Why does Christian Century hate Palestinians?

 First, the claim that it does hate Palestinians in general, and Palestinian Christians in particular, is a fair one, based on this open letter in Mondoweiss that the Christian Century refused to publish in response to an editorial there.

For secularists, non-Christians, and Christian laypeople who don't know the Christian literary world, Christian Century is not a fundamentalist or conservative evangelical magazine. It's also not a liberal evangelical outlet; in other words, it's not Sojourners.

What it is, is the voice of ecumenical mainline Protestantism. United Methodist Church. Presbyterian Church-USA. United Church of Christ. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Protestant Episcopal Church. In other words, churches whose denomination leaders, colleges and seminaries, and most pastors in the pulpit do NOT believe in a Rapture, do NOT believe that, contra Paul in Romans, "all Israel will be saved" before the Apocalypse, and have no religious reason to suck up to Israel at the expense of either a separate Palestinian state, or full Palestinian rights within a one-state solution.

The quote I reference, for the non-evangelical types? Romans 11, specifically, quoting 11:23-26a:

23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved.

No, liberal Protestants don't believe that as a literal event, just as they know that Paul was wrong about a Second Coming in his lifetime or soon thereafter.

Many of these people also have an inkling that, between members of their denominations and sister churches, Eastern and Roman rite Catholics and various churches of the Orthodox tradition, that 6-7 percent of all Palestinians, whether inside the boundaries of Israel and/or Palestine or not, are Christian. (Yasir Arafat's wife was.) They're persecuted by both Jews and Muslims, and so, Christian Century claiming that, to run such a letter would be interfering in Israeli internal affairs is bullshit.

It also gives credence to the claims of conservative and fundamentalist Christians, whether in explicitly fundamentalist denominations, conservative evangelical ones, or conservative fractions and denominations within mainline Protestantism, that liberal Protestantism doesn't stand for anything when it comes to actual Christianity. (Neither do a fair chunk of these people; they'll sacrifice Palestinian Christians to the cause of a red heifer and a third temple, but that's another thing.) That said, parenthesis aside, that's part of why I didn't "stop" at liberal Christianity after bailing out of the conservative wing of Lutheranism. (See my story, starting here, and for more relevant detail, part 4.)

Back to the details of the rejection.

That's wrong in several ways.

Israel has the right to exist in the Holy Land as a Jewish state.

First, it's behind the curve of liberal Zionists like Peter Beinart who have rejected the two-state solution, as have more and more liberal and leftist non-Zionists.

Second, it rightfully ignores that focusing on this issue becomes a convenient excuse to ignore what Israel has already done.

Third, per that link above, it ignores the religious-based persecution of Palestinian Christians.

The letter was signed by activist groups within a couple of those mainline denominations, and several interfaith groups.

The authors do credit the Century's editorial for moving the magazine's position a skoosh forward.

That said? It's shameful, religiously and otherwise, for the Century to have not published the response to its editorial.

Boo hoo for Catholic fundies crying over the Latin Mass

Per this AP piece, Francis the Talking Pope has reversed a papal action by Benedict XVI, aka Ratzi the Nazi, which had loosened the reins on the celebration of the Latin Mass.

First, Francis is right that it has been and is divisive. The reactions to his action show that; Tridentine Mass parishes, and even sub rosa ersatz bishoprics have become underground (or not so underground) centers of reaction to Francis' glasnost on divorced Catholics and other issues. The HATE in all-caps? It's on them, not on Francis.

Francis is also right that in many cases, it's a rallying ground against not so much him, but everything in the truncated (for many modern Catholics) reforms of Vatican 2:

For years, though, Francis has made known his distaste of the old liturgy, privately labeling its adherents self-referential naval-gazers who are out of touch with the needs of the church. He has cracked down on religious orders that celebrated the old Mass exclusively and frequently decried the “rigidity” of tradition-minded priests who prioritize rules over pastoral accompaniment.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Twitter reactions last week were hilarious.

One alleged former atheist said that the Latin Mass was an important part of his return to the faith. He probably forgot to capitalize The Faith.

As a good ex-Lutheran, I quote-Tweeted:

Per Martin Luther 500 years ago, if hearing a church service in a language I presume you do not understand, as with most Opus Dei-leaning Catholics fellating the Latin Mass, was an important part in your "reversion," that's kind of sad. https://t.co/Xuh5zrp8Iw

— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 16, 2021

It's true.

And, it is sad. Besides, having been to more than one Orthodox service, one can chant the liturgy in a modern language, have the faithful know the sung, not spoken responses, and go all out with the lessons in Greek, not Latin. And, if the Latin Mass is considered "beautiful," the Divine Service makes Catholics look like Baptists. 

