defaithed's blog

Japan is not only one of the more atheist nations out there, it even has separation of church and state embedded in its Constitution in the clearest terms possible:

No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority. No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice. The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.

Alas, there is an exception to this common-sense business of keeping religion and government separate. In Japan, as in much of the world, an organization can receive all the benefits of government and the public sector, without paying its share of those services through taxes, by invoking the name of some god or gods. This applies not only to the country's large Buddhist and Shinto sects, plus the smaller sects of well-known religions such as Christianity, but also to the so-called shin-shuukyou – the "new religions". (It's a nice word for what many people would call "cults".) The thousands of such "new religions" range from scholarly Buddhist offshoots to scary apocalyptic sects to wackos with "descendants of Israelite tribe" delusions. But big faiths or small, they all share one thing in common: they call themselves religions, and thus from 1951 have been exempt from paying taxes on their profitable activities.

And profit they do. Sects in Japan charge princely sums for religious services and fake cures. They engage in general business activities as well, as noted recently in a Japan Times overview of Japanese weeklies' reports on religion:

..."side businesses" operated by large religious groups, which are said to include schools, hospitals, cemeteries, golf courses and — bless their hearts — love hotels. A sidebar item mentions the "black market" for purchasing a "dormant religious group" (i.e., one still recognized by the government although not engaged in any activities), the going rate for which is said to be ¥100 million.

Hmm, that latter item sounds crazily like some modern-day reverse indulgence relieving a business of tax obligations. If the state grants religion special powers to make money, then of course religions will be bought and sold like any other resource. It makes absolute sense from a business perspective.

What's at question, though, is whether it makes sense for society. The New York Times recently offered opposing voices on tax breaks for churches, while Paying for the Delusion paints a harsh picture of government complicity in Japan and elsewhere in the money-making schemes of religions. Without question, religious organizations can and do perform some good works, including collections of donations for victims of Japan's huge earthquake last year. But any income given away as charity or otherwise put to use in public service could easily be marked as not subject to taxation, in the same manner as legitimate business expenses. For what possible reason do governments give religions special dispensation where flat-out profits are concerned?

Fortunately, there are faint signs of authorities recognizing the problem. In Korea, a high-ranking government official recently opined that religions should pay taxes the same as anyone else. And the Japan Times article noted above quotes Japanese weeklies as suggesting that one political kingmaker would like to see religions lose tax-exempt status in Japan.

Not to be outdone, Shukan Post (May 4-11) ran a series of six articles totaling 17 pages under the headline, "A complete dissection: Japan's religions' 'money' and 'power.' " One of the articles suggests that political bigwig Ichiro Ozawa might be inclined to use his influence to push for elimination of religious groups' tax-exempt status, a move that could add as much as ¥4 trillion to the government's coffers annually. 

It's not much of a statement, nor is there at present a major public debate going on – but it's hopeful to think that Japan, where religion for most people is more a matter of following traditional customs than imposing beliefs on others, could set a fantastic precedent by following its own Constitution and removing religion's favored monetary status.

Actually, Japan has revoked a religious sect's tax-exempt status in recent times. From its tiny start in 1984, the cult Aum Shinrikyo (still doing business as Aleph) was able to grow to thousands of members in just a decade, thanks in part to its exemption from taxes. That taxpayer support let the cult amass money, businesses, and assets – which included drugs, explosives, biological weapons, AK47 assault rifles, a military helicopter, and equipment to manufacture sarin and VX nerve gas. Weapons that were turned against unwitting taxpayers on the Tokyo subway system. It took Japan's worst terrorism incident (as well a nerve gas attack against civilians the year earlier, among other murders) before the Japanese government disbanded Aum and took away its tax-exempt status in 1995. 

Let's be clear: few religions pose the horrific danger of Aum (many genuinely do some good work!), and there's no reason to try tainting all religions with Aum's deadly brush. But the valid question remains: Is there a reason for government to grant any religion a special money-making license? Any reason at all?

