History

Christopher Hitchens gets right to the point with his piece on Hanukkah: …to celebrate Hanukkah is to celebrate not just the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness but also the accidental birth of Judaism’s bastard child in the shape of Christianity. You might think that masochism could do no more. Except that it always can. Without the precedents of Orthodox Judaism and Roman Christianity, on which it is based and from which it is borrowed, there would be no Islam, either. Every Jew who honors the Hanukkah holiday because it gives his child an excuse to mingle the dreidel with the Christmas tree and the sleigh (neither of these absurd symbols having the least thing to do with Palestine two millenniums past) is celebrating the making of a series of rods for his own back. And this is not just a disaster for the Jews. When the fanatics of Palestine won that victory, and when Judaism repudiated Athens for Jerusalem, the development of the whole of humanity was terribly retarded.A similar point is made, in a more tactful way, in Jennifer Michael Hecht’s excellent book, Doubt: A History, which she also told on the New York Times’ blog last December. She tells the story of how the events that led to the celebration of Hanukkah were a triumph of religious dogmatism and zealotry over secularism. She recommends lighting an extra candle in the memory of Miriam, the Hellenized Jewish woman who thought sacrifice was superstition and was “punished” for striking the temple altar with her sandal, yelling “Wolf, wolf, you have squandered the riches of Israel!” ...

In 1901, Bible college students at Charles Fox Parham’s Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas prayed to be baptized by the Holy Spirit. At a New Year’s Eve service that year, as Parham preached, Agnes Ozman began to speak in tongues, and Pentecostalism was born. William J. Seymour, a one-eyed black minister, attended Parham’s college in Houston, Texas, though he had to sit in another room across the hall and listen in, due to Texas race laws of the time. Seymour moved to Los Angeles, where he sparked the Azusa Street Revival in 1906. Today there are over 400 million Pentecostals in the world, and it is the world’s fastest-growing religious sect. The Mormons are lightweights by comparison, having only reached 13 million followers worldwide after nearly twice as long an existence. In Guatemala, Pentecostals have built a 12,000 seat church; in Lagos, one church supposedly has 2 million followers; and South Korea is home to five of the world’s ten largest megachurches. What makes Pentecostalism successful? It’s not intellectual argument. Pentecostalism is what The Economist’s recent special report on “The new wars of religion” refers to as a “hot” religion. It’s not particularly concerned about doctrinal details (which is not to say it doesn’t have them), but about religious experience and personal interaction and participation. The Yoido Full Gospel Church, the largest megachurch in South Korea, has 830,000 members (one in 20 Seoul residents is a member), holds seven Sunday services each of which has 12,000 people in the main auditorium and 20,000 watching on television in chapels in neighboring buildings. While you wait (and you will wait, especially if you want to attend one of the two services led by founder David Cho), you can listen to choirs sing, and sing along with the help of karaoke-style captions on TV screens. Translation is supplied to provide the services in English, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French, Indonesian, Malay, and Arabic. The Yoido church, like many U.S. megachurches, works by organizing around many small groups. For Yoido, these are “home cells” of around a dozen people that meet in people’s homes. Yoido has 68,000 female deacons and half as many male deacons, who may make 35 visits a week to parishioners. There’s little hierarchy, and an emphasis on evangelizing, sending out missionaries, and producing more and more “home cells.” And it’s a methodology that appears to be winning the religious competition. An earlier Economist story (from 2005, pay content) on the business practices of U.S. megachurches, likewise observed that they function by providing a diverse variety of services to lots of small niches, with groups for hikers, skateboarders, mountain bikers, book readers, and so forth, creating many small communities out of which a larger one is formed. The lesson I take from this for the nonreligious is that a diversity of groups that cooperate with each other on common causes is far more likely to grow and have influence than individual groups that take a hard line on admissions requirements and require conformity to a narrow notion of what it is to be a freethinker or a skeptic, such as an adherence to scientism or atheism. The late Clark Adams of the Internet Infidels and Las Vegas Freethought Society was a strong proponent of cooperation between a broad set of secular groups as a way of strengthening their influence and being able to create organizations like the Secular Coalition for America. He was also a supporter of groups that engaged in social activities rather than intellectual navel-gazing, and promoted his views with humor and popular culture references more than with step-by-step argument. If you’ve thought about starting a secular, freethought, or skeptical group around some interest of your own that’s not currently served by an existing group, go for it. Meetup.com is a great way to get started or to find an existing group–you can find atheist groups, agnostic groups, deism groups, ex-Christian groups, Discordian groups, humanist groups, secular humanist groups, brights groups, skeptics’ groups, separation of church and state groups, and many more. ...