In addition, the "original language" is Aramaic, not Greek and certainly not Latin, anyway.

Then, to others, I Tweeted:

Opus Dei-type Catholics boo-hooing over Francis on the Latin Mass probably salivate like Pavlov's dog at the ringing of the bell that does nothing, that converts nothing, that transubstantiates nothing, but IS the actual origin of the modern phrase "hocus pocus."

— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 16, 2021

In a hugely Catholic small town with a Catholic K-12 school, I've been inside the parish for parts of a Mass or two. And, that's EXACTLY what the transubstantiation bell reminds me of.

If you're not familiar, the priest who converts, changes and transubstantiates nothing, starts Jesus' Words of Institution in Latin with "Hoc est corpus meum," then "hoc est sanguis meum," that is, "This is my body / blood." With the proliferation of Masses for the dead and other endowed Masses in the late Middle Ages, priests who were paid for such rushes through these Masses in 15 minutes, hence, "hocus pocus." As Luther discovered during his trip to Rome, either before, after, or even during, some priests would say "blood you are and blood you shall remain."

That said, per that link? A change for the good, for people in the pews, that came out of Vatican II was better preaching. It's not quite a Baptist or Lutheran sermon focus (albeit with different styles of those two), of course, but, it's a lot better than old priests who entered parishes pre-Vatican II.

====

Side note: Many post-Zwinglian Calvinist Reformed argue that Luther actually accept Calvin's spiritual presence, while noting Zwingli believed the same, but involved in direct disputations with Luther, focused on the "no bodily presence." See here, near the end. Yes, Melanchthon did, but ... IMO, Luther more ignored Calvin in silence than anything. He was focused on intra-Lutheran issues post-1530 more than anything else. And, this is itself a claim from silence. Sure, Luther accepted Calvin's "spiritual presence" — as far as it went. And condemned it for not going further. In reality, Calvin stood with Zwingli and against Luther on "local presence" vs "illocal presence," and on rejecting Luther and Rome on what's technically called "oral manducation" or similar. See here.

Indeed, until writing this post, I'd never heard of claims that Calvin and Luther agreed on the Eucharist. Tosh!

Top blogging of April-June

Unlike at my main blog, I don't think it's productive to do a top blogging of the month post.

But, top blogging of the quarter, instead of only an annual roundup? Why not?

So, here goes the first run.

No. 1? An oldie but a goodie from a year ago. St. Anthony of Fauci’s Platonic “noble” lie about masks.

No. 2? PTSD, journalism and existentialism, about a weird piece in Atlantic from an ambulance-chaser reporter.

No. 3? The other Platonic lies of Fauci.

No. 4? “Once more on Hume and slavery,” part of a series deconstructing his thought on Africans and other things.

No. 5? Libertarian pseudoskeptical pseudoscience is about Brian Dunning above all, then about Michael Shermer, then about Skeptics™ in general and even older than Fauci takes. 

No. 6? It's kind of related to No. 5. Skeptatheism, fossilized looks at fossilization in Skeptics™ and Gnu Atheist movements.

No. 7? Martin Luther vs. Charles V, part of my Reformation 500 series.

No. 8? Talking about Jeff Kloha and Hobby Lobby in my personalized connection to Museum of the Bible’s Dead Sea Scrolls forgery.

No. 9? A non-gnu atheist has thoughts from seeing his first May Crowning.

No. 10? In response to Zionists and others, the true meaning of Hanukkah.

American Humanists blow St. Anthony of Fauci an air-kiss

The American Humanist Association has named Fauci its Humanist of the Year. That's St. Anthony of Fauci the teller of Platonic lies. And, of further Platonic lies after that. And, not even a Platonic lie, just a National Institutes of Health definitional hair-splitting lie, about gain of function work at WIV.

In reality? Zeynep Tufekci, one of the first people to call out Fauci's original lie on masks, and to since then explicitly call out tribalism and also say the lab-leak hypothesis should be taken more seriously than BlueAnon will take it, is MUCH more deserving.

Humanism, especially good secular humanism, should be about honesty and integrity, among other things. Fauci lacks honesty and he lacks the integrity to admit these Platonic lies, too.

In addition to BlueAnon tribalism, I suspect that AHA sees this as a fundraising cash cow, more disgusting yet. Given the mix of gushing and wagon-circling at places like Tippling Philosopher, sadly, they're likely right.

I was worried about having nothing for this blog this week. Sadly, that's been solved.

