In the last few days, I’ve been hearing this seemingly innocuous phrase bandied about quite a bit, and it’s pissed me off enough to get me to come out of hiding and blog after over six months. It’s not the thanking of god itself that irritates me. If you believe in a god, you should probably thank him, her or it frequently. First of all, this is a being to which you owe your very existence. Second of all, whether the prescribed method of expression is saying grace, dancing in a circle, sacrificing a chicken or mutilating your child’s genitals, most gods seem to really, really like being thanked. A lot. In fact, it seems that once the act of creation has been achieved, most gods take up getting humans to express gratitude as their primary occupation. This raises questions about any given god’s need for validation or level of emotional maturity, but who am I to doubt the divine will?

For the purpose of this post only, let’s stipulate that a god or gods exist and that they are either omnipotent or at least unimaginably powerful. Frankly, any being that doesn’t fit this criterion probably shouldn’t be called a god, so I think that’s safe. When might be an appropriate time to thank this god? Well, for example, when one is viewing the wonders of nature seems like a good time. In practice, though, when was the last time you heard someone say “Thank god, it’s a rainbow?” Contemplating the simple fact of or aspects of one’s own life or existence seems like it should stir this sort of emotion, but one doesn’t often hear “Thank god, my kidneys work beautifully.” In fact, at least nine times out of ten, these two words only issue forth from the lips of someone who has recently experienced tragedy or near tragedy. Tune into any of the cable news networks the day after a natural disaster (so just about any day), and you’ll hear a whole lot of people thanking god. For example, you might hear something like “The wildfire destroyed my house, and my car exploded, but thank god I’m alive.” Hospitals are also a popular place for this kind of thing, such as “My baby died of Ebola this morning, but thank god I have another child.”

So, my question is why do these people choose to sing the praises of the lord right after they’ve been crapped on by life? “Thank god most of my goats survived.” Thank which god? Is it the same one that just sent an F4 tornado through your living room? “Thank god I’m in remission.” Did you thank him when he gave you cancer? People seem very willing to forgive the bad thing that’s happened when they are graciously allowed to live or keep some of their possessions. Would they be so generous if the offender turned savior was a human being? Wouldn’t it sound strange to you if you overheard a conversation between strangers, and one person said to the other “Thank you for taking me to the emergency room after you beat me half to death in that alley, stabbed me in the eye and stole my wallet.”?

Human beings attribute blame for the infractions of other people just as quickly as they thank those who have been kind or helpful. Why doesn’t god receive the same treatment? Why is it that when a surfer is attacked by a shark and loses his leg, he’s quick to thank god for letting him live, but he doesn’t seem to hold a grudge about the fact that this same god created sharks and/or created that particular shark and/or didn’t stop that shark from trying to eat him and/or didn’t make sure a better surgeon was on call and/or didn’t at least allow his very expensive surfboard to come through unscathed? None of that is ever god’s fault. I find it curious that a person won’t attribute the same level of complexity to the motives and actions of a magical, invisible being who pervades the entire universe as they will to the anonymous strangers who stole his hubcaps. Is an omnipotent being not (by definition) capable of good and evil? I suppose it’s uncomfortable to worship such a being and to know you have no choice in the matter. I suppose it’s what led early Christian theologians to torture a few snippets of scripture until they yielded the modern concept of the devil.

Whatever the thought process behind it, conscious or otherwise, it irritates me to no end. First of all, how dare you impose such limitations on a being who is capable of absolute evil right alongside absolute good? More importantly, how can you bring yourself to worship such a beast? How can you toss a fiver in the plate after your hamster has been killed in a motorcycle accident (must be a great story)? To do so is intellectually dishonest. It is to surrender oneself to celestial blackmail. Face the facts, people. God is a dick. (I feel like I’ve heard that somewhere.) For my part, if you could show me absolute proof of the existence of god this very minute, I would still choose damnation over worshiping that kind of monster.

~I AM~

Psst… Hey kids… College is a waste of time. Back in the day it was the only way to get a higher education, but now all you need is iTunes and/or a web browser. Well, unless you need one of those fancy diplomas that get you jobs that allow you to feed yourself with things that you can’t order by number, but really, don’t be so shallow. It’s all about the learning.

