Foot Washing, Christianity and Human Rights

Rev. Fr. Sean Major-Campbell performs a foot-washing
at his service to commemorate Intl. Human Rights Day.
Photo - Jamaicagleaner.com

Traditionally, Christianity has been a veritable bastion of homophobia and Jamaican Christians have typically reached for their bibles to condemn same sex intimacy.   This biblical view has been incorporated into our laws that criminalize same -sex relations (between men), and which exclude LGBT persons from the full purview of human rights protection. Prominent Christians like Shirley Richards and Wayne West, successfully lobbied for the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender as grounds of discrimination under Jamaica’s 2011 Charter of Rights.  Christians were also successful in having the Charter insulate the laws on buggery, gross indecency (between men) and marriage insulated from any constitutional challenge.  Courtesy of the Christian lobby, marriage is formally defined to exclude any relationship other than a heterosexual, man/woman relationship.

Since the 2011 passage of the Charter of Rights, the Jamaica Coalition for Healthy Society has continued its assault on the rights of LGBT Jamaicans, ritually coopting (or hijacking) successive International Human Rights Days to host public events to wail about the existential threat posed to religious freedoms by the “LGBT” agenda.   

In commemoration of  International Human Rights Day 2013, the JCHS released a documentary entitled Sex, Lies and Rights: a seduction of law, medicine and politics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvHD9edam0A.     In summary, this documentary sought to promote the idea that human rights is a gift only to those who comply with “divine” dictates – which automatically excludes LGBT people who practice an “ungodly lifestyle”.

For International Human Rights Day in 2014, the Rev. Fr. Sean Major-Campbell (SMC), an Anglican priest, turned the tables on the JCHS by ritually washing the feet of members of Jamaica’s LGBTI community during a church service.   In a later online conversation with Fr. Major-Campbell, he explained to me that the feet-washing ritual “simply affirms loving service to those whose feet are being washed”, particularly those who are marginalized in some way.  Fr. Major-Campbell added that foot washing does not signify inclusion into the church or Christian community, noting that when Jesus performed this ritual there was no Christian community to speak of.   However, within the context of IHRD, this ritual did at least two things: (a) announce that all persons are entitled to human rights, regardless of sexual orientation, social status or other marginalizing factors; and (b) challenge, if not undermine the dominant Christian narrative that human rights is a divine gift to a class of God-fearing beneficiaries from which LGBTI people are excluded.  

SMC’s liturgical embrace of the LGBTI community was simultaneously greeted by acclaim and condemnation.    From a media standpoint, it was a coup of monumental proportions.    In 2014, the JCHS did host a public event – again aimed at appropriating International Human Rights Day to vilify the LGBTI community.  However, this time around, they were completely upstaged by SMC’s foot washing, with barely any mention of the former event in the press. 

Apart from stealing the thunder of the JCHS, SMC’s foot-washing coup has exposed a major fault line between traditional and progressive notions of humanity and human rights.   

This is partly reflected in a letter to the Gleaner of December 13, 2014 http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20141213/letters/letters1.html by the Rev. Earl Thames.  Mr. Thames complained that SMC had misinterpreted Jesus' words and actions.  He contended that Jesus “ came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance”, and that the crucial phrase in this expression was  "to repentance". Mr. Thames reasoned that Jesus never accepted nor condoned the sin of these sinners, but called them “to turn radically from their lifestyle, and to live according to His commandments”.   Accordingly, for Mr. Thames, “The impression given by SMC is that he was justifying and condoning the lifestyle of the ladies as a 'right'”; and thus, SMC’s action was “the very opposite of that of Jesus”.

So in a nutshell, Mr. Thames’ theology is no repentance, no rights, while SMC’s theology holds that all are entitled to rights, without the prerequisite of repentance.

So both Mr. Thames and SMC appropriate human rights as part of their respective theologies. “Traditional” Christianity, it appears, appropriates human rights on exclusionary terms, while “progressive” Christianity appropriates human rights on inclusionary terms.