And, beyond the disgust at Fauci, I'm not joking about Tufekci, whom I've "anointed" as a public intellectual, as being a better choice,

That said, I can list several previous recipients that underwhelm me as well. Some underwhelm a lot; some underwhelm moderately. They include:

• Rebecca Goldstein (crappy author, philosopher and critical theologian)
• Bill Nye (attention whore)
• P.Z. Myers (need I say more?)
• Steve Pinker (Ev Psych whore, crappy author, hasn't read his own book on writing thoroughly, let alone taught it to wife Goldstein)

The moderate underwhelmers include

• Jennifer Ouellette
• Jared Diamond

Flood myths, geomythology and reality

 My dad got a ThD in comparative religion from his fundamentalist Lutheran seminary (even more fundamentalist today) over how American Indian flood and creation myths reflected actual universal truth of Genesis.

Of course, that's not the case. But, this Nautilus piece, looking specifically at part of Tibet and introducing the idea of geomythology, notes how flood myths are part of larger explanatory myths about local geological features.

Some are, indeed, nothing but just so stories. Lot's wife as a pillar of salt was simply a story about some salt pillar near the highly-saline Dead Sea. Others, like in the Tibetan case, appear to explain the "that" (but not the "why," of course) of actual geological events.

The real roots of the biblical flood story, of course, come from Sumer and a localized, though severe enough, Tigris-Euphrates flood.

The problem with such myths is often the "why" within the "why." Putting such events within a divine framework is one thing. Trying to use them to spell out, and justify, specific examples of theodicy is another altogether.

I've read David Montgomery's book, mentioned near the end, and will keep an eye out for his new one. I must reject his claim that science and myth are two sides of the same coin, at least with "are" rather than "were" as the verb.

Does objective universal morality exist?

 Or to put it in terms of the level of individual moral statements, and in terms of an equivalent to epistemology and modern philosophical discussion of that, is there such a thing as justified true moral belief?

This Nautilus piece makes the case for moral realism. It's not bad, overall, but, despite its length, it's missing one important issue.

That is, if moral realism is correct, what is the scope of correctly holdable universal moral stances? 

Take familial sexual relations between consenting adults. Is there anything immoral about first-cousin relations? What about brother-sister, per both the pharaohs and the Inka (technically, the title of the king of the people to whom the name became extrapolated).

What about murder? It's arguable that there is a universal moral about that — but ONLY with a fair amount of heavy lifting on defining just what constitutes murder, versus, say manslaughter. And, while that definitional lifting plays out most, in the modern world, in courts of law, it plays out in everyday life, too.

Just war is another biggie.

That failing aside, to his credit, William Fitzpatrick also asks whether, IF justified true moral belief exists, at least in the ideal, whether we can meet it in the real.

I am currently reading Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's "Moral Skepticisms" and expect to have a much more in-depth piece on this in the future.

==

Note: Contra a commenter and guest poster at A Tippling Philosopher, moral relativism is NOT moral nihilism.

Skeptatheism: Fossilized?

What follows is a reworking of a sort of "takedown" obiturary about the death of the so-called Amazing Randi, done on my main blog shortly after his death.

I posted that link in comments when a Hucksterman Village friend of a friend extolled a new YouTube channel talking about how many hits it had gotten, and from there, talking about essentially how valuable he still was.

The "capture" for the video at Susan Gerbic's post talks about "the magician who exposed fakes, frauds and charlatans."

Did that include himself? The (Not so) Amazing Randi, aka, The Amazing (Deceiver) Randi, as I called him.

From lesser to greater?

There's his libertarianism that enabled the likes of Penn and Teller to be denialist about secondhand smoke as a carcinogen, and to still be denialist about things like climate change. That's too common in movement skepticism; Michael Shermer is yet another prominent member, at least partially influenced by Randi, who has conflated some version of modern movement (it's NOT "scientific," per the above, so I don't call it that) skepticism with philosophical and political libertarianism.

Yes, it's true per the Hucksterman friend, that Randi repented of that one himself, and admitted (to some degree at least) that anthropogenic climate change is real.

But, that's the lesser.

Next, there's his condoning of #MeToo related problems in movement skepticism. (And, allegedly, Shermer was part of those problems, too.)

Finally, Randi almost certainly knew that his long-time lover, Devyi Peña, was an identity thief. Hiring him at JREF, the nepotism wouldn't look good even without the above. That, of course, makes it worse. Even if Randi didn't know that Peña had engaged in willful criminality, the hiring made it look like he did know and was trying to protect him. That's the greater, or greatest.