From metafilter: When Ron Paul email spam started hitting inboxes in late October, UAB Computer Forensics Director Gary Warner published findings on the spam’s textual patterns and the illicit botnet used to spread it – findings which were picked up by media outlets and tech websites like Salon, Ars Technica, and Wired Magazine’s “Threat Level” blog, the latter in a set of followup posts by writer Sarah Stirland: 1, 2, 3. The Ron Paul fan response was swift and decisive: clearly the botnet was the work of anti-Ron Paul hackers trying to discredit his campaign, and Rudy Giuliani had paid Stirland (and not UAB Computer Forensics) to do a smear piece – as claimed by a YouTube video pointing to posts on RudyGiulianiForum.com. Thus proving, once again, that the Ron Paul campaign’s greatest liability is not so much his far-right conspiracy-driven antifederal libertarianism, but rather the spittle-flecked anger of his own noisiest supporters.There are definitely a lot of nuts among Ron Paul’s supporters. Meanwhile, he raised $3.8 million yesterday (apparently a number revised downward from $4.3 million) in the largest one-day online political fundraiser ever. Intrade currently shows Paul as the third most likely GOP nominee, after Giuliani and Romney. A few other Ron Paul-related blog posts that I realize I’ve neglected to mention here, from Dispatches from the Culture Wars: “Is Ron Paul a Dominionist?" Argues that Paul appears to have much in common with some theocrats. “Sandefur on Ron Paul” Doubts that Paul is a dominionist, but suggests he might be a Thomas DiLorenzo-style neo-confederate who thinks we don’t even need a federal government (in which case he wouldn’t really be the supporter of the Constitution that he seems to be) and that the U.S. Civil War wasn’t about slavery (which is pernicious nonsense). I also just came across this story, which says that Paul would like to see the U.S. Constitution amended to remove the subject of abortion from the purview of the courts, which is yet more anti-constitutional insanity. ...

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars presents some of the evidence that Clinton’s presidency differed in degree, not kind, from Bush’s: If you despise the Bush administration for weakening constitutional protections, zealously increasing executive authority and weakening the checks and balances inherent in our constitutional scheme, preferring secrecy to accountability, being in the pocket of big business and sending American troops on one foreign military adventure after another, you should recognize that the Clinton administration that preceded this one differed only by degree, not kind, on those matters. And there is little reason to believe that a second Clinton administration would be all that much better.The book All the President’s Spin, by the folks who ran the Spinsanity.com blog during Bush’s first term, makes a similar point about how Clinton managed the media. It was under Clinton that we got not one but two attempts to censor the Internet with the Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, there were far fewer American lives lost in military action and we did get the export controls on encryption loosened, so that users of PGP didn’t become criminal exporters of munitions just by carrying a laptop to another country. In a conversation last week, a friend of mine suggested that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency and will demonstrate her military hawkishness by doing something like invading Syria, and will end up making followers out of the right-wingers who currently hate her, ultimately sending us further down the road towards fascism and complete disregard for the rule of law. ...

Chris Hallquist takes a look at the different versions of Josh McDowell’s testimony about being a former atheist who set out to disprove Christianity only to become a Christian, a finds some reasons to doubt its accuracy, as well as the quality of McDowell’s research. UPDATE (January 2, 2009): Vinny at You Call This Culture? notes that McDowell doesn’t appear to have actually been converted to Christianity on the basis of evidence: Commenting on the Hallquist post, self-identified Christian apologist Kevin H said that he had spoken with McDowell about the matter:He’s the kind of guy who is amused at all that is said about him. I noticed he was quick to correct falsehoods. For example, he told me that the evidence for Christianity was a “foot in the door” that kept him from immediately closing it. But it was the love of God that drew him. It seems he knows, whether his fault or the fault of the swirling influence of his books and speaking tours, that people have the conception that he was forced into faith by irresistable arguments. ...