As a secular human rights advocate, I am certainly more supportive of SMC’s theology.  I certainly salute him for his bold, courageous stand for the human rights of marginalized people, including LGBT folks.   However, at the end of the day, I think that both theologies miss an important point: human rights have an entirely secular provenance, and have nothing to do with religion, least of all Christianity.  Human rights have everything to do with a secular humanism, a philosophy that arose substantially in resistance to Christianity and its theologically justified abuses of human rights - in various forms, including murder, slavery, misogyny, and anti-democratic forms of government (e.g. divine right of kings).   

SMC’s approach is predicated on what I’ve previously called a Jesus-is-Love theology (or JILISM), a theme I previously explored here: http://yardieskeptics.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-fundamentalism-of-jilists.html

In brief, JILISM promotes a warm, cozy Christianity, in which the central figure Jesus, is presented as the ultimate paragon of love, compassion, and forgiveness. In this conception of Christianity, there is no room for anti-humanist doctrines like original sin or substitutionary atonement, or divisive ideas like sinner and saved, or heaven and hell.  And of course, despite the prescriptions of Leviticus and Romans, anti-gay precepts are nowhere to be found in this cuddly, inclusive view of Christianity. In essence, JILISM conscripts human rights to sanitize or neutralize Christianity’s scriptural and historical antipathy to humanity and to human rights.    

No matter how you slice it – the essential ideology of Christianity is divisive, hierarchical, discriminatory, and unapologetically hostile to human rights.   While the JILIST conception of human rights is more palatable, it is almost as indigestible, philosophically, as the repentance theory of human rights espoused by traditional Christians like Earl Thames.    

Thames, it seems, doesn’t quite appreciate that his repentance theory of human rights cuts both ways.   If I base my conception of human rights on anti-theism, I could just as easily argue that (a) religion is a lifestyle; and (b) that such a lifestyle is a “sin”, given the atrocities historically committed in the name of religion; and that (c) full enjoyment of human rights should be contingent on “repentance” of their religious “lifestyle”.   Given the volitional nature of religious belief versus the involuntary nature of sexual orientation, it seems that I could make a stronger case for the religious to repent for their rights, than for LGBT to repent for theirs.

Ultimately, my thesis is a simple one.  No variant of Christianity can legitimately claim philosophical kinship with human rights.   However, to the extent that Christians, JILIST or otherwise, are willing to support and defend the human rights of all - they have my admiration and applause.

Coming Out… “Ole’Eathen!” by Sharon Smith, guest blogger

My Mom was a believer, she believed in the love of god and that he was everywhere.  She didn’t get too caught up in the dogma of the different denominations.  She was content to attend which ever church was closest or convenient regardless of denomination.  So I was well schooled in Christianity, in all its forms, before I hit puberty!

Mommy grew up catholic and raised my brother and I as such when we were young.  I remember going to classes (catechism lessons), rehearsals and what I remember most was the frock… so many frills and oh even my underwear had frills!  Then there were the white shoes and socks, again with the frills!  Eeew! I felt like the doll my brother and I used as target practice while honing our bingy skills (aka sling shot, similar to what David used to slay Goliath).  When the First Communion Day came I put on the dress, scratching and nervous but excited!  I was going to receive the body of Christ and with any luck get some of that wine too!!!  I can totally understand the vampire culture… I was excited about drinking the blood/wine or maybe I was a boozer at seven!  Hmmm?

Later when we moved to Mona, some friendly Jehovah Witnesses came knocking and soon we were off to the Kingdom Hall on Trafalgar Road.  Somehow the street walking and lack of a Christmas celebrations got to my Mom (she loved Carols) or perhaps it was just that during the street walking she came across the Mona Church of Christ worshipping at the old Mona Theatre… just walking distance from our home.  This one was non-denominational and by my tenth birthday I had been baptized in another white dress sans frills!  This meant that I went to church not only on Sundays but Wednesdays for Bible Study and Fridays for Youth Choir.

It was somewhat of a relief to move to Barbican, with no churches within walking distance and somewhat secularist neighbours (you’ll come to appreciate this shortly).  Soon our visits to Church of Christ grew fewer and fewer and we became like many normal families who attended church at Christmas and Easter.  That did not last very long as my Father retired from the Police Force and before I had time to hit puberty I was going to classes again to be confirmed Methodist.  

