So, a couple of days ago, vjack the Atheist Revolutionary wrote a post about how much evangelists annoy him.

As I write, the comment thread on vjack’s post has 81 comments - 32 of which were written by one Christian who is sharing his sure-fire, awesomely true, must-be-experienced-to-be-believed brand of Christianity with vjack and his godless readers. Too fucking funny! After all, it’s obvious that vjack and his heathen band have never heard the One True Gospel. They’ve never had the scriptures and the right theological interpretation thereof explained to them properly - until now. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Of all the hundreds of posts that vjack has written over the years, this True Christian hijacks the comments of the Evangelism post. My irony meter just busted and my sides are splitting with laughter.

– the chaplain

Japanese Apricot blossoms:

– the chaplain

Anti-evolution madness has migrated north for the summer. I initially read about this latest school board fiasco, which is unfolding in Maine, here. John Pieret followed up on it here and the Associated Press has picked up on it:

WATERVILLE (AP) — The decades-old controversy over the teaching of evolution in public schools is resurfacing in Somerset County.

A director of SAD 59 in the Madison area is urging the board to drop evolution from high school science curriculums on grounds that it’s an unprovable theory that shouldn’t be taught as fact.

Matthew Linkletter of Athens says neither evolution nor creationism belongs in a science curriculum.

David Connerty-Marin of the state Department of Education disagrees, saying that evolution is based on proven science and its teaching in science classes is mandated by the Maine Learning Results program.

SAD 59 directors will take up Linkletter’s arguments when they meet May 19.
(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Is anyone else getting as weary as I am of this continual bickering over evolution? It’s bad enough that it goes on in churches, town halls and movie theatres; it’s worse when it keeps popping up in our schools.

Do the people who sit on these school boards live in caves and get all of their education from Archie Comics? Probably not: Archie is too recent a vintage for them. When I read stuff like this, again and again and again, I feel like I’m trapped in a nasty reincarnation of Groundhog Day! The Scopes trial occurred over 80 years ago, people. Get over it!

If I were a thoroughly selfish creep (which, according to cretinists and IDiots, I should be), I might say something like, “Let them teach their kids rubbish. My kids will be better educated than theirs and, consequently, get better jobs. Tough luck, suckers! Thanks for playing the Game of Life!” But, I’m neither completely selfish nor totally creepy, so I actually care that all children should have access to good education. Obviously, they benefit from those opportunities and, as they contribute to society, the rest of us benefit too. That’s why stories like this are so infuriating. Bad education hurts everybody.

Another Maine newspaper offers this account:

MADISON — Neither creationism nor evolution belongs in a high-school science curriculum, a School Administrative District 59 director believes.

Matthew Linkletter of Athens says that both are merely theories that represent “personal beliefs and world views,” rather than proven science. Linkletter suggested during last week’s SAD 59 board meeting that the board discuss evolution, the “Big Bang Theory” and other studies he believes should be deleted from the curriculum.

The school board tabled action on the science curriculum at the April 28 meeting, and will reconsider the issue when it meets at 7 p.m. May 19.

Linkletter, a Christian, said there is no way to prove either evolution or creationism.

“You can’t show, observe or prove it,” Linkletter said of the belief systems. “It’s something you have to believe by faith. It doesn’t meet the criteria of science.

“If it’s not scientifically verifiable, then maybe we should leave it out of the science classes. When you make a statement that’s not backed by facts and just represents a world view, then it has no place.”

Linkletter said he wants the best science for SAD 59 students, who should “be armed with the truth.” They should be able to explain the origins of life according to evolution if it is taught in the schools, he said.

“Nobody has the answer to the origins of life. It’s a philosophical question.”

High-school science teacher Jessica Ward disagrees.

“The empirical proof of evolution is in the study of genetics and how genes relate between organisms,” said Ward, who teaches advanced-placement senior biology, senior anatomy/physiology and 10th-grade biology. She said evolution is proven, as an empirical matter of science, through studies of the human genome.

“My personal, as well as the National Science Teachers position, is that you can’t teach genetics or ecology without evolution.

“The basis for it is the theory of evolution.”