Jehovah's Witnesses, the people of my ex-religion, need to do a better job of getting their dogma understood by the public. For all the sect's doorstep proselytizing, folks always get the JWs' beliefs wrong.

I have no intent to defend any JW beliefs – they're as goofy as the dogma of any other faith – but I don't mind making corrections so critics at least address actual beliefs. In that spirit, I offer two corrections:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses are not anti-medicine!

On the May 1 episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Jon and guest David Barton discuss religion-related issues such as conflicts involving employers' beliefs. (Tangent: PZ Myers had much to say about the interview overall.) The discussion doesn't focus on any sect in particular, but JWs do pop up as an example of an employer objecting to the provision of employee health insurance on anti-medicine religious grounds.

Nope. Wrong sect.

Facts on Jehovah's Witnesses and medicine:

• Jehovah's Witness doctrine prohibits blood transfusions (or other intake of blood, such as ingestion).
• With the above exception, Jehovah's Witnesses are perfectly fine with modern medicine.

The blood transfusion proscription is a horribly harmful commandment. It's bad enough when adults choose to die in the name of religion, but JW children have died after being denied needed transfusions. The dogma is also founded on the most ridiculous of Biblical interpretations: the Watchtower Society insists that, somehow, maintaining the sacredness of a supposed symbol of life is more important than maintaining life itself!

But setting aside that rant (as well as the minutae of what is and isn't acceptable with regard to transfusions, and the history behind the dogma; start with the Wikipedia entry if interested), I only want to note here that there's no JW restriction against other standard medical practices. Pills, injections, X-rays, chemo, surgery (if transfusion-free!), therapies of all sorts, health insurance, whatever; it's all OK. (I should note that JWs would likely shun some woo alternative practices, like faith healing, as associated with "spiritualism" or "the occult" – a rare case in which religious dogma works out for the better!)

Apparently, people confuse JWs with Christian Scientists or other faiths that do eschew medicine in favor of "the power of prayer". In actuality, a JW with pnemonia probably will pray a lot – but will also toss back the prescribed antibiotics without hesitation.

Delving a bit into tangent: Like a number of sects, JWs do prohibit illegal drugs and harmful substances like tobacco. But although you may hear otherwise, they have no prohibition against caffeine or even alcohol. Drunkenness is a no-no; alcohol itself is not. (Which is sensible enough, theologically; Jesus himself not only drank wine, he allegedly made it.)

2. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in hell!

A recent episode of The Atheist Experience podcast also misrepresented a JW belief in passing. (Sorry, I was in transit and didn't note the episode number or the hosts.) During what I semi-recall was a discussion of how religious believers see other faiths, a host briefly mentioned that Jehovah's Witnesses would view the holders of other beliefs as bound for hell.

That's incorrect.

Facts on Jehovah's Witnesses, hell, and the afterlife:

• Jehovah's Witnesses reject the doctrine of literal hell.
• Surprise: Jehovah's Witnesses reject the doctrine of an immortal soul!

A number of Christian sects, including Jehovah's Witnesses, equate Biblical suggestions of "hell" with simply "death". But for the JWs, the rejection of eternal torment is part of a broader belief that's definitely outside the Christian mainstream: lack of a belief in an immortal soul.

That's right: According to JW doctrine on the afterlife, when a person dies – you, me, devout JW, it doesn't matter – that person is just dead. (One minor exception: a scant 144,000 selected persons who do go to heaven to serve with Jesus. We can set them aside for now.) After death, there's no wafting up to the Pearly Gates, no descent into fire and brimstone, no afterlife at all; the soul dies and ceases to exist. (Replace that religious word "soul" with "consciousness", and you'd have a downright atheistic-sounding claim!)

But wait – it's not quite all over for poor Grandma. The JWs believe that once Armageddon comes and goes, the deceased will be brought back to life during Christ's thousand-year reign. They'll have their dead bodies and dead souls recreated by Jehovah and his Godlike powers of super-memory, and will gain a final chance at judgment. Those that fail the test go back to being dead – this time, forever. (And again, it's dead dead; they don't go to heaven, and hell doesn't exist.) Those that pass judgment win the best reward package in the religion industry.