In the last year or so, many major universities (like Stanford, Harvard, Yale and MIT) have started offering their class materials online for free, and I’ve recently started to take advantage of this incredible opportunity for continuing education. I just finished listening to a Stanford course (downloaded from Stanford on iTunes U) called Historical Jesus given by first century Biblical scholar Thomas Sheehan. If the idea of spending about 15 hours listening to lectures on this topic appeals to you, I highly recommend this course.

Anyway, I came to this class with the reasonably firm belief that Yeshua of Nazareth had never existed. If we look for extrabiblical accounts of Jesus the pickings are slim. Chronologically, the closest such account to the supposed life of Jesus is the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, which is a reference to Jesus by Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93AD (about 6 decades after the supposed death of Jesus). It’s certainly more than a little sketchy that a man who had such tremendous impact wasn’t considered a worthy subject to write about for generations after he was dead, and that the first non-Christian to do so was a guy who wasn’t born until several years after the date given for the crucifixion. So if you’re looking for contemporary accounts, you come up totally empty. And, even if the Testimonium is good enough for you, its authenticity is hotly debated. Most scholars consider it to be at best an exaggeration of the original reference by later Christian scribes and at worst a completely fraudulent interpolation. If you’re interested in details of those arguments, they can be found in the Wikipedia articles to which I have linked above. Beyond that, there are no other extrabiblical references until well into the second century, by which time the authors are almost certainly influenced by early Christian accounts, and not by history.

As for the Biblical accounts, the earliest of which (the first Pauline Epistles) come more than 20 years after the crucifixion, I had always dismissed them out of hand as being biased, and therefore unreliable. However, this course opened my eyes to several techniques which can be used to sift potentially real information out of the largely (if not completely) mythological gospels. The most compelling of these (as far as I can concerned) are the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment.

The criterion of multiple attestation (or “the cross section”) focuses on those sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested in more than one independent literary source (e.g., Mark, Q, Paul, John) and/or in more than one literary form or genre (e.g., parable, dispute story, miracle story, prophecy, aphorism).[source]

To really begin to understand the implications of this criterion, you first need some understanding of the relationships amongst the gospels. Since the gospel of John is so late in comparison to the three synoptic gospels (usually dated around the last decade of the first century) and so different from them, let’s ignore it for now. The two-source hypothesis is widely accepted, and seems the most sensible to me. This is the theory that Mark was the first of the canonical gospels to be written and that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark extensively. However, there is also a good deal of other material that is identical in Matthew and Luke, but not present in Mark. In this theory, this material is attributed to a theoretical and undiscovered gospel (called Q by scholars) which was read and copied by both. So, in Mark and Q, we have two independent and relatively early accounts of Jesus. If you accept the earlier dates given for the writing of the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas (discovered in Nag Hammadi), there are three such independent sources. The criterion of multiple attestation says that anything which appears in two or all three of these sources is probably historically accurate. I won’t go into what overlaps, but for this discussion, it is sufficient that overlap exists.

Now let’s have a look at the criterion of embarrassment.

The point of the criterion [of embarrassment] is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels. [source]

In short, this criterion states that anything appearing in the gospels which seems to undermine the message of early Christianity or embarrass the founders is probably either true (and well-known enough that it couldn’t have been left out completely) or a modification of an even more embarrassing account. A good example of this is the story of Jesus submitting himself to baptism by John. If Jesus is actually the son of god, it doesn’t make sense in the Christian worldview for him to take this subservient position to a mere prophet. When this story first appears in Mark, it is softened by a reference to a passage in Isaiah in which the talks of (supposedly) John as “preparing the way” for the messiah. Matthew and Luke soften the story even further, including Luke’s account of a fetal John the Baptist leaping for joy in the presence of a fetal Jesus. By the time John’s gospel rolls around, the baptism has been completely eliminated. The crucifixion (a shameful way to die) and Peter’s denial of Jesus in the passion story are further examples of this criterion.

This article doesn’t do justice to any of these arguments, but there is plenty of material available online for you to research on your own if you’re interested in greater detail. The point I was trying to make is simply that using these methods of viewing New Testament books, there may actually be useful historical information which can be gleaned. So am I now a believer in the historicity of Jesus? Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but I am far less certain about his nonexistence. I think the worst you can say about the existence of Jesus is that it’s an open question.

~I AM~

Super Tuesday has come and gone, and (drumroll please)… nothing really changed. Oh. Well, today Mitt Romney dropped out of the race, so that will save a little time, and as much as it hurts me to do so, I’m letting go of Ron Paul, as well. Realistically speaking, his candidacy is as dead as the Constitution.