Ward noted that the Maine Learning Results mandates instruction in the theory of evolution. Schools would not be accredited without it, she said.

An effort to remove the theory of evolution from a high-school curriculum actually won temporary approval from the Kansas Board of Education, Ward noted.

In 2005, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. Two years later, however, the Kansas board repealed the ruling.

SAD 59 Board Chairman Norman Luce said that a high-school science curriculum might not be the correct forum for the study of evolution.

A philosophy class might be a better fit, the Starks resident said.

“It’s OK to have it somewhere, but it depends on how much time they’re spending on it in the sciences curriculum,” Luce said. “I don’t care if everybody else in the country uses it. Science is about proving things. (Linkletter) has a good point.”

Luce added that he is not necessarily opposed to the study of evolution, but is not sure how much time should be devoted to it.

Why in the world do Matthew Linkletter and Norman Luce believe that they are even minimally qualified to sit on a school board? It’s painfully obvious that neither of them knows anything at all about either science or philosophy! Furthermore, it’s utterly foolish to contemplate defying the state curriculum standards. If they push forward with this foolhardy idea, the children will pay dearly for the stupidity of the parents (well, that’s biblical anyway, so, in a sad sort of way, they may gain some affirmation of their faith). The fact that Linkletter and Luce are both (presumably) high school graduates (at least) may say all that needs to be said about the state of American education.

I can only hope that the majority of residents in Somerset County disagree with Luce and Linkletter. Therefore, I’ll close with a few words of advice for them: unless you want to become the next Dover, you’d better storm next week’s school board meeting and kill this idea dead in its tracks. If you don’t, you and your children will be paying for it for years to come.

UPDATE: I neglected mentioning that Spanish Inquisitor also wrote a post about this situation. Sorry for the oversight, SI.

– the chaplain

On Good Friday, 1973, my parents caught me smoking. It wasn’t the first time I’d been caught, but it was the last. This wasn’t because I quit immediately, per their demands. It was, rather, because I quickly grew fairly skilled at hiding my vice from them. Oh, they continued to harbor suspicions, but they never again caught me in the act. Anyway, it so happened that, like most good evangelical Christians, our family was scheduled to attend the annual Good Friday service that very evening. So, off to church we went.

I sat through the service and dreaded the coming altar call because I knew exactly what was going to happen. Sure enough, the pianist had barely begun playing the prayer chorus when my mother ambled over to where I was sitting with some friends and insisted that I accompany her to the altar. There, of course, I was compelled to repent of my sin, renounce my filthy habit and ask Jesus to forgive me. I mouthed the requisite syllables as tears of rage flowed down my cheeks.

I was enraged at being compelled to say a prayer that I did not mean and thereby label myself as a hypocrite. You see, when I was fourteen I was in what I now regard as a state of rebellious disobedience of God. I believed in God but had absolutely no desire to follow, obey, love or worship him. Therefore, my prayer was utterly insincere and, as I understood the matter then, both he and I knew I hadn’t meant a word of it. I believed that uttering an insincere prayer while in a state of believer’s rebellion was the height of hypocrisy.

Fast forward to late 2007-early 2008. The deacon and I had read stories of newly minted nonbelievers (sometimes called deconverts, a term the deacon despises) who had endured uncomfortable situations over the holidays when they were asked to say the blessing over a meal. We had also read some accounts of atheists who refused to pray with others who were ill or otherwise hurting simply to comfort them. Naturally, we had a conversation about these dilemmas before drifting off to sleep one night. As we spoke, I reached what was, to me, a startling conclusion: in some situations, if I’m asked to pray over a meal, or to say a prayer at someone’s hospital bed or some other circumstance in which prayers are perfunctory rituals, I’ll likely just go ahead and do it. I won’t offer to do it, but, if asked, I may not automatically refuse either, although I’d prefer not to do it. The reason is this:

Unlike my fourteen-year-old self who believed that her insincere prayer had gravely offended a god, my adult, atheistic self recognizes that all prayers are meaningless mumblings that simply drift away into thin air. They don’t harm or offend anyone of either the mortal or deistic kind. Therefore, my primary reasons for offering prayers of any sort would be to a) ease the discomfort of another who would regard the prayer as an act of kindness, or b) fulfill a ritual that, while meaningless to me, is important to someone in my presence. My disbelief will not render my prayers any less effective in procuring divine intervention than the prayers of believers; all of our prayers will go unheeded and unanswered. On the other hand, if someone is ill and will be comforted by a few words uttered at the bedside, my prayer may provide psychological and emotional comfort to that person. My primary purpose in visiting, after all, should be to support and comfort the one who is ill in any way possible.

