Awesome. Ebert may be a weirdo who can’t tell the difference between wanting to fuck J. Lo and thinking she’s a great actress, but once in a while he reminds you why anyone cares what he thinks.

Lol.  Ben Stein is part of the Christian right wing conspiracy!  Last time I checked, there were non-Christians creationists.  But of course, as always, the target is a specific group, not the religion itself.

Ben Stein is part of the Christian right wing conspiracy

No, Ben Stein is an opportunistic D-list celebrity who’s found that religious fantasists like yourself provide a larger audience of suckers than libertarians and supply-side fantasists do. As with other neoCon-men who pander to Xtian fundy marks, Stein’s own religion or lack thereof is beside the point.

Stein could have enjoyed Kirk Cameron levels of success with this project and not suffered an intellectual beat-down by Ebert. Stein’s mistake here was (surprise!) getting greedy.

There are non-Christian creationists, but the ones trying to push for teaching ID in science classes in the US are all Christians.  Therefore, when you are arguing against the ID push - which, remember, is an effort to teach lies to children in school - here in the US, it is Christians who will be the target.  Elsewhere, it’s different (in Turkey, it’s fundamentalist Moslems); but all the opposition to evolution comes from fundamentalists of some stripe.

Actually, as I re-read my comment, it’s pretty sloppy.  I’ll spell it out.  I find it interesting (yet unsurprising) that you single out Christians every time you criticize religion.  Ben Stein’s movie defends Creationism.  The story of Cration is not, last time I checked, a Christian invention.  But a Jew making a movie defending Creationism is your cue to take another jab at the Christian right.  Look, I realize Christians make up a large portion of the audience for this movie, but I don’t understand why atheists always seem to single out Christians when they are ranting.

Also, I appreciate your attempt at defining my politics by reading one sloppily written comment, but I am not conservative, nor am I a Christian for that matter.  I am Jewish.  And every time I read about those “crazy/fundamentalist/fascist Christians”, I ask myself whether the writer would ever replace “Christians” with “Jews” or “Muslims” or “Hindus.”  And then I wonder what kind of reaction that would prompt.  I figured maybe when the target of your anti-religious blogpost isn’t even a Christian you could avoid singling Christians out. But I guess not.

Christians singled themselves out, pal. They’re the ones who are pushing to have this Creationist nonsense taught in science class. The fact that a Jewish or otherwise non-Christian person occasionally acts as a spokesperson does nothing to alter that fact.

The movement to promote creationism over actual science in schools isn’t a harmless lark that’s only criticized by meanieheads. It (along with abstinence-only education, another movement pushed by conservative Christians) is doing actual damage to the education of schoolchildren, and by extension to our job market and our reputation in the world in the sciences.

I find it interesting (yet unsurprising) that you single out Christians every time you criticize religion.

Amanda “singles out” Xtians in this case because here in America they’re the ones trying to push creationism and ID into science classrooms. Ben Stein may be Jewish or athiest, but the intended audience for his movie is Xtian fantasists, and it specifically attempts to advance their political agenda.

And every time I read about those “crazy/fundamentalist/fascist Christians”, I ask myself whether the writer would ever replace “Christians” with “Jews” or “Muslims” or “Hindus.”

Well, in my case, here’s your answer: if the circumstances are right I’ll talk about Jewish fantasists or Islamic fantasists just as easily as I will about Xtian ones (the Hindus provide fewer opportunities). The flavour of Bearded Invisible Sky Man™ is less important than the fantasism. No bad reactions so far, except from those who believe a sky fairy created the world in 6 days.

As for Amanda, last week she posted something about a crackdown on “crazy/fundamentalist/fascist Jews” in Jerusalem who run Taliban-like morality squads. She hasn’t exactly shown herself to be an apologist for “crazy/fundamentalist/fascist Muslims,” either.

Freddy, if you’re so pissy that we’re OMGZORZ ANTEE-RELIJUS because we realize that being a cock-knot in the name of a Magic Sky Man is wrong, then why are you here?  Go back to whatever pit of self-righteous indignation you crawled out of and tell them all about how us EBIL ATHIEIST SATINIST GAWD-HATURZ were mean to you.

Don’t like the criticism? Don’t put yourselves in a position where you rightfully should be criticized.  Whiner.

It’s a scientific fact that J*sus and his d*sciples walked with the dinosaurs and all of your fast-talkin LIEbral lies can’t change that.  When the rapture comes and all you athiests and Jews are left on the earth, stuck with the cost of the bailout, you’re gonna be really sorry you didn’t convert and become a card-carrying member of the Christian caliphate.