Don't take my and Wikipedia's word for it. Head to the JWs' own listing of beliefs; in the table at the bottom, you'll see links to their scriptural justifications for "The human soul ceases to exist at death", "Hell is mankind's common grave", and "Hope for [the] dead is resurrection". 

So there you have it. It's interesting: blood transfusions, door-knocking, and shying away from Christmas are what people most associate with Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet the sect's biggest theological eye-opener – no immortal soul! – seems widely unrecognized.

Did I get that right?

It's been a long time since I last set foot in a Kingdom Hall. In my attempt to correct others, I hope I'm not creating new errors. If a practicing JW (or anyone) sees a mistake in the above, let me know. 

(Via comment, that is. Please don't ring my doorbell on Saturday morning...)

A number of websites note that the US White House is taking nominations for the 2012 Presidential Citizens Medal – and readers have been quick to respond with an awesome choice: Jessica Ahlquist, young defender of the American way, who successfully sued to have a Constitution-violating religious display removed from her public high school.

I nominated Jessica via the online form; how about you? From a citizen's action perspective, she demonstrated how an individual, even a young person, can step up and work within the system to uphold the Constitution. From a humanist perspective, she boldly made it known that we're not going let religious violations of the law go unchallenged – and that the courts on our side.

There's not much time for nominations (until the 24th); why not nominate Jessica now? From a great comment on The Atheist Experience blog, I gleaned this required info:

Name: Jessica Ahlquist
Location: Cranston, Rhode Island
Age: 16 or 17

For the interested, here's what I input in response to the two questions asked. Please don't use the same text! I'm sure there are aspects of the case I should have emphasized more, such as Jessica's bravery in facing down nasty threats from lesser members of her community; let the President know exactly why this young lady deserves the honor!

Explain why your nominee should receive the Citizens Medal based on the criteria outlined here:

Although a high school student, Ms Ahlquist took it upon herself to defend the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution and challenge a religious banner displayed in a public school. She did so with no rancor or animosity toward proponents of the display, but rather a respectful desire to see the Constitution upheld and American citizens' freedoms respected.

In January of this year, a US District Court ruled in her favor in the case Ahlquist v. Cranston, with the Judge commenting that Ms Ahlquist "is clearly an articulate and courageous young woman, who took a brave stand, particularly in light of the hostile response she has received". Inspired by her action, Americans – and the world – are applauding this example of a single concerned citizen successfully championing a key principle of American democracy.

Describe the impact that your nominee’s service has had on individuals and/or communities:

Ms Ahlquist stood up for one of the most noteworthy protections of liberty asserted by the Founding Fathers and creators of the Constitution: separation of church and state. By doing so, she reaffirmed not only the rights of minority religious faiths and non-believers with respect to religion, but also the rights of public school students to education without pressure from a state-favored religion, and the freedom of all religions from government interference. The ruling will undoubtedly influence future cases, reaffirming the Establishment Clause as a protector of individual rights and of religious freedom.

Just as importantly, Ms Ahlquist bravely demonstrated to the nation – especially to young people – that the Constitution exists for the protection of all, that the nation's justice system will act upon the voices of citizens to correct violations of the Constitution, and that even one person can bring about meaningful change in the community and across the country.

Now go send the Prez a nominee, whomever that may be!

Hey, I've got a new prediction up on Prediction Watch. Seems that a tiny French village is about to be overrun with New Age-y types heading for a reported "upside down" mountain that's a "major chakra of the Earth" bursting with "special magnetic waves"! They'll be a-climbin' it – some nekkid, I hear! – in preparation for an alien space ark-aided exodus from apocalypse on December 21 of this very year!

Minor disappointment: Looks like this prediction falls under the tired heading of Mayan Calendar panic. But it's nice to see such a detailed look at the silliness, with naked chakra people and a solid date and all that. So circle your calendar and huddle fearfully in bed come December. Or shuck your duds and lace up your climbing boots. It's all good.