My Dad had always been a Methodist and really didn’t share my Mom’s sophisticated attitude towards other denominations.  He was, while he was working, a consistent once a year visitor to Saxthorpe Methodist Church.  Now that my Dad was retired he decided to become a Local Preacher in the Western St. Andrew Circuit with Red Hills Methodist Church as our home church.  By then we had moved to Forest Hills, and I had no idea how much my life would change.  It was really great to move across the street from St. Hugh’s sisters, one of whom was in a few of my classes but their Dad was one of the Deeper Life Ministries Leader and my Mom experimented with the Charismatic Movement at the same time that my Dad was doing his Local Preacher thingy.

What this meant for me was I would go to Stephanie Hall (Holy Childhood) every Saturday with my Mom and neighbours for Deeper Life Ministries’ all-day activities.  Soon I was singing, rhythmic clapping, beating tambourine and drums, dancing and signing (yes sign language chile, there were some deaf members) but remained in awe of those who would/could speak in tongues, prophesy and slay in the spirit (or as we would chuckle in the back… drop like ripe breadfruit!)  Not to be outdone, my Dad would drag me off to at least three different Churches one Sunday a month (Red Hills, Sterling Castle and Rock Hall) in the Circuit where I would read the same scripture during each of the services and listen to my father’s sermon over and over again.  

On the other Sundays we worshipped at Red Hills, then we did the Church books after the service. Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse for me, my Dad took on the responsibility of ministering to “shut-ins” or elderly folks who could no longer come to church.  That meant that those Sundays when he would preach, we would leave home at 8:30 am and return after dark because in addition to three services we had to make home visits.  Those who were missed on Sunday had a mid-week visit.  These home visits were particularly taxing, as it was a two or if my Mom joined us, three person recreation of Sunday service.  Not only did I have to read the scripture but I would have to sing or play some musical instrument depending on the season.  I would play either the recorder or pianica, thankfully I could not blow and sing at the same time nor did we have a keyboard to cart around.  When my Dad suggested I learn to play the accordion, I truly felt victimized!  Did I mention my Dad repeated shortened versions of his sermon in the homes too?  This had to be child abuse!   

Eventually I started bringing some of the Charismatic moves into the Methodist Church, they were not welcomed by most, not even the tambourine or rhythmic clapping, go figure!  My spirited attempts to stay awake caught the eye of one of the mature youth leaders.  We became fast friends to the delight of my Dad, as her Mom was a well-respected Local Preacher.  She had a car and shared my love for Manning Cup and Champs so I helped her with the youth program, organizing skits, lively songs with modest clapping even some drumming and dances while also generally recruiting support from teenagers in the area… one of these teens “mek mi kin ketch a fya!”   It was not so tortuous going to Church three or four times a week anymore, except for the Sunday’s when my Dad would preach, it was actually fun! 

In sixth form when we were introduced to Comparative religion, I became exceedingly curious about other religions and had the perfect opportunity because one of my best friends is Hindu so I would attend the Diwali Festival to support her and her younger sister and would overwhelm them and their parents with all kinds of questions about their beliefs and practices.  In my afro-Jamaican consciousness period I became very aware of obeah, I continue even today to speak of paying the obeah man (for it is never good to owe yu obeah man), ‘nointing wid de oil an generally call on de spirit of our ancestors during sporting events in particular… watch out fe World Cup! 

This fascination with religions and culture was turbo charged when I moved to New York where I cultivated my love of all things cross-cultural and was provided with the tools to become a participant observer through my doctoral studies.  Not to mention that the doctoral program and the faculty who taught us were so diverse.  So I sampled Islam, Reform Judaism and Buddhism (a non-theistic religion) and dragged my Mom to partake as well.  She remained curious but never quite comfortable with these other religions.  I took from each experience of these religions and culture something that informs my life even today.  From Islam, the notion of jihad as a struggle against injustice, I use it in my approach to gender and racial equality.  From Reform Judaism, I take the skepticism, they question everything and apply reason and logic to it all.  Reform Jews are very tolerant of differences and also have a long history of support for LGBT and reproductive rights, I embraced that too.  From the Buddhists, I learned to meditate and practice yoga and often still refer to karma, though not quite the same way that they do. 