  Look, I realize Christians make up a large portion of the audience for this movie, but I don’t understand why atheists always seem to single out Christians when they are ranting.

Because, to put it bluntly, you’re pig ignorant on this issue.

Intelligent design and creationism are pretty much a right-wing Christian phenomena. I can count on one hand the Islamic AND Hindu creationists that are prominent spokesperson.

And intelligent design and creationism are, by documented design, a wedge to enforce Christian Dominionist values on US society.

Come back after you’ve done a little research on this topic. It’s a repllent scheme being pulled off by Stein and his ilk, particularly if you are Christian.

This nearly makes up for his refusal to accept video games as an art for story telling.  Nearly.

Actually, I’ve seen it with the graphics turned on and the inclusion of the cartoon at the bottom has made up for his hatred of my favorite story telling medium.  My A&P;instructor has that blown up in a very large fashion in her office.  Ebert is awesome.

You read atheists addressing Christianity far more than other religions because you are reading in English and Christianity is the most common religion in the English speaking world.  Read atheist writings originally written in French or German and the situation will be the same, read them form sources originally written in Arabic, Hebrew, or Chinese, and you will find that this is not the case.

“Stein could have enjoyed Kirk Cameron levels of success with this project and not suffered an intellectual beat-down by Ebert. Stein’s mistake here was (surprise!) getting greedy.”

Stein, while a far right creep, is technically more in the mainstream than Cameron, who was perfectly content to dive head first into th’ Crazy with nary a backwards glance. I suspect it’s the difference between being a genuine True Believer and a con man who’s simply out to make money off the rubes. Stein is definitely among the latter class of scum, but his years in Hollywood probably make his current, er, “vocation” a tad frustrating, to say the least. However lucrative* it may be, it places him squarely outside of mainstream society, which can’t be an easy pill to swallow for someone who’s had at least some mild form of success in the past with comedies and as a (admittedly limited) character actor. He once had his own game show on Comedy Central, for chrissakes.

*And besides, is it even all that reliably lucrative? Someone may occasionally hit it Big as Mel Gibson did with his S&M;Jebus snuff film, but as often as not, these little exercises in Ego aren’t exactly Box Office Blockbusters. Stein must have been looking at people like Bill Maher and Michael Moore, hoping to cash in by following on their footsteps, and I daresay he’s hopping up and down with rage that “Expelled” turned out to be such a bomb. Heh, heh.

That’s just beautiful.  I always liked Ebert’s reviews, and now I am patting myself on the back over my clear display of decades of good taste.

Fred is also ignoring these important lines in Ebert’s essay, if he read it at all:

By his [Ben Stein’s] premise no secularists believe in Intelligent Design, and no people with religious beliefs subscribe to Darwin’s theory. If there are people with religious beliefs who agree with Darwin (Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, for example) they are mistaken because they do not subscribe to A. Logan Craft’s religious beliefs.

And:

Intelligent Design “scientists” in “Expelled” are offended by being called ignorant. When Stein points out that “Catholics and mainstream Protestant groups” have no problem with the theory of Evolution, he is informed by an ID advocate, “liberal Christians side with anybody against Creationists.” Now we have the smoking gun. It is the word liberal.  What is the word liberal doing here? The Theory of Evolution is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply provable or not.

Besides, I would not describe the Vatican as liberal.

In your mind, Christian=evangelical. They’re not the same thing.

My favorite part of Ebert’s essay was the passage on gambling. hee.

This almost makes up for Roger Ebert’s very misguided negative review of “Quantum of Solace.” It’s obvious that Roger Ebert is not a heterosexual woman, otherwise he would not unfavorably compare Daniel Craig to Sean Connery. Blech.

I don’t understand why atheists always seem to single out Christians when they are ranting. ...I ask myself whether the writer would ever replace “Christians” with “Jews” or “Muslims” or “Hindus.”

All theists—Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Scientologists, Astrologists, Wikkans, children who buy into that Santa Claus story—believe in fakery, and use their faith as an excuse to reject facts and halt intellectual and scientific progress. They’re all ignorant and, with the exception of kids who love Santa, a genuine threat to reason and social equality.

Happy now?

An Iranian friend of mine who is an atheist “always seems to single out Islam” when he talks about the processes, episodes etc. that let him to atheism as an adult.  It could be that this is because he grew up in Iran and the majority of the religious people and culture that formed his beliefs was Islam.  Gosh, maybe that’s why European and American athiests “always seem to single out Christianity!”  or maybe that’s just too freakin’ obvious to even need to be pointed out.

enjoyed Kirk Cameron levels of success

Tee hee!