Lynn Brewer is a former Enron employee who claims she was an executive whistleblower, and has turned that into a career as a highly paid motivational speaker and founder of the Integrity Institute. But it turns out that she was never an executive, she worked in a clerical position writing summaries of gas and energy contracts. The document she claims was a memo in which she blew the whistle is a document her boss says she never saw and described an alleged financial transaction which she never would have done any work on. Her former VP, Tony Mends, says that Brewer was sent to the UK to train Enron employees on the use of Factiva, but she never showed up to conduct the training, instead traveling the UK with her fiance. She claims she had to stay outside of London because of a terrorist threat, but nobody else in the Enron office in London was kept from going to work. Greg Farrell at USA Today has done a great job of exposing Brewer’s claims and how she has capitalized on being confused for Sherron Watkins, who really was an Enron executive whistleblower. Brewer’s web page at “Speaker’s Spotlight” shows that she bills herself as “the” Enron whistleblower and is filled with misrepresentations: Lynn Brewer’s notoriety stems from her actions that have dubbed her “the Enron Whistleblower”. Her accomplishments include: Author of Confessions of an Enron Executive: A Whistleblowers Story; Earning a Certification in Business Ethics from Colorado State University; Founder and President of The Integrity Institute, Inc., which assesses and certifies corporate integrity at the request of organizations for the benefit of their stakeholders. Prior to joining Enron, Brewer worked in forensic accounting and spent 18 years as a legal professional in private practice, until she joined Ralston Purina, where she worked in Corporate Development for the General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer. As an executive at Enron, Ms. Brewer was responsible for Risk Management in Energy Operations, the e-Commerce initiatives for Enron’s water subsidiary, and Competitive Intelligence for Enron Broadband Services. Her responsibilities included financial derivatives and the now infamous “off-the-balance sheet” partnerships. During her nearly three-year tenure, she witnessed numerous instances of illegal and corrupt dealings, including bank fraud, espionage, power price manipulation and the gross overstatements to the press, public and financial world. When her attempts to notify those inside Enron of her knowledge failed, she notified the United States government, who refused to return her e-mails and telephone calls. Since leaving Enron, Lynn Brewer has become an internationally recognized speaker providing compelling details into Enron’s rise and fall, leaving audiences shocked when they realize how vulnerable they are to becoming the next Enron. A past nominee for the “Women of Influence” Award, Brewer was selected in 2006 for inclusion in the 25th Silver Anniversary Edition of Who’s Who of American Women for her contributions to society.Notice that she doesn’t give her actual title; her claim of being responsible for risk management as though she headed a risk management group is untrue. Her boss, Mary Solmonson, was a director, not an executive. Another boss, David Gossett, who reported to VP Mends, was also a director, not an executive. I suspect we’ll see more allegations and stories of deception by Brewer coming to light. I’d like to know if there’s any substance to her claim to have experience in the field of forensic accounting prior to working at Enron. Her 18 years experience “as a legal professional in private practice” really means she worked as a paralegal (which was apparently her role at Enron). Here’s an interview transcript where she misrepresents herself from the get-go, answering the question “what was your role at Enron” with: I was recruited about three years before the implosion of Enron, to head up a risk management group inside the legal department, that would brief, for senior management and the board of directors, these off the balance sheet partnerships at the centre of the scandal.She didn’t head up a risk management group. She didn’t brief senior management and the board of directors. She didn’t report on the off balance sheet partnerships at the center of the scandal, she wrote summaries of gas and energy contracts for managers. UPDATE (October 15, 2007): Lynn Brewer was known as EddieLynn Morgan (her maiden name) while she was at Enron, and her name appears in the “Enron corpus” of emails that were made public after the scandal. Studies of the Enron emails have been done to look at the web of interconnections between recipients, which show that EddieLynn Morgan was a very bit player–she is the recipient of a total of four emails in the corpus, and the author of none. ...