This time we’re going to look at the positions of the candidates on Islam. As I’ve said many times in this forum, most American politicians demonstrate a fundamental (no pun intended) misunderstanding of the teachings of the Qur’an, simply regurgitating the latest platitudes the 24 hour new stations are offering about the “religion of peace.” Let’s see how the candidates for the highest office in the land stack up on this critical issue.

Clinton: In 1996, the White House hosted a celebration of Eid ul-Fitr with the American Muslim Council. Then first lady Hillary Clinton accepted the gift of two Qur’ans, one for her and one for her husband. She said that Chelsea already had one and had taught her and Bill a good deal of what they knew about Islam. That same year, she said to the L.A. Times that Islam was “a guide and pillar of stability for many of our people” (source) and talked to the Chicago Sun-Times about Islam’s “universal values - love of family and community, mutual respect, education, and the deepest yearning of all - to live in peace.” (source)

As First Lady, Hillary routinely hosted the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the American Muslim Council and the American Muslim Alliance at the White House. All of these groups have been linked to terrorism and/or calls for the destruction if Israel. (source)

Over the years, Clinton has received numerous campaign donations from radical Muslim groups, but to the best of my knowledge, she has returned all such donations.

I’d love to offer something more current, but she doesn’t say much about Islam these days.

Huckabee: I’m going to let Mike Huckabee’s own words speak for him.

“We […] have to recognize there is a real threat to us with radical Islamic Jihadism. […] Anybody who will kill their only children to get at you will kill your children, too. […] Anybody who gets in the way of not being a part of establishing this theocratic utopia on earth is subjected to being annihilated. […] Understand that the heart of this movement goes all the way back to the seventh century. […] The nonsense that I hear is that if we leave them alone, they leave us alone. That’s just a deadly recipe.” (source)

“The Administration has never done an adequate job explaining the theology and ideology behind Islamic terror, never done an adequate job of convincing us of their ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is “Know your enemy,” and most Americans don’t. […] Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, and the Muslim Brotherhood, whose call to active jihad, influenced bin Laden and the rise of Al Qaeda. […] Qutb raged against the decadence and sin he saw around him and sought to restore what he considered the “pure” Islam of the seventh century. […] To him, the only answer was a return to a theocratic caliphate without national borders, and he saw nothing decadent or sinful in murder to achieve that end.” (source)

Huckabee really gets it. I guess it takes a religious fanatic to recognize religious fanaticism in others. It’s a shame I’d rather chew off my right arm than vote for him.

McCain: John McCain has drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid…

“I admire Islam. I think that there’s a lot of good principles in it. […] These forces of evil have perverted what’s basically an honorable religion.” (source)

…and would rather blame the Internet than the Qur’an.

“The transcendant challenge of the 21st century is the challenge of radical Islamic extremism. […] The fact is that everywhere in the world, thanks to cyberspace[…] you’re seeing the spread of this radical Islamic extremism in a very dangerous way.” (source)

All the other quotes I found echo the same PC nonsense.

Obama: Barack Obama’s religious background has been the subject of much debate. His account is that he has never practiced Islam. There are reports from people who knew him as a child in Indonesia that he attended Muslim religious classes and went to mosque for Friday prayers with his stepfather. I personally believe that he is truly a Christian, as he says, but the jury is still out on some of the evidence that has been presented. There’s plenty to read on that elsewhere. If you have any good links on either side of this issue, please put them in the comments section.

As for his position on Islam, I can’t find any meaningful statements he has made on the issue. That could be because any Google search on the relevant keywords turns up only pages accusing him of being a Muslim or offering evidence that he’s not, but come to think of it, I never remember him talking about it in a debate.

~I AM~

…and then there were 6. My job got a bit easier after Florida as John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani both dropped out of the race, so their positions no longer need to be considered in this series. I suppose I could probably eliminate Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, also, as neither of them really has a shot at the nomination, but as long as they keep them in the debates, I’ll keep writing about them.

So, this time, I’ll take a look at the candidates’ positions on gay rights. Like abortion, this isn’t a strictly religious issue, as there are people with strong secular opinions against both (see almost any post by the Raving Atheist for secular opposition to abortion). However, since most opposition is of a religious nature, I’ll include it.