I think the reason people are talking about Christian creationists in regard to this movie is that there are very, very few Jewish creationists, and they all seem to be Haredi.  In fact, their sudden opposition to evolution seems to parallel the Christian right’s alignment with ultra-orthodox Judaism.

Not to mention that from what I read, there was an organized effort to get Christian church groups to see Expelled in order to boost its attendance figures.

OTOH, Christianists have been in a panic that Jesus would show up any minute for the last 2,000-years.  Every single generation of Christians has believed it was the last.  They haven’t been correct about that one yet.  It seems to me they haven’t been correct about anything…

See, and I always read that particular passage in the Bible not as saying that Jesus was going to arrive at any moment, but that you could die at any moment (and thus “see Jesus”) so you should try to live as best you can at every moment, what with inevitable death and all.  It’s the old “What if you were hit by a bus tomorrow?” question in the terms of 2,000 years ago.

Fred Clark at Slacktivist has some great stuff about how much PMD (pre-millennial dispensationalist) theology is built around an obsessive fear of death.  The entire mythology is built on the idea that you will never have to experience physical death—you’ll just vanish one day.

every time I read about those “crazy/fundamentalist/fascist Christians”, I ask myself whether the writer would ever replace “Christians” with “Jews” or “Muslims” or “Hindus.”

You’re parsing it wrong, Freddy; the target is not “Christians” but “crazy/fundamentalist/fascist Christians.”

freddy: you’re mostly wrong this particular post—there’s no apology whatsoever for Stein and his backers

but you’re on to something re:pandagonite hostility to spirituality.

It is for all practical purposes exclusively an hostility toward Christianity. There are no condemnations of Jewish delusion (maybe if there were more foreign policy discussions we’d at least get standard liberal Israel-bashing), Buddhist nonsense, imbecile Wiccans. Jeezus, on a *feminist* blog, you’d think conservative Islamic religious culture would come in for some rather special abuse.

But 99% of the time, no.

Please be honest about this, people.

It is for all practical purposes exclusively an hostility toward Christianity. There are no condemnations of Jewish delusion (maybe if there were more foreign policy discussions we’d at least get standard liberal Israel-bashing), Buddhist nonsense, imbecile Wiccans. Jeezus, on a *feminist* blog, you’d think conservative Islamic religious culture would come in for some rather special abuse.

But 99% of the time, no.

Funny, because 99% of the time, US public discourse is about Christianity. Surely a coincidence.

Okay, maybe Judaism gets a bit heavier play in the public discourse than it does on Pandagon; but our public awareness vis a vis religion is overwhelmingly informed and dominated by Christianity, from blowhards on our airwaves to the malls during the winter - if it weren’t for liberal whiners like the ACLU, we wouldn’t even have the token presence of the various other winter festivals that we have now.

You [as in Christianity] don’t get to claim dominance of the culture and then cry foul when that dominance comes home to roost.

Funny, years ago when I was around 7 our Dad told my sister & I there was no Santa!  I asked if there was an Easter Bunny, and he said “no, sorry”. “So, there’s no God either!” I said excitedly (I HATED church).  My Dad said yes to that question, dang it!  God, I hated church.

Besides, having a nominal evangelical on the blog (if one a bit underwhelming in the output department) surely makes the rest of those heathens even more defensive, so it’s understandable from that angle too.

Shorter “wapsie”: “We’Re BEIN OPPRESST!”

Waspie, that’s part of the nature of this blog—this blog tends to focus on personal rights and freedoms inside the United States, particularly of women and of homosexuals.

Inside the US, those freedoms are primarily threatened by Christians. Jews and Muslims have their own fundamentalists, but both religions are very much minorities (1.3% and 0.5% respectively, and that’s all Jews and Muslims, not just the fundamentalists!) that they pose little threat to the rights of anyone outside their own communities. Similarly, Buddhists are 0.5%, Wiccans 0.1%, and so forth.

Christians, by contrast, are 76.5% of the population. There are more than twelve times as many Baptists as there are Jews in this country, for example. So yes, they come in for the lion’s share of the criticism.

What people don’t seem to get about theories is that their purpose is to explain existing phenomena. Any one theory may not be true, but it doesn’t mean the phenomena it explains doesn’t exist. When people say they don’t believe in evolution, they’re admitting that they’re in complete denial about what’s happening in the world around them. How organisms evolve is up for debate, not whether organisms evolve. And Darwinian evolution is really the only theory I can think of where people are given a free pass to deny the existence of the phenomenon that the theory explains. Nobody denies the existence of gravity or schizophrenia or dwarfism, but there are some theories floating around about why these things exist. And all of those things are about as observable as evolution is.