Comment for Peter S. Williams’ blog, which doesn’t allow comments except from the blog owner and team members: Charles Manson claimed to levitate a school bus in order to get it to the group’s hideout at Barker Ranch in Death Valley in 1968. His followers claim he did it, too. We know the school bus got there, because it was still there until a few years ago. The terrain up Goler Canyon Road is very difficult even for four-wheel drive vehicles. I don’t believe Manson levitated the bus (or that there was a single tree that bore twelve kinds of fruit, one for each month of the year, at Barker Ranch, as he also claimed). Do you? There are also numerous eyewitness reports of remarkable phenomena, including levitations, occurring at Spiritualist seances. However, the most exhaustively documented ones show that eyewitness testimony is at odds with what actually happened–a phenomenon that magicians are quite familiar with. If demonic activity results in such things as levitation, why is it not documentable through video recordings or testimony from witnesses trained in illusion and trickery? ...

Bob McCarty, a religious conservative writer, came to my attention for the first time recently when he touted Lauren Green’s historical revisionism about the United States, in response to the Kathy Griffin Emmy controversy. When I and others posted comments on his blog pointing out Green’s errors, McCarty accused me of “anti-Christian revisionist history,” cited some quotes from Thomas Jefferson which made reference to “God,” and stated that “I don’t have to read any more books about American history to know that this country was founded on Christian principles and values. Think ‘In God we trust’ and ‘One nation under God.’" In response to this latter point, I posted a comment which pointed out that those two phrases don’t support McCarty’s case regarding the founding of the United States and that Jefferson, while a believer in God, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. McCarty didn’t approve my comment, so I posted again to see if it was intentional: Bob: You didn’t approve/publish my previous comment responding to your Sep. 15 comment. I’ll try again. Your citation of “In God We Trust” and “One Nation Under God” as evidence of the U.S. being founded on Christian principles shows your lack of research–the former did not appear on coins until 1854 and on currency until 1957. The phrase “under God” wasn’t added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. I also suggested you read more of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, including his letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 10, 1787, in which he wrote “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Oh, and I also recommended that you check out the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the Congress and signed by President John Adams, which contains the statement that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Tripoli violated the treaty and a new treaty was negotiated in 1805 without that language, but it is significant that both the Senate and President approved that language.In my first pass at a comment, I also referred to the “Jefferson Bible," a version of the gospels which Jefferson produced by (in part) removing all of Jesus’ miracles. Once again, McCarty didn’t approve the comments, demonstrating that he’s intentionally suppressing refutation of his ignorant statements. It’s his kind of dishonesty that can persuade people to believe that Christianity survives only by hiding from facts and promoting the view that “reason is the enemy of faith." ...

In an interview with Beliefnet, Arizona Sen. John McCain said that the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation: A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think? I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn’t say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.Apparently he, like Rep. Ron Paul, missed the fact that the only reference to God in the U.S. Constitution is the reference to the “year of our Lord” in the date. The Constitutional Convention voted not to open with prayers, Article VI says that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” and the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Constitution establishes a democratic republic with a strong separation of church and state by comparison to other nations. The Bible, by contrast, speaks of theocratic political systems with rule by priests and kings. In 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified and President John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 of which began with the words “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” (This treaty was quickly violated by Tripoli, and the renegotiated treaty of 1805 did not contain this article, but the important point is that this language was approved by the entire Senate and the President in 1797.) ...

I just saw Naomi Wolf on The Colbert Report (Wednesday night’s show), discussing her new book, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. She only had time to list a few of the ten steps on her list, but I found all ten in an article from the Guardian: 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy 2. Create a gulag 3. Develop a thug caste 4. Set up an internal surveillance system 5. Harass citizens’ groups 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release 7. Target key individuals 8. Control the press 9. Dissent equals treason 10. Suspend the rule of law ...