Clinton: Hillary Clinton received an 89% rating on this issue from the Human Rights Campaign in 2006. She supports civil unions, and believes that marriage is an issue for the states. She voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. While she once supported Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, she now favors its elimination so that gays can serve openly. Hillary supports giving gays and lesbians equal adoption rights. In 2002, she voted to add sexual orientation to hate crime legislation.

Huckabee: I’m sure no one will be surprised by the results on this one. Mike Huckabee opposes legislation to protect gays from employment discrimination and hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as criteria. On marriage, Huckabee says on his campaign web site “I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.” He signed similar legislation in Arkansas in 2006. He also opposes civil unions and gay and lesbian adoption and foster parenting. Finally, he doesn’t “think” he would change the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

McCain: Like Huckabee, McCain opposes protecting gays from employment discrimination and including sexual orientation in hate crime laws. On same-sex marriage, McCain’s web site says “The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” Despite this, he opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He supports Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell because he feels that open homosexuality in the military is potentially risky. If he has ever taken a public stance on gay adoption, I wasn’t able to find it.

Obama: During his tenure in the Illinois legislature, Obama sponsored legislation that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He receive an 89% rating (same as Clinton) from the HRC in 2006. In the Senate, Obama co-sponsored legislation to include sexual orientation in hate crime laws, and he believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should include sexual orientation. He opposes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, saying that “The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.” He supports civil unions, and opposes gay marriage, citing his religious beliefs as the basis for his position. He did vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Obama supports equal adoption rights for gays and lesbians.

Paul: Ron Paul opposes the the Employment Non-Descrimination Bill, which includes sexual orientation. He opposes all hate crime legislation, so he can’t really be judged on that issue here. He opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a federal amendment defining marriage as heterosexual. In 1999, he voted for a measure to ban gay adoptions in Washington, DC. He thinks Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is “a decent policy.”

Romney: In 1994, during a run for Senate against Ted Kennedy, he sent a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, saying “…as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.” However, he now opposes nondiscrimination laws for gays, supports Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, opposes gay marriage and civil unions, opposes gay adoption, supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and opposes the inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crime laws. Massachusetts was the first state to allow gay marriage, and Romney lobbied the highest court in the state and the state legislature to eliminate it. Oops.

That’s it on gay rights. There’s more to come in this series. I may wait until after Super Tuesday for the next installment. I think I’ll have a lot less to write.

~I AM~

Welcome to the second installment of Candidate Scorecard in which I will examine the eight major candidates’ positions on stem cell research, an issue that has become very important to me as of late.

Clinton: Hillary Clinton has pledged to lift the ban on stem cell research when she takes office and has criticized President Bush for putting ideology before science. Last year, she voted for a bill that would expand embryonic stem cell research. She cosigned a letter to the president from 58 senators in 2004 asking him to expand the federal policy on stem cells.

Edwards: John Edwards cosigned the same letter.

Giuliani: When asked in a debate last year whether he would expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, Rudy Giuliani said “As long as we’re not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we’re not having human cloning, and we limit it to that, and there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds in those situations where you have limitations. So I would support it with those limitations.”

Huckabee: Asked the same question as Giuliani in the same debate, Mike Huckabee said “I would concur. I don’t think it’s right to create a life to end a life. That’s not a good health decision.”

McCain: Again, in the same debate, John McCain responded “I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.” In 2007, he put his vote where his mouth is, voting to expand stem cell research. He was also a cosigner of the same 2004 letter to the president as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Obama: As president, Barack Obama would promote stem cell research, expand the number of cell lines available for research and ensure ethical standards. He introduced legislation in Illinois that would ensure that only embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent.

Paul: Ron Paul would not provide federal funding for stem cell research because he believes that the constitution doesn’t provide the federal government with the authority to fund any such project. As a result, he voted against stem cell research twice during his tenure in the House.

Romney: Mitt Romney would outlaw cloning to create new stem cells and would outlaw embryo farming. He would allow surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization to be used. He also believes that adult cells “reprogrammed” to become stem cells are just as useful. He wants to use government funds for this and only allow private funding for work with embryonic cells. When the Harvard Stem Cell Institute sought protection for a cell line, Romney refused to support them, stating that “Lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation or destruction.”

That’s it for stem cells. Stay tuned for additional issues.

~I AM~