Micheal Mpagi and the Atheist Association of Uganda

Note: I had nearly finished this post when the death of Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato was reported. By taking odd jobs, like cleaning and washing clothes, Micheal Mpagi earns his living. His true life's work: to help rid his society of theocracy and religious bigotry. Micheal Mpagi is President of the Atheist Association of Uganda (AAU). Mpagi wants to challenge the theocratic elements in Ugandan politics. He started AAU because Uganda's older (and still extant) atheist organization, Freethought Kampala, is basically apolitical (he is still a member). In an email, Mpagi told me "AAU is more [concerned with] public policies and how theocracy is swiftly becoming the foundation of our government." In an email to Atheist Alliance International, Mpagi wrote:

This is going to be a long road for atheists and humanists. Most atheists take a purely philosophical approach to religion with too little emphasis on promoting human rights and democracy. And that's probably because human rights in North America are a given. Here in Uganda--and in Africa in general--what come first are the rights of a murderous god, a god of human division, a god of hate.
The Ugandan freethought movement