All the information two paragraphs up, plus Shermer's history, is documented here. More on Shermer here. That documentation notes that this goes back to the time of Paul Kurtz as founder of CFI. (Randi as founder of JREF, as much as Kurtz at CFI, also fell willing victim to founders syndrome.)

Related? Randi started sniffing his own press clippings too much later in life. The claims that Peña magically (I see what I did there) skeptically enlightened most of Australia have been put paid to by many people, for example.

But, many in the movement skeptic world still believe that Peña was magic. They also believe Randi knew nothing about Peña's background. Etc. In short? Enablers to some degree. Beyond Randi sniffing his own press clippings too much in later life, on #MeToo, and on Peña I think, and on founder's syndrome in general, he had too many enablers. He should have been nudged out of leading JREF at least half a decade before he actually was.

Now, to the "fossilized" and related matters.

I next shared this on MeWe, and tagged a friend who has, like me, long left both movement skepticism and organized atheism behind. Like me, he was never in the "hierarchy," but at one time was a much more interested follower, as was I.

He mentioned the word "fossilized."

That's like founder's syndrome on steroids? Or frozen founder's thought or something?

I do agree. 

I think that, per discussion on one social media site, "fossilized" is a good word to describe JREF, and other orgs, whether "movement skepticism" or Gnu Atheism like the Freedom from Religion Foundation, aka the folks who once tried to claim that Abraham Lincoln was an atheist. 

I don't know as much about their fundraising psychology as I do, say, major environmental organizations, but I suspect there's a certain amount of crisis-mongering, which mingles with a certain amount of tar-babying off the Religious Right.

In addition, founders syndrome is semi-cultic, something that any good skeptic should steer clear of, of course. And, yes, that "good" is deliberate.

But, if you're part of the movement? There's all the behavioral psychology issues at play, like "sunk costs" and "loss aversion." These and related issues don't just play out capitalistically.

Indeed, I think that prompted a back-and-forth with a non-friend to me of the Hucksterman friend of a friend, who I web-searched after that conversation played out.

And, in turn, that leads to the question of sunk costs versus the flip side of that coin: a rise in the hierarchy.

Phil Stilwell made, I believe, a comment on Gerbic's post that said, in essence, "don't make it about the person." Since she deleted the entire thread that started with my comment, as I had that page open, I couldn't see it when I got notified that he had commented. Clicking the notification bubble led to a non-existent thread. But, as he is a skeptic insider himself, and nowhere else in that 24-hour time span had I commented on someone else's post other than in a nature group that wasn't about people, that's what it had to be.

Editorial clarification from when I was still blogging on this, after my initial write-up but before I posted this. (I've noted both here and on my primary blog, even more, how I'll spend weeks writing serious, in-depth posts to let them percolate. It will be interlaced, in italics, with the original.

Well, I posted "thank god for screengrabs" then tagged him in my first comment to that. In a back and forth of comments, I may have been less than totally clear originally, but at some point, I believe he moved beyond mildly puzzled at my train of thought to trying to gaslight me.

It WASN'T Stilwell. In cleaning up my computer desktop, I actually looked at the screengrab. 

It was David Glück, a Facebook friend.

I did the right thing on Hucksterman Central. Apologized to Stilwell, with tagging him.

AND, at the same time, asked if he'd care to share what he DID say.

As for Glück? Since he agrees with me more than disagrees on Elizabeth Loftus, about whom I've blogged a bit here and a lot at my main blog, he should know if one is looking at a person's ethics, it can't be anything but personal in that sense. I don't know what follows the ellipsis points. But, the basic issue is, that when the whole idea is that another person's character needs, in one person's opinion, re-examining, then it's going to be re-examined!

That said, I did search up Stilwell on the Net. He wasn't gaslighting me, obviously, but whatever he did say, I'm sure it wasn't favorable. And with that, back to the original.

And, from his perspective, why not?

Seeing as how he got lucky enough to get played up by the likes of Jonathan M.S. Pearce, for whom I have less and less respect, as a deconversion success story, and you've been a regular commenter on the major skeptatheism sites, I'm sure of what you said, even if it's now gone. His being an apparent Islamophobe doesn't help his cause.

 Re movement skepticism, I've long said that it could stand to learn some philosophical Skepticism. Re the Gnu Atheist orgs, since the "nones" are growing fast — but aren't really atheist, contra Gnus — there's definite tar-babyism as far as how American religious demographics are changing. On the secular humanist world, per said friend, it should be focusing on things like the dehumanization factors of the "always on" world, or the future of the precariat (the word I first heard from the late Leo Lincourt) and other socio-economic issues.

