Apparently basic logic is too difficult for Billo

Bill O’Reilly doesn’t believe that the Norway shooter Breivik is a Christian:

On Monday night’s show, O’Reilly was outraged that The New York Times described Breivik as a “Christian extremist” in a page-one headline, declaring that being an “anti-Muslim bigot” is what drove him, “not Jesus, not being baptized.” O’Reilly went on to assert that this was part of “a movement in the American media to diminish and marginalize the Christian philosophy.” Later in the show, O’Reilly said the Times’ headline was done to “give jihadists quarter or something like that, diminish the threat of them,” asserting that “the liberal media is so protective of extreme Islam, when it hates the left. … At The New York Times, they would all be hung.”

This one really shouldn’t be that hard. Just admit that Breivik is a self-identified Christian, but qualify that acknowledgement of the truth with the observation that he does not represent mainstream Christianity. I mean, in terms of in-group mentality he does, but in terms of action, no, he certainly does not. That should be good enough. No one is going to start thinking that, oh, I guess all Christians like to kill innocent people.

But no. O’Reilly can’t be that honest. He has to pretend that Breivik was somehow not motivated by his faith because labeling him both a Christian and an extremist would make him seem like all those icky brown towel wearing people. And I can understand O’Reilly’s motivations here. Many Americans, including Papa Bear himself, do look at Muslims with an unjustified eye of suspicion. They do this because of the publicity given to a few of their acts, not to mention the simple fact that they represent an out-group. Most Americans are Christians, and all religions encourage a negative view of anyone who is different. So yeah, it makes sense for O’Reilly to hold the view he does. It isn’t honest, but it makes sense.

O’Reilly continued his obsession on Tuesday’s show during a segment with The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn. As Quinn pointed out that Breivik called himself a Christian, invoked the name of Jesus and discussed the nature of his faith, O’Reilly insisted that “there’s no evidence that ties this guy to Christianity,” dismissing Breivik’s self-description by claiming that “Mussolini called himself a Christian.”

Uh-huh. There’s no evidence. Except for that evidence.

But O’Reilly wasn’t done. He went on to invoke the “No True Scotsman” fallacy (as others have), essentially claiming that Breivik couldn’t be a Christian because “they’re nonviolent.” When Quinn noted that most Muslims would not consider accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan a Muslim, O’Reilly objected: “I’m not saying he was a good Muslim. I’m saying that he was a Muslim terrorist because he carried a business card that said ‘Soldier of Allah,’ and he committed his crimes in the name of Allah.” He added, “The guy in Fort Hood, he was acting in the name of his religion. He killed because he believed that Allah told him to kill. The guy in Norway didn’t kill because he thinks Jesus wanted him to kill those people. Jesus had nothing to do with it. He wasn’t even cited. And using the word ‘Christian’ to label this guy is dishonest.”

Right, Billo, it’s everyone else who is being dishonest here. Everyone else is taking these two exact same situations – violent acts of highly-publicized murder motivated by a heap of crazy and a dash of religion – and twisting them around. Why can’t everyone see how dissimilar they are?!

This is as bad as all those dishonest Christians who claim Hitler believed in evolution. We know he was a Christian creationist who was raised Catholic and constantly professed a belief in Jesus and God. That doesn’t particularly indict Christianity. We have plenty of other things that do the trick. For example, blatant dishonesty.

Club 27

I know “Club 27” is a popular concept amongst music fans. It’s basically a reference to the really big, important artists out there who have died at age 27: Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and Kurt Cobain. There are others, but those are the most notable. (Kurt Cobain was even been reported as talking about his desire to join the club a year or so before he actually did.)

But come on. Amy Winehouse, no matter what one thinks of her music, has not had the impact of any of those other musicians. Each one was integral to the advance of music, and a lack of mention of any one of them in a talk about the history of music is a mistake. That is not the case with Winehouse. She’s technically a member of the club because she was 27, but she does not meet the point of the meme “Club 27”: impact.

“A Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections”

That’s a phrase that nary an American official would use to describe a terrorist:

The Norwegian police on Saturday charged a 32-year-old man, whom they identified as a Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections, over the bombing of a government center here and a shooting attack on a nearby island that together left at least 91 people dead.

The police said they did not know if the man, identified in the Norwegian press as Anders Behring Breivik, was part of a larger conspiracy. He is being questioned under the country’s terrorism laws and is cooperating with the investigation, they said.