Funny, I never feel like this blog focuses overmuch on Christianity. Besides being willing to discuss fundamentalism of all stripes, the Christianity it generally talks about is some combination of evangelical/fundamentalist. Agree with the poster above who pointed out that Christianity does not = either of those things.

For that matter, while I recognize that posters referring the Magical Sky Fairy believe themselves to be referring to all religious people (or at least that’s my impression), I read those as a Christian (of a very Existentialist stripe) and never really feel that I’ve been targeted in any way, first because I don’t have a problem with criticisms aimed at my faith tradition (I think we need and deserve them) and second because I am aware of the subtleties and gray areas between my worldview and what they are describing, and I don’t need everyone else to be aware of it for me to feel comfortable.

Just sayin’ to my Christian brothers and sisters—it ain’t all about you, and when it is about you, you have the option of being grateful for the input instead of so durn defensive.

Emily, as much as I wish what you are saying is true, I have inadvertently found myself in arguments with people who should know better who, in their furor to disagree with me, have called gravity “just a theory.” I did laugh my ass off at those assertions (which did not further the discourse, but hell, I’m invested in reality) but some people will actually use that argument. Amazingly.

What people don’t seem to get about theories is that their purpose is to explain existing phenomena. Any one theory may not be true, but it doesn’t mean the phenomena it explains doesn’t exist.

That’s what drives me particularly nuts about the shameless Holocaust section of “Expelled.”  Whether or not evolutionary theory has been used in the service of evil political agendas doesn’t make evolution itself more or less true.  It’s like arguing that guns have been used to kill innocent people, therefore gunpowder doesn’t work.  It’s nonsensical.

By including the Holocaust section, the filmmakers are putting their cards on the table: they don’t really believe in creationism, they just think creationism is a prettier lie than the truth.  Believing in science results in genocide!  Believing in biblical literacy results in fearful Christians who do what they’re told and tithe a lot!  They don’t care which side is factually true, and they get very angry at people who do care.

Memo to Ben Stein from a faithful Christian:

‘The Flintstones’ was not a documentary.

The best thing ever said about ID was a response to Bill Buckingham, one of the ID proponents defeated in the Dover trial.

Buckingham said “Two thousand years ago, a man died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?”

The comment (I unfortunately don’t know the name of the genius who wrote it) was, and I am paraphrasing here, “Two seconds ago, a man died of cholera, we are standing up for him.”

Regarding that ass Freddy, one of the world’s most reviled creationists is Turkey’s Harun Yahya, a fundamentalist Muslim.

Freddy: The story of Cration is not, last time I checked, a Christian invention.

If anyone is suggesting teaching in science class that the world was created from the chopped-up body of Ymir and people were carved out out wood, or that Coyote created people from his own shit, they have not come to my attention yet. All creationists who felt their belief had a place in science education that have made something of a splash recently have been Christians or Muslims.

If monotheists want pagans be mocked, they should consider presenting a smaller target.

RacyT: have inadvertently found myself in arguments with people who should know better who, in their furor to disagree with me, have called gravity “just a theory.”

Wow. Do you have a snarky comeback for that one? (“Yeah, we putting the furniture on the floor of the room just out of convention. Next redecoration, it goes on the ceiling.”... Nah, too long.)

have called gravity “just a theory.”

That’s when you tell them about this:

“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”

imbecile Wiccans

Wapsie, two thoughts:

1. Was this necessary? I’ve yet to meet a single Wiccan IRL who wants to limit the civil rights of others. As a group, they are remarkably liberal, and almost universally pro-LBGT. Can’t we liberals get along, regardless of our belief system?

2. If you really think nobody harps on Wiccans and Other Harmless Minor Religions, I’d like to introduce you to Chet. Chet, Wapsie. Wapsie, Chet. Enjoy.

but you’re on to something re:pandagonite hostility to spirituality.

It is for all practical purposes exclusively an hostility toward Christianity.

One of my guidelines for religious discussions: anyone who describes themselves as a “Christian” (as opposed to, say, “Catholic” or “Methodist” or “Greek Orthodox”), adheres to a vision of Christianity that claims to represent all Christians while simultaneously denying the Christianity of any sect that disagree with their theology.

For example, I belong to a religious sect that, though its members usually prefer a specific appellation to a general “Christian” label, nevertheless falls within the realm of what is theologically known as
“Christianity.”  So, as a Christian, I favor of the teaching of evolution, oppose the teaching of creationism, and support gay marriage.  I belong to a sect that agrees with all these positions, and which does not support the ordination of women and/or gays only because it believes the entire concept of standing ordained clergy, no matter their gender or orientation, is contrary to the spirit of Christ’s teachings.  I am certain that self-proclaimed “Christian” groups count us as Christians when looking for numbers to prove that America is a “Christian” nation, while claiming that every “Christian” in America opposes these core values of our religion.