Lots of Gnus don't like to admit that the concept of antitheism is in any way true. That's even though Camus mentions it in "The Rebel" before getting to his true modern original sin — blind allegiance to communism.

But, to riff on Voltaire? If god didn't exist, antitheist-type atheists would have to invent the concept of him to have someone to rebel against. (Camus, in "The Rebel," explicitly says antitheists enjoy having the concept of a god to rebel against.

Back to the "fossilization." And the fundraising. Even though Nones (not necessary atheist, or agnostic, or even non-theist, but at least not conventionally religious, either fundamentalist or non-fundmentalist) are growing faster in the US than members of any Western monotheism and certainly faster than any main division within Christianity, movement atheist groups aren't going to tell you that.

And, anything is a "hook" for this. Like Freedom from Religion Foundation, per my main blog, trying to claim eight years ago that Lincoln was really an atheist. I believe that was for the visibility level first, yes, but for the fundraising angle second.

On the secular humanist world, per said friend, it should be focusing on things like the dehumanization factors of the "always on" world, or the future of the precariat (the word I first heard from the late Leo Lincourt) and other socio-economic issues. (Said friend mentioned Paul Kurtz and the Council for Secular Humanism et al as also being among the fossilized.)

Movement skepticism groups haven't pivoted from things like evolution to climate change — not only denied by too many Republicans but minimized by too many Democrats. And, while they may look at things like antivaxxerism, they're likely to point first at New Agey type leftist woomeisters long before they point at libertarians. (Antivaxxerism in SoCal, for example, is just as much a problem among both libertarian and Religious Right types in Orange County as among woos in Hollywood.)

 

Also in regard to movement skepticism, I've long said that it could stand to learn some philosophical Skepticism. I've mentioned that to "movement" insiders, even mid-level majordomos. No real bites on that. And, there's been some, like Barbara Drescher, who have even been openly anti-philosophy.

Finally, to tie this back to Gerbic. Deleting comment that is NOT "hateful," but is real, albeit strongly put? Skeptics censoring dissent? I had already let my actual Hucksterman friend have the last word. Then Stilwell weighed in, and when I tried to respond to him, she had deleted the "hateful" comment and thread.

As for Glück? I did not unfriend him. I did remove him from my "skeptical friends" list ... and I did add him to my "acquaintances" list. That could be changed back in the future, but, for now, that's the way it is.

Next? Orac. Until I searched my main blog, I forgot about my history of past issues with him.

Having tangled with Orac twice now over issues related to St. Anthony of Fauci, and knowing that Movement Skeptics / Skeptics™ are their own set of tribalists, I've looked back further at his paean to Randi.

First, I'm sure that Orac is more than a micro-celebrity, and certainly more than a nano-celebrity, within Skeptics™. Such modesty!

Second, to get to some meat? Orac ignores Peña. Flat-out ignores him. Never discusses him. Not just the ID theft, but the allegations of shammery in Australia. If that's not intellectual dishonesty?

Third, he doesn't tackle the issue of founder's syndrome. Since Paul Kurtz had shown it several years prior, and to some degree, like Randi, on #MeToo issues, this wasn't good, either. I mean, Orac even commented, as I blogged about, a non-MeToo problem with Kurtz.

Fourth, he (and fellow travelers at NECSS) have evidenced tribalism and twosiderism before! I forgot about John Horgan calling him out, and them, five years ago, and that I blogged about that. What Orac in his insolence really hated was getting called out by someone at his pay and fame grade. (I also wonder how much both Orac and Steve Novella, per that link, disliked Horgan's comments not on skepticism, but on fee-for-service medicine. Orac strikes me as a mainstream neolib Democrat type who at a minimum isn't highly favorable to single-payer national health care.)

Fourth, part 2: Per Horgan, and contra Orac, the asshole wasn't Horgan. Besides Orac and Novella, it was first Jamy Ian Swiss. That said, for not having a single word of praise, Orac and Novella are assholes themselves. I might wind up writing something just about Orac at some point!

Fourth, part 3: The likes of Orac, though not a lot himself personally (rather, Shermer, Randi, philosophy-hating Barbara Drescher and philosophy-minimalizing mild Daniel Loxton) are part of why I don't call myself a skeptic any more, and haven't for five years, like Massimo — at least not without the word "philosophy" or "philosophical" attached. (I suspect that Orac's probably not big on philosophy, either.)

Fifth? Beyond "fossilized," per Horgan, tribalist and twosiderist are major problems.