I've cleaned up Prediction Watch a tad, placing the up-and-coming events first (they're more fun!) and the fizzled predictions underneath. I've also reordered the latter category to show the latest failures first. Take a look and bone up on what the mystics have in store for the fate of the Earth (or just the dire fate of science, per many of the prognostications).

I'd like to get more predictions in there too. Speaking of which, here's a really nifty infographic of failed predictions, some of which I'll have to incorporate after checking details. Read it and weep! (Or read it and sleep. Soundly. The cataclysms just keep on not happening.)

US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, trying to appeal to as many people as he can, is loathe to talk directly about his Mormon faith.

Fortunately for us, he has a cousin more willing to speak up about what he calls a "cult". Park Romney was no casual church member, either; he was a former high priest, now turned against the Church and telling an insider's story:

There's compelling evidence that the Mormon Church leaders knowingly and willfully misrepresent the historical truth of their origins and of the Church for the purpose of deceiving their members into a state of mind that renders them exploitable.

That's not different in tone from what any number of outspoken ex-Mormons have to say, but Park Romney's family connection guarantees him a very public podium this year. Head to the article and enjoy!

(EDIT 2012.03.24: Added a third recent link to recent online articles, to the original two links.)

Don't ever let anyone feed you that greatest lie of the religious: "But our morality comes from God!"

Anyone reading this page is likely well aware of the litany of horrors visited on men, women, and children in the name of God, or by God himself, in the Bible. (No, things aren't any better in the books of the other Abrahamic faiths, either.) Nothing new to report here. I just wanted to draw attention to three recent posts highlighting the sick immorality of the Christian God:

God is NOT pro-life on Newsvine.com

Does Morality Come From God? from Debunking Christianity

15 Bible Texts Reveal Why “God’s Own Party” is at War with Women from exchristian.net

Human sacrifice. Genocide. Armed slaughter of whole cities, followed by the mass rape of captive women. The gruesome butchering of children and fetuses, again and again. These are not the Bible's reports of depraved acts committed by imperfect mankind while God and Jesus look on weeping; these are the vile acts commanded by or directly committed by the Christian God. 

If you can stomach more along those lines, I earlier offered the following tally of the ways in which God "so loved the world":

John 3:16: The expanded version

And, of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out these online catalogs of Biblical depravity:

Cruelty and Violence in the Bible from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible

EvilBible.com

These are excellent resources for countering any and all claims of wonderful "Biblical morality". What's truly sad, though, is that there are so many heinous murdering, bloodthirsty, woman-hating, slavery-loving acts committed by the Christian God that no normal person could memorize them all.

Perhaps a good goal for anyone wishing to see society live by actual morality would be this: Commit a good 10 instances of God's wickedness to memory, complete with scriptural reference. That should give pause to all but the most loudly-screeching of Biblical "moralists".

I think that's just what I'll do: list my "Worst 10" examples of the Bible's sick "morality", and make the effort to memorize those. Stay tuned for the list. While I get started, feel free to make suggestions. What do you think are the most heinous examples of the Bible's sick "morality"?

I'm happy whenever I can add a juicy news headline to Signs of the End, an uplifting list heralding the waning of religion's power.

Sadly, the major religion most successfully bucking this trend is the one that also strives to best its fellow faiths in sheer obnoxiousness: Islam.

How and why Islam would spread among Europeans, who in recent years have made such outstanding advances in kicking Christianity to the curb, is a true mystery to me. What possible attraction does this woman-hating, obedience-demanding, free speech-suppressing, science-killing "faith" hold for the people of modern, affluent societies? Well, here's the word from one European celebrity, actor Liam Neeson, casting a favorable eye upon the teachings of The Prophet:

The [Islamic] call to prayer happens five times a day, and for the first week, it drives you crazy, and then it just gets into your spirit, and it's the most beautiful, beautiful thing. There are 4,000 mosques in the city. Some are just stunning, and it really makes me think about becoming a Muslim.

There you have it: Islam is attractive because mosques and prayer are beautiful. The latter part of which, I agree, is true. Mosques (and churches and temples) can be gorgeous. And while prayer rituals don't hold an equal appeal for me, I don't deny that they tap into powerful human emotions.

I certainly won't assume that a publication's short quote represents Neeson's full reasons for hankering after Islam. He may have deeper reasons, and that's his own business. (The same goes for hundreds of thousands of other Europeans convering to Islam; see the linked article for some sobering numbers.) I only wonder, though, whether Neeson's and many converts' considerations include the following: Is Islam true?

Yes, mosques and the prayer ritual have beauty. Yes, some aspects of the Muslim faith may be commendable, such as alms for the poor and other aspects of community (and here I'll bite my tongue over other, decidedly deplorable aspects). But does that make Islam's claims about a supernatural God, and that God's chosen Prophet, factually correct?

I wonder how many of the converts, understandably impressed by the artistry of mosques, really deep-down care whether the claims of their new faith are true. The same goes for other religions too, of course, and for lifelong adherents as well as new converts. While few of the religious will outright admit it, many people choose their beliefs for reasons such as comfort or community alone, and genuinely don't care whether the beliefs are true. 

As a rationalist and atheist, that perspective has become so alien to me I sometimes lose sight of it. The words of converts and potential converts, like Neeson's quote above, provide a reminder that truth isn't necessarily the primary consideration of believers – or even one at all.

As an atheist with antennae tuned to unfounded claims about religion, and as a resident of "the East" sensitive to silly claims about "Western thought" and "Eastern thought", I had to reply to the following email letter received by The Atheist Experience from a visitor to their Facebook page. I'm humbly taking the liberty of reposting the letter here:

Don’t know if you guys know much about Eastern thought. Here is what I posted about your show on Facebook:

An interesting discussion. The two hosts are quite reasonable and logical. However, they assume Western ways of looking at religion and epistemology. For instance, the lady basically says, “Well, if there is a God, what sort of thing is this God, what category does it belong to?” But in the Orient, God is not seen as a thing belonging in a category, but universal awareness, underlying your and my awareness, and prior to all categories. Awareness can not see itself and put itself in an observed category and analyze itself.

The fellow on the other hand says “What evidence do you have for the existence of God?” But he sees this evidence as consisting of abstract facts. An enlightened oriental would say “Your question of how I know I am enlightened is like asking me to doubt that my hand I hold in front of me is mine.My knowledge is direct, not abstract or logical.” He has directly and experientially transcended the idea that awareness is limited to a supposed separate self.

Thanks for your consideration.

The Atheist Experience posted a short and nicely to-the-point reply; please give it a read (and if you're not regularly watching or listening to their show, start doing so immediately!). For the record, here's the reply I left on the comments, addressed to the good folks at The Atheist Experience:

Atheist Experience,

What a clueless letter you received. Its author is simply playing the “deepities” card: “Oh, you’re just not grasping the profoundness of my pet beliefs.”

More concretely, the doofus is engaging in the old “but that’s not my concept of God” sleight-of-tongue. It’s a demand that the skeptic somehow address every conceivable concept of God-blather in any response; otherwise, the believer will just skip to some other concept and shout “This is my God over here; you’re attacking a straw man over there.” However, I’ve been listening to The Atheist Experience for years, and am confident that if you good folks “assume Western ways of looking at religion and epistemology” in some discussion, it’s because you’re responding to specific claims that fall under that heading. The writer should not expect you to do otherwise.

More humorous is the sheer cheesiness of the letter. The writer comes across as having picked up his knowledge of “Eastern thought” from comic books or Hollywood. I’ve lived the majority of my life in “the Orient”, and can assure you that there is no blanket “Eastern thought” or universal “Eastern ways of looking at religion and epistemology” or singular “Oriental” view of God(s). Each of these comes in the vast multiplicity of forms that you would expect from literally billions of individuals. (I love the scripted response that the writer hands to “an enlightened Oriental”. That label is just precious!)

But while I would have rambled on about the above points in a response, you nail the most important point. The God concept that the writer presents may have been tangential to whatever claims you folks were addressing, but now that s/he’s brought up that concept, which I’m sure does exist in some form among many people, it can be addressed. Whether those people are many or few, and whether the concept is “Eastern” or “Western”, is irrelevant. What matters is precisely what you replied: Why would anyone believe this God concept?

“God is not a thing belonging in a category, but universal awareness, underlying your and my awareness, and prior to all categories.” All right. It sure has that “enlightened” deepity ring to it, but is it true? Alas, the writer is silent on that. Perhaps s/he’s out requesting clarification from “an enlightened Oriental”.

And that's that. Believers, saying "it's Eastern, so it's all on a deeper plane and you just don't get it" is no better than the common "um, quantum physics, and therefore magic healing crystals". True, one unfamiliar with some particular school of philosophy needs to tread carefully (and probably needs to learn much) before meaningfully critiqueing it – but nothing gets to escape the simple, universal criticism of "so where's the evidence for that?".

Seriously, that one trumps everything.

Have you heard the scary tale of the Jewish carpenter zombie?

Probably so; restating the supernatural bits of religion, even the "glorious" bits, in terms of crude pulp fiction is a common way to have fun when mocking belief.

I saw one such rewording today, when following some non-memorable chain of links brought me to The 7 Most Ridiculous Ghost Stories from Around the World on Cracked.com (a site I normally avoid due to its magical powers to destroy productive time...). I liked one comment by reader CraigFinlay:

I heard a ghost story once about a carpenter who was executed and rose from the dead 3 days later and if you don't telepathically accept him as your master he'll send you to burn in the underworld for all eternity because a rib woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating magic fruit a very long time ago. Why isn't that on this list?

Heh. Worth committing to memory.

(For a few more scary stories from Christianity, try these posts:)

The Vatican's Express Exorcist

Exorcism is a crime

Christ the King (of monsters)

"Arguing on the Internet is..."

Fill in the blank yourself with the punchline from any number of witticisms. They all equate to the same thing: "Arguing on the Internet is dumb." It's a waste of time, I know, especially responding to anonymous commenters... but once in a while, you just can't help but let fly.

Somehow I came across a story about a 12-year-old girl in Ethiopia beaten by men trying to abduct her for a forced "marriage". It seems that just as things looked the worst, three lions came along, scared off the men, and left the girl with no further harm. Wow!

An amazing tale? You bet! An open invitation to religious puffery by believers? Er, what else would you expect from people who see miracles imprinted on toast? It's no surprise that some goober commented thusly:

I am a Christian and I understand (and am OVERWHELMED at) this GIFT that GOD sent when HE had these lions come to protect this child. Angels can take any form...and then they just "disappeared into the wild"? THREE lions (as in The FATHER, The SON and The HOLY GHOST)!!?? Be THANKFUL that we have such a FATHER and GOD looking out for us!!

Well. Apparently bored and irritable, I responded: 

I am a Reasonable Human and I understand (and am OVERWHELMED at) this UNUSUAL EVENT in which NO GOD displayed evidence of intervention when HE OR SHE OR THEY failed to keep the girl out of this danger in the first place, and failed to punish the perpetrators of the hideous custom of bride kidnapping, and failed to perform any miraculous action on behalf of any children anywhere in the world, such as by clearing even one pediatric cancer ward of its patients (well, other than by letting them all die in agony, per the apparent default divine plan). Leprechauns can take any form… and then they just "disappeared into the wild"? THREE lions (as in CURLY, LARRY, and MOE)!!?? Be THANKFUL that sometimes creatures will act unpredictably, rather than outright killing children as lions and cobras and dogs and tuberculosis bacteria do too often in the utter absence of a FATHER and GOD looking out for us!

There! That'll raise hackles once it appears... which it hasn't yet, because... oops, the story is from 2005. Did not see that.

Chagrined, allow me to revisit my opener:

"Arguing on the Internet and doing so several years too late is really..."