And yet …. there are two reasons why I’m not entirely comfortable with this position, and hope that it will be a transitional stance that I will one day discard completely. First, I’d rather not say or do anything that will strengthen someone’s faith in a non-existent deity. Second, I’d rather not give others reason to suppose that I share their belief in said non-existent deity. I realize that, in acceding to their requests to pray with them, I will be doing both of those things. I don’t like this, but I can’t just abruptly sever ties that have accumulated over a lifetime, and, in many cases, over generations. Moreover, hospital rooms, family reunions, church pot lucks and other such settings are not good venues for launching into detailed explications of one’s rejection of religion.

Renouncing faith is an extraordinarily messy business. The intellectual break from faith, which many (including me) experience as disorienting and traumatic, is only a small part of a larger process. It is, in many ways, the easiest part. The social break from faith and faith bodies is much more difficult to achieve. It will happen for me. The deacon and I will gradually break away from our current obligations and have, in fact, already begun doing so. Eventually, most of our existing social and religious connections will be substantially weakened or totally dissolved. When that happens, we will be able to profess our unbelief more openly than we can now. Until then, I will live, somewhat uncomfortably (and yes, somewhat hypocritically and dishonestly), with my current atheology of the meaningless drivel called prayer.

– the chaplain

C.L. Hanson recently posted an interesting list of queries that drew people to her blog. Apparently, many people are curious about Mormon sexuality. I wonder if the mysterious underwear adds to the mystique? Strangely enough, when I reviewed the search terms that had brought people to my blog over the past seven days, I discovered that many people seem to be curious about, or perhaps fixated on, stripping and sex, in that order. Check out searches that brought some of you here, to my humble little chapel:

Strip Shows

• stripping shows
• Las Vegas strip shows
• Spanish strip show
• female strip shows
• females stripping for groups of men
• stripper men live show
• a true male stripper
• man strip photo
• male strip for couples
• strippers for couples
• seeing strippers strip
• commanding strip

Sex

• Chippendale’s Sexually Frustrated Women
• Sex with Nuns
• Prim and Proper Wife Slut
• Friendly Family Fucking

What is a simple chaplain to make of such odd queries? The first thing I have to say about the strip show list is that I am not an expert on this subject. Is there any difference between a Spanish strip show and a Las Vegas strip show? I don’t know. If you know, enlighten me with a succinct comment. Second, I don’t have any photos of male strippers to post. And even if I did, what makes you think I’d share the goods? The final thing I have to say is that commanding strip sounds like something that’s way out of my league. Sorry - S&M just isn’t my thing.

With regard to the second list, I don’t know whether Chippendale’s audiences are sexually frustrated. Do you? As far as sex with nuns, I’ve never been Catholic and am not homosexual, so I’ve never had that experience nor even fantasized about it. The prim and proper wife slut search strikes me as an example of demonizing female sexuality. It implies that a woman cannot be prim and proper and also enjoy sex; that a woman who enjoys sex must be a slut. I feel sorry for the woman who is intimate with anyone with such primitive attitudes about her and about sex. If you’re the searcher who initiated that search, you need to grow up. If you’re the partner of that searcher, you need to find yourself a lover instead of a mere sex partner. Moreover, you should do it now. Run, don’t walk, away from that relationship.

And finally, Friendly Family Fucking. Are you serious? You, dear searcher, are either a refugee from the YFZ Ranch or a very sick puppy. So, why am I the one who feels slimy after merely reading that phrase? BLECH!

As for the rest of you, most of whom I presume are not sick puppies, I want to thank you for searching, finding, and hopefully reading, this blog. The Saturday session of Searching for Something is now open for comments.

– the chaplain