My Mom encouraged my participation and was always welcoming to all my friends from school whatever their orientation, race or religion.  When she died I had an interfaith service to celebrate her life which pissed off my Christian family!  My cousin especially who “forbid me” from distributing keepsakes with a beautiful quotation from Thich Nhat Hanh’s “No Death, No Fear,”  did I mention my younger son also recited it during the service.  Then dear old Dad, who could not believe that I had my “multi-national friends” read from Bhagavad Gita, Khalil Gibran’s “The Prophet,” in addition to the Bible but no sermon and the service was not in a Methodist Church!  There was lots of singing, musical tributes – piano and flute, dance and even some drumming… my Mom would have loved it!  I sure did!

This feud gave me the courage to “come out” as an agnostic atheist… I don’t believe that god exists because I have not seen evidence nor do I believe it is likely knowable… or as my family refers to me “ole ‘eathen!”  What a relief to be out of the closet… frees up my time for so many other pursuits, like Air Me Now, Yardie Skeptics and activism!

[Sharon, an "ole heathen",  feminist skeptic, and proud Swan (alumnus of St. Hugh's High School) is a Jamaican resident in the USA, and the recent recipient of a Yardie Skeptic honour: permanent dedication of Singing Sandra's "Die With My Dignity": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egi0ahIti4E]  Sharon is also a regular panelist on our all-woman show Air Me Now, which will be launch its second season on May 8, 2014]

Unabridged version of guest column that appeared in the Sunday Gleaner of April 20, 2014 [http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140420/focus/focus7.html]  in response to Ian Boyne's column of April 13, 2014 [http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140413/focus/focus2.html]

Onward Boynean straw men marching as to war

In a column entitled Why Science Is Not God, my friend Ian Boyne generates a storm of sophistry to blow down the straw men of “scientism” and the hubris of “scientistic atheists”.    This storm is powered by Ian’s theology that science and faith are both equally valid epistemologies and that there is no warrant for granting monopoly status to the former, to the exclusion of the latter.  For Ian, science and reason have epistemological limits that can only be remedied by resort to the epistemology of Christian deism.

 Ian thus relies on a classic god-of-the gaps theology to proclaim, inter alia, that:

(a) science is not the only measure of truth; and that gaps in science (such as the origin of life) can be filled by theistic explanations; 

(b) there are truths that reside outside of the purview or detection of science;

(c) science is incapable of proving things like objective moral values; and

(d) that a “fine-tuned” universe is evidence of godly provenance.

At heart of the matter is a battle over epistemology – what do we know, how do we know it.  Any epistemology that’s worth its salt must be able to demonstrate some fundamental properties, including the capacity to distinguish between truth and falsity.  As George Smith pointed out more than 40 years ago, for a proposition to earn the status of truth, it must be capable of being justified by evidence.  The proposition must also be internally consistent and be capable of being integrated into previously existing knowledge. Knowledge requires the twin processes of acquisition and verification; which, in turn, demand the application of reason (as opposed to faith).  Epistemology, as a branch of philosophy is, to my way of thinking, committed to the discovery of truth, and is not, nor can it be rationally concerned with defending a particular set of beliefs.   Of necessity this excludes theism as a valid epistemology, despite Ian’s contention that it is “philosophically robust”.   It’s worth noting that one of the major epistemological disqualifications of theism is its incapacity to distinguish between fact and fiction, a disability that is not shared by science.    In its arrogance, theism tends to regard itself as above the conventional probative requirements demanded of non-religious, scientific hypotheses.