“We are not sure whether he was alone or had help,” a police official, Roger Andresen, said at a televised press conference, adding: “What we know is that he is right-wing and a Christian fundamentalist.” So far Mr. Breivik has not been linked to any anti-jihadist groups, he said.

I’m not interested in holding up this scenario as an example of what religion can do. Unless Breivik is part of a larger Christian fundamentalist group, this is more or less an isolated incident. But it is interesting that Norwegian officials are so willing to describe this guy the way they have. It would be a rare official in America who was willing to throw out “Christian fundamentalist” when describing such a violent act – especially one that is being investigated under anti-terrorism laws.

Creationists cave to science

Recognizing that they don’t have the facts on their side, the creationist members of the Texas State Board of Education gave in to science:

The Texas State Board of Education delivered a blow to social conservatives Friday, giving final approval to supplemental high school science materials after a brief flare-up over some lessons teaching the principles of evolution.

The lessons in question included a lab comparison on chimpanzee and human skulls, the fossil record and cell complexity.

A board-appointed reviewer had called the lessons errors and recommended changes, but a group of scientists objected on Friday, threatening to re-ignite a fierce debate over teaching evolution in Texas public schools.

There was some worry amongst those who understand and favor science that the recent appointment of Barbara Cargill spelled trouble for the teaching of biology. She “questions” evolution (which is code meaning she doesn’t understand it), so it was thought she might start a whole new round of creationist canards and bullshit in an effort to undermine a proper science education. That fortunately has not happened. I find this pleasing, especially considering just how frequently I will be sitting in one of my bio courses, learning something which only makes sense in the light of evolution. Anyone who denies the theory simply does not understand – nor desires to understand – biology.

So a tentative bravo to the Texas State Board of Education. Here’s hoping to see more votes for science.

California to teach gay history

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill requiring California to teach gay history to its students:

“History should be honest,” Brown, a Democrat serving his second stint as California governor, said in a written statement released by his office.

The measure won final passage from the state legislature earlier this month when it passed on a 49-25 party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

“This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books,” Brown said. “It represents an important step forward for our state.

The law also requires that public schools teach the contributions of Pacific Islanders and the disabled.

California already mandates that schools include historical accomplishments by Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans and European Americans.

Of course, probably everyone who voted for it did so out of as much of an agenda as those who voted against it. One group wants to help minorities rise up while the other is fearful that their kids might catch gay. Or something like that. Either way, I don’t think those should be the biggest concerns here for either side. Instead, I think what matters is, is this good history? And will this distract from broader themes that ought to be basic knowledge for every American?

What I have often found in my work as well as general interaction with teenagers and kids is that there is a surprising level of ignorance about history. I don’t mean the sort of ignorance currently popular amongst the Bachmanns and Palins of the world. I mean the sort of ignorance that is indicative of a complete lack of familiarity with the subject. And this extends beyond anecdote. Polls of adults and tests of students show we don’t know as much as we should.

So the issue here, I think, is how much can we include in these lessons? I don’t think adding the accomplishments of Harvey Milk to the curriculum is going to take away from talking about bigger historical issues like Reconstruction or the Great Depression, but it is worth considering what is worthy of required inclusion. As interesting as so many historical issues may be, the fact is there is a time limit to these lessons and priorities need to be set. I do support this law, but I do so with some caution.

Horror story for the day

Shudder:

A Southern California woman was in jail Wednesday after allegedly drugging her husband, cutting off his penis, throwing it into the garbage disposal and turning it on, Orange County police said.

Catherine Kieu Becker put a drug or poison in her husband’s dinner Monday evening to make him sleepy, according to the initial police investigation.

China’s Jiaozhou Bay Bridge

I’ve always appreciated what goes into bridge design and bridge building. That’s why when I saw that China had completed the world’s longest bridge (26 miles), I just had to post it.

Civil unions in Rhode Island

The governor of Rhode Island intends on signing a just passed civil union bill into law:

State senators voted 21-16 to endorse the bill, about two hours after it was voted out of committee. The legislation, which already has passed the state House, allows gay couples to enter into civil unions that offer the same rights and benefits given to married couples under Rhode Island law.

It is now headed to Chafee’s desk for his signature. Ahead of the vote, the independent governor called the legislation an “incremental step” toward allowing gay marriage, which he supports.