I find that our hosts at Pandagon, or the vast majority of commenters here, are in fact far less hostile to my faith than the majority of self-identified “Christians.”  It’s “Christians” who are trying to have marriages performed by my church rendered null and void, not atheists or agnostics or deists.  Virtually all hostility toward religious groups that I’ve observed at Pandagon is premised not on the mere fact of belonging to a religion or sect, it’s based upon a disagreement with a specific concrete policy that a religion or sect is trying to impose.  (And most of the exceptions are dogmatic objections to all religions, so it’s not as if Christianity or any of its constituent sects are being singled out for opprobrium.)

My physicist husband has an offer for science-bashers, creationist or no:

“You don’t ‘believe’ in science? Fine.  Give me back your car, your computer, your TV, your cell phone, your medications and pacemakers, and your structurally-engineered suburban home, you fuck-addled hypocrite.”

Or something like that.

“One of my guidelines for religious discussions: anyone who describes themselves as a “Christian” (as opposed to, say, “Catholic” or “Methodist” or “Greek Orthodox”), adheres to a vision of Christianity that claims to represent all Christians while simultaneously denying the Christianity of any sect that disagree with their theology. “

Um, huh? Most of us, at least in my experience, use the word inclusively, to mean that any follower of Christ is a fellow traveler on the path.

It bugs me to think you hear “Christian” and assume that what the person means is “my type of Christian.” Alternatively, perhaps it says a lot about the Christians you know.

Maybe that’s a regional thing - I’ve heard in some towns denomination is that important. Where I’m from, you sound remote and self-involved if you say “I’m an Episcopalian” or “I’m a Baptist.”

On the other hand, I agree that the target of criticism is most often a particular kind of Christianity, and that the rest of us get counted numbers-wise. often by both sides, then discounted theology-wise, often by both sides.

Um, huh? Most of us, at least in my experience, use the word inclusively, to mean that any follower of Christ is a fellow traveler on the path.

It bugs me to think you hear “Christian” and assume that what the person means is “my type of Christian.” Alternatively, perhaps it says a lot about the Christians you know.

Maybe that’s a regional thing - I’ve heard in some towns denomination is that important. Where I’m from, you sound remote and self-involved if you say “I’m an Episcopalian” or “I’m a Baptist.”

I suppose it could be in part a regional thing, in an odd way. 

I’m originally from a town where denomination was very important, although not in an exclusivist way.  People generally referred to themselves as “Catholic” or “Episcopalian” or what have you, but the churches generally cooperated on issues of common interest and religion played a relatively small role in the locals’ social or business lives.  There, the term “Christian” was mostly used in theological discussions, but when it was used in daily life it was used the ecumenical sense, but only when there was a consensus.  For example, the local Catholic churches preached that supporting the local food bank was a “Christian” duty, but that opposing abortion was a “Catholic” duty.

Now, however, I live in Washington DC, where, among the large transplant community, neither denomination nor religion itself, is a particularly public element in one’s life.  I don’t know what religion a lot of my friends or co-workers are; all I know is that they don’t go to my local Meeting.  Where religion is important in DC are some of the older churches (whose parishioners have almost all abandoned the city for the suburbs, but return on Sunday), and among those nationally-oriented Christian organizations that keep either headquarters or lobbying offices here.  The former group has an increasingly toxic reputation locally, for double-parking on Sundays and loudly characterizing any parking tickets as “anti-Christian”—and that’s the phrasing; I have never heard them say they’re “anti-Methodist”, for example.  The latter group includes many very estimable organizations, but most of those include their denomination in their name (Catholic Charities, Mennonite Central Committee US and so on) or else are so ecumenical that they try not to limit their appeal solely to Christians (Habitat for Humanity).  The ones who call themselves “Christian” do so in a way that is faux-inclusivist but really exclusivist, such as the Christian Coalition or Christian Embassy.  There’s even a few groups I personally respect, like the Christian Peace Witnesses, that make this mistake: unfortunately, it’s not accurate to say that there’s a consensus that Christians ought to support the cause of peace.

Um, huh? Most of us, at least in my experience, use the word inclusively, to mean that any follower of Christ is a fellow traveler on the path.

I can tell you’re not a Catholic, because otherwise you also would have experienced having “Christians” try to convert you away from your heathen beliefs, because Catholics aren’t real Christians, don’t'cha know.