Science is epistemology in action. Unlike theism it does not rely on revelation and faith to ground its findings, but uses the tools of observation, reason to systematically interrogate and map nature/reality in all its dimensions, including the dimension of moral values.  Science, unlike religion, operates on the principle of falsifiability, with its hypotheses, theories, and laws always being subject to review or repeal if new evidence so warrants.  By comparison, Ian’s “robust philosophy” of theism relies on being manacled, through faith, to un-falsifiable doctrines (such as the Adam and Eve origin of humanity) regardless of whether they’ve been comprehensively debunked by theories such as evolution.   Unlike scientific theories, theism has no explanatory or predictive power; and ultimately, must be dismissed as pseudo-epistemology at best.  In this regard, I like to think of theism as a species of “wishcraft” (to borrow a term from author Linda J. Falkner). 

Based on the foregoing, it is not at all arrogant to consider science as the only legitimate measure of truth; it is certainly far less arrogant than assuming, without evidence, that we humans represent the pinnacle of some deistic creation odyssey completed over seven days.

Ian, like many other theists posits a false dichotomy between science and morality. Despite Ian’s contentions to the contrary, science, in its broad sense, is not divorced from morality; and in key ways, serves to explain it in ways that religion, with its emphasis on divine absolutes, cannot.  As George Smith argues, there is indeed a “science of ethics” based on the proposition that (a) science is concerned with the discovery of, and classification of facts into a coherent, integrated system; and (b) ethics seeks to discover human values, and integrate them into such a system; and (c) that insofar as ethics seeks to discover and systematize factual knowledge of values, it is science.

It’s curious that Ian refers to “objective moral values”, without perhaps realizing that objectivity is one of the defining features of scientific inquiry in general, and the science of ethics in particular.   Ian contends that the inability of science to “prove” moral values reduces morality to a “social construct” or to “an evolutionary adaptive mechanism”.  Well Ian, that’s exactly what moral values are – as explained and understood by the science of ethics, with the help of other sciences, including biology and anthropology.  Non-human animals have also been observed to demonstrate ethical behaviour- seemingly without the supervision of any supernatural policeman.  Having disposed of these preliminary observations, I would argue that the science of ethics can, and does indeed guide us on matters of concern to Ian, including slavery, human trafficking, and the matter of robbing Keiran King of his theatre receipts or his payment for Gleaner columns.

Amusingly, Ian deploys, and at times, distorts the language of science to storm against the “hubris” of science, atheists, and rationality.  Citing Christian apologist William Lane Craig, he contends, “our one known scientifically confirmed universe is “exquisitely, minutely fine-tuned”.   He also implies that the degree of improbability involved in this fine-tuning process evidences some unseen deistic (Christian) creator.    First of all, “fine-tuning” is not a scientific concept – it’s a theological concept that has been desperately engrafted onto science by Christian apologists to shoehorn their god into his biblically ordained role of creator of the universe.   This of course violates Occam’s Razor (the principle of parsimony), which requires the elimination of premises and constructs that cannot be shown to be necessary for explanatory purposes.  

Secondly, “improbability” and “probability” are concepts from science – particularly the discipline of mathematics.   Probability is simply a human (scientific) measure of likelihood of a given event occurring or having occurred.  That measurement can only take place with regard to that which is measureable in the world of nature and reality, and not the wishcraft world of the supernatural.  In any event, where an improbable event has occurred, all that has been established is that an improbable event occurred; it does not establish the cause of such any event, much less establish deistic causality. 

Space does not allow for a detailed review of Ian’s storm of sophistry or to help clear the debris of the straw men left in its wake.  As a parting shot, it seems to me that the Goliath of Ian’s straw men resides in the title of his column ((Why Science Is Not God).  I don’t recall any “scientistic atheist” (like Keiran King) ever claiming the contrary. What has been claimed is that theism is not, nor can it ever be the epistemic peer of reason and science.  It’s as simple as that. 

Hilaire Sobers is an attorney-at-law, and co-host of the social media programmes Skeptically Speaking and Yardie Skeptics.  Email: hilaire.sobers@gmail.com.