It is true this is an incremental step. There will come a day down the road when all 50 states protect equality in marriage and we’ll all be able to point to the times today as being instrumental in achieving that goal. But we’ll also be able to point to these days as a time when ‘separate but equal’ arguments were allowed to exist once again. I think future generations will understand, but they will also ultimately be disappointed that there was ever such a struggle.

The rejection of science and confusion of morality amongst Evangelical Christians

Pew has put out a new survey in which it asks Evangelical Christians what they believe about life:

First, and probably of no surprise to anyone, is the result of the question regarding acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution. The survey posed the question:

Which statement comes closest to your own views?” – the options being:

1. Humans and other living things have evolved over time due to natural processes such as natural selection.
2. A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.
3. Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

In other words the choices are evolution, intelligent design of the Michael Behe variety, and standard creationism. It is important to note that the Pew foundation used a wording for the evolution option that, unlike some previous surveys, doesn’t specifically exclude a role for God: for instance, someone who believes that God set up the laws of nature and that biological evolution is just one of the consequences of these laws should answer option A.

What proportion of evangelicals accept the scientific theory of evolution?

The answer is 3%

In addition to this confusion over the underlying foundation of all of biology, many Evangelical leaders don’t seem to be so sure of what their little cultural god is telling them:

“A majority (73%) of the leaders from the Global North consider alcohol consumption to be compatible with being a good evangelical Christian. By contrast, a similarly large majority of the leaders from the Global South (75%) say alcohol consumption is not compatible with being a good evangelical.”

And there really is no way to resolve the issue. The Bible, written and changed by men, is like any other piece of literature – all interpretations of it are subjective. These divides amongst Christians – even Christians of the same subgroup, no less – amply demonstrate that fact. Furthermore, even where something is straight-forward and hardly ambiguous, it is still interpreted by humans, under human constructs, and by the human brain. It can’t help but be subjective. And unlike, say, science, it doesn’t have any methods which can remedy these facts in a way that works.

What’s more, there appears to be a marked difference in views on how women should be treated.

“Among U.S. leaders, 44% agree women should stay at home, while 53% disagree. Leaders in Europe, however, reject the idea of women staying at home by a more than two-to-one margin, 69% to 28%.”

and

“European leaders (62%) and North American leaders (54%) are especially likely to reject the idea that a wife must always obey her husband. On the other hand, upwards of 60% of leaders from sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East-North Africa and the Asia-Pacific region agree that a wife must always obey her.

Even the “good” numbers (62% and 54% for the latter part) are awful.

I’m well aware that many fields today are dominated by men. That is often a legacy of past sexism as well as a problem of current, though undeniably reduced, sexism. It’s true of science, it’s true of atheism, it’s true of video games, and it’s true of so many other fields. But those areas don’t tend to attempt to perpetuate the worst of their legacies. That isn’t what we see with Evangelicals.

More liberal and/or more aware Christians have this habit of denying the nature of the fundamentalists within their religion. ‘Surely they aren’t as bad as everyone describes them, right?’ Wrong. This Pew survey pulls back the curtain and shows many of these people for what they are. And let’s not forget just how many people we’re talking about. Estimates of Evangelicals in the U.S. range from 25-30% of the population. That means, to put some of the results into real numbers, about 35 million people in the U.S. believe a woman should obey her husband. (And how many of those people ironically also describe themselves as libertarian, I wonder?) Only a few million of these people are willing to accept established and overwhelmingly evidenced science. And when we look at Evangelicals around the globe, they sometimes demonstrate a deep confusion over what their particular cultural god is telling them. (Yet how many claim that the Bible is objectively true or that they can objectively know something?) This all presents a very real challenge to the progress of the nation and the world at large. The delusions and confusions of faith-based thinking are holding back real knowledge and clarity of thinking, and that ought to make everyone nervous.

Dutch to Jews and Muslims: Stop abusing animals

I hope this becomes an enforceable law soon:

The Dutch parliament has passed a bill banning the slaughter of livestock without stunning it first, removing an exemption that has allowed Jews and Muslims to butcher animals according to their centuries-old dietary rules.

If enacted and enforced, religious groups say observant Jews and Muslims would have to import meat from abroad, stop eating it altogether, or leave the Netherlands.

When atheists and other reasonable people talk about the undeserved respect that religion gets, it is these sort of allowances we’re referencing. Why should Jews and Muslims, or any other religious group for that matter, be exempt from laws banning the mistreatment of animals? Because they think their acts are holy? Because they’ve been abusing animals for a long time? Has either group even bothered to give a rational reason?