone, welcome to the revelation of the century: fiction is a lie. Now, I certainly understand if the cardinal is offended by the material in the book, though I can't help but wonder if he's actually read it. What bothers me is that he is appealing to the Christian masses to keep away.

He warns that there is a "strategy of persuasion - that one isn't an adult Christian if you don't read this book". I would never propose to tell anyone about the validity of his faith based upon whether or not he's read a book, just like I would never simply assume that reading a book would so shake someone's faith.

Bertone speaks of being an "adult Christian", but how can anyone feel like an adult when some parental figure attempts to censor her because he feels her faith, one of the few things that is uniquely hers, will be tested. In the bible, God tested Job's faith. How did Job fare? And God didn't throw down no copy of The Da Vinci Code for Job to read. No, he gave the devil free reign to do all but kill the man. And what about Abraham? You want to talk about a test of faith? THAT, my friends, is a test. And the Catholic hierarchy, for whom these stories help to define their doctrine of faith, is worried about their followers reading a fictional book? Well, the clergy may have faith in Christ, but it doesn't seem like they have much faith in His flock.

Another comment the cardinal makes is "if a similar book was written, full of lies about Buddha, Mohamed, or, even, for example, if a novel came out which manipulated all the history of the Holocaust or of the Shoah, what would have happened?"

Okay, sure, some people would be offended, possibly including me, but let's make a distinction here. Horrific events like the Holocaust are still fresh in the memories of people who are living today. The Holocaust and the Shoah as historical events are not a matter of faith. There can be little debate as to their occurrence and validity. Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Shintoism, Paganism, Shamanism, and all of the religions of the world and their adjoining historical doctrine ARE matters of faith. Of course, I only make this distinction because the cardinal did not seem to, not because one side deserves to be any more offended than the other at things that are an affront to its perceptions.

So, do I believe that the cardinal should have kept his opinions to himself? No, but I don't think his plea is as well-intentioned as it may seem to the like-minded. Let me share one of MY opinions with you. I believe that any good parent should know that explicit and indiscriminate censoring of materials and experiences is the most effective way to pique a child's interest in those things. If the cardinal was concerned that others might be offended as he was then he should have said, "For those sensitive to issues of faith, I would not recommend this book." By making the issue out of it that he did, Bertone guaranteed Dan Brown at least one more royalty check, probably several.