God, Justice and the Vybz Kartel Verdict

As if by clockwork, God himself, the alleged architect of the entire universe, has been implicated in a murder trial of a Jamaican Dancehall artiste. This shouldn't come as a surprise in the least, since there have been ample accusations that Kartel was in league with the crown prince of evil, none other than Lucifer himself, and these accusations would find eager acceptance by the scores of superstitious Jamaicans who believe the Dancehall cultural space is a hotbed of "demonic" activity. Despite Kartel's own invocation of "Jah Jah" blessings in a number of his songs, the writing was on the wall ever since his rise to fame as the head of the "Gaza" empire - Kartel's music represented an insidious form of evil which had to be divinely expunged before it lead to the destruction of the entire nation. The recent murder trial, hailed by some as a "triumph" of Jamaica's justice system (I'll come back to this in a minute) was of course also a victory for the kingdom of Heaven as one enthusiastic teacher put it:

And here again from a respondent to the Gleaner newspaper article announcing the guilty verdict, with the characteristic excessive use of caps lock expected from those drunk on religion:

No doubt, amidst the multitude of prayers going up to ensure that Kartel was locked away in the Jamaican penal system, a pitstop on the way to the final destination, Hell, there were obviously prayers flooding Heaven petitioning the opposite outcome. That was certainly the case during the Buju Banton trial - an overwhelming outpour of prayer's asking for freedom, as opposed to the more neutral request of justice. You see, what Banton had in his favour was that for many he represented the good old Jamaican defiance against bowing to homosexuality as embodied in his hit song "Boom Bye Bye" (notwithstanding the fact that his conversion to Rastafari also mellowed him somewhat and endeared new followers to his music). To make matters worse, his trial took place in the US, a country notorious for "persecuting" Dancehall artistes for their condemnation of gays. It was easier to rally around Banton and send up prayers on his behalf for this very reason. The prayers went up, and the verdict came down - guilty.

Kartel however demonstrated just how polarizing the class system can be in Jamaican society - Gaza supporters felt that his trial was yet again another attempt by "Babylon system" to end the career of another ghetto yute, while his detractors felt it was necessary to rescue Jamaica from further ghettoization and moral turmoil at the hands of this degenerate. Nevertheless, international rap artiste Busta Rhymes managed to invoke "peace and prosperity" in his comments on the trial:



 And a few other supporters are a bit more direct, calling specifically on Yahweh (spelt "Yahway") to intervene:

Well, as it turns out, the detractors would have their moment as God, in his divine wisdom, took time off from answering the prayers of the impoverished, and ensured that a guilty verdict was returned. Somewhere through the fog of circumstantial evidence, the 11 member jury was able to arrive at a near unanimous verdict in roughly four hours. The praise for the justice system might be a little premature however, since it was only a little under 4 years ago that 70 residents were gunned down by the security forces in an inner city community in an attempt to ferret out a drug lord. The year before that, in 2009, 7 girls died in a fire in a state run place of "safety" after a security guard discharged a tear gas canister inside their holding cell. Both incidents resulted in commissions of enquiry, recommending compensation to the families and survivors, the results of which could be summed up in one word - fuckall.

The Kartel trial hasn't arrived at it's final chapter yet. The sentence is yet to be decided on, the defence team has already registered its intent to appeal the verdict, one juror has been arrested for attempting to bribe the jury foreman, and the sister of the murder victim has gone into protective custody owing to threats issued to her. Prayer warriors on both sides are gearing up for the final spiritual showdown. Whether God gives a shit about this whole melodrama isn't even a question worth asking at this stage, it's a foregone conclusion. The prayer department in Heaven had better get ready for yet another stream of contradictory requests on Kartel's behalf over the next few months as this saga unfolds in the media, and the courts, and on bended knees.


Cool Dude.

Secularists Are Winning - Will We Be Better

We tend not to treat minority groups well.  In Jamaica, although Christians have always controlled nearly all institutions - political, educational, social - the minority Rastafarian population was made to suffer repeated humiliations and violations of their constitutional rights just so the majority could exercise their sense of superiority.  Rastas were expelled from schools, men were forcibly trimmed or shaved and discrimination in employment and accessing services was routine.

“Respect” for Christianity? Not a backside…

To the mind of a secular humanist, Christianity has to rank as one of the most irrational and immoral belief systems every conceived of by humankind.  Almost any act of human depravity – including rape, genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice is deemed to be perfectly legitimate if sanctioned by the Christian god. Christianity venerates the worst qualities of humanity; yet, Christians expect, nay, demand that all bow down and "respect" it. 

 As one popular meme puts it:

Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

According to Christian doctrine, if you don’t believe in this nonsense, an eternal consignment to hell awaits you upon your transition from this plane of existence.

Now it’s one thing if people hold these beliefs privately as an exercise of freedom of religion.  But no, this is not the deal with Christianity – which historically has ALWAYS sought to enact its noxious doctrines into law, or incorporate them into public policy.   While the Age of Reason has had a tempering effect on Christianity, countries like Jamaica still suffer from Christian intrusion into law and public policy.  A prime example of this is Jamaica’s 2011 Charter of Rights, which blatantly enacts Christian discrimination against the LGBT community, offering no protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.  This Charter blocks Jamaicans from challenging any law relating to sexual offences (read buggery), abortion, obscene publications, or marriage.   These incursions on human rights were championed by the Lawyers Christian Fellowship and enacted by a parliament more interested in genuflecting to religious irrationality than upholding the rule of law.   It’s this same parliament that rejected secular advocacy for the inclusion of sexual orientation, disability, and language as grounds of discrimination in the Charter of Rights.

Given the foregoing, I get really steamed when Christians demand “respect” for their beliefs, when indeed, what they’re really demanding for their beliefs is immunity from criticism and challenge.  Let’s say, for argument’s sake that they are really only asking for respect for their beliefs. Since when is a belief, per se, worthy of respect?  So if a man believes that he has the right to rape a woman, am I obliged to “respect” that?    Am I similarly obliged to respect a belief in stoning homosexuals simply because it’s part of some religious holy book of beliefs?    Christians are so accustomed to exercising cultural hegemony over others that any challenge, no matter how diplomatic is seen as an unforgiveable affront to their beliefs.  I call bullshit.   Sorry Christians, we’re no longer in medieval times when heretics and apostates could be burned at the stake for failure to conform to religious absolutes.    We no longer live under theocracies, but democracies, where, theoretically, all ideas contend, with none being privileged over others.   

So here’s the deal.  I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you’re offended by criticism or mockery of your religion.   If you can’t defend your beliefs on the ground of rationality, then they deserve to be criticized or mocked, and I certainly claim my right to do so.   Oh, and being criticized or mocked doesn’t make you a victim.  I’m so sick and tired of Christians pulling the victim card whenever they get pushback on their irrational faith claims.   On the one hand they claim the right to proclaim their delusions to the world, but then object when rationalists point out that they are, indeed, delusions…I can’t believe that big-ass people will still tell you with a straight face that Adam and Eve once cavorted in the Garden of Eve, and that the theory of evolution is some sort of evil conspiracy to derail Christianity…. These delusions usually get ramped up whenever the subject turns to sex and sexuality, where Christians are quite happy to ignore all available biological evidence to pronounce on the “sinfulness” of any sexual act outside of heterosexual marriage.   Now if Christians want to live by their silly sin code when it comes to sex, fine by me – that’s their right.  But the problem with Christians is that they want to impose this nonsense on non-believers as part of some delusional edict to carry out the “will” of their mythical deity.   Any resistance to such an imposition is seen as an unforgiveable act of lèse-majesté, punishable by invocations of hell and damnation.

At the end of the day, I respect the right of people to believe whatever they want to. That’s a given regardless of how I might personally feel about the person who holds a given belief.   However, for me to respect that the content of belief – that’s something that has to be earned, not demanded.   When it comes to religious beliefs, and their veneration of irrationality, you can be damn sure that I will NEVER respect the content of such beliefs.   Not a backside…

Firebreather

Movie Review: "Questioning Darwin"

Title: Questioning Darwin
Producer: HBO
Length: 58 minutes
Rating: 4/5 stars

Recently, about a week or so ago, I had the opportunity to sit down and watch the HBO Documentary “Questioning Darwin.” I own a few books on the theory of evolution including a digital copy of Darwin’s own “Origin of Species” and fancy myself as someone with enough knowledge to explain at least the basic concept behind Darwin’s idea of common descent via natural selection. A part of me wishes that evolutionists could’ve done a better job of educating the general public sufficiently enough to the point where evolution was “common sense”, which is why I rather enjoy documentaries of the sort geared towards doing just that. Or so I thought. “Questioning Darwin” is neither an exposé on the science behind evolution, nor the “scientific” dissenting views; in fact none of the objections to evolution in the documentary could be regarded as scientific. This entire film is really about how the mind of fundamentalist evangelical Christians work.

The documentary starts off at the ground zero of all zany creationist ideas – the Creation Museum. We see an audience completely captivated by a high resolution depiction of how God fashioned man from dirt and put him to live in the Garden of Eden, and prior to that a classroom of children going through their daily indoctrination of the Hebrew creation myth. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the Creation Museum, it is a multimillion dollar facility (which happens to be bleeding money), erected for the sole purpose of giving its attendees a high quality visual depiction of what life would've looked like 6000 years ago when God created the entire universe, complete with humans walking around in Eden with vegetarian T-Rex. This portion of the film was interspersed throughout with commentary from celebrity creationists like Ken Ham, CEO of the Creation Museum, as well as a few others who were more interested in putting forward their own personal incredulity and ignorance as an objection towards evolution. It is clear that in the mind of creationists, the theory of evolution was devised as a method to lure people away from the church and ultimately turn their backs on God. The core fundamentalist mindset could best be summed up by Pastor Peter LaRuff's quote in the picture above. It is at once the most honest and sincere depiction of how closely guarded the faith belief is, as well as at the same time a frightening testament to the extent to which creationism can impact one mentally. I've encountered scores of fundamentalists like Pastor LaRuff, but he was the first I've seen to so plainly declare that he really couldn't care less about what actually exists in nature if the Bible's depiction of reality is contrary. 

Thankfully, the producers didn't allow the fundamentalists to completely frustrate the audience with their mindless Godspeak for the entire film, and by 12 minutes into the feature we are at sea with young Darwin on the HMS Beagle. Most who are familiar with the story of how Darwin devised the theory of evolution would know that his voyage to the Galapagos Islands would be THE definitive moment in his entire academic career. What is usually left out of that story is how Darwin, a man brought up in the Anglican church and destined for the clergy at one point, was bursting with curiosity and exuberance and eager to set out to see to "find himself." We also learn of Darwin's own internal struggle with cognitive dissonance as he had to face the cold hard reality that the origin of life tale he had been force-fed since birth just wasn't true. The filmmakers went to great lengths to show just how serious Darwin was about getting to the truth, but more important than how serious he was, was the extreme caution which he exercised. We learn that Darwin spent over two decades collecting fossils and animal specimens from all over the world, constantly checking and cross-checking his findings with other leading scientists in their respective fields, and sending out staggering amounts of correspondence to associates and colleagues with questions about his research. Had the producers spent a little more time unpacking this thrilling detective adventure, I would've easily granted the full 5/5 stars.

But, as I said earlier, this documentary wasn't really about Darwin. It was instead about the most vocal dissenters to evolutionary theory and how this particular scientific fact completely upsets their psychological comfort. In the latter portions of the film questions about the source of morality, the existence of evil and human worth make their appearance as they often do when evolution is being discussed. In some ways, it's understandable if one does indeed feel a sense of sympathy, if not pity, for these evangelicals. Questions about the origin of life and humanity, and the implications the answers have for the value we place on the human experience, are easily the most troubling questions for mankind. And in the absence of proper tools to address these questions, all that remains is a reliance on intuition, guesswork, and mythology. Questioning Darwin, despite its shortfall in failing to educate the public on the nuances behind evolution, manages instead to show exactly why such a task isn't a straightforward undertaking. With a whopping 46% of the American population believing in a literal Genesis account (and possibly higher in less scientifically developed countries), and fundamentalism and it's harmful sociopolitical impact spreading like wildfire globally, it might indeed be hard to focus on a biology lesson about natural selection and random mutation. Especially when it just won't "feel" right to the persons who need that information the most.

If you haven't checked it out this documentary as yet, do so when you get the chance. The team at Yardie Skeptics highly recommends it.

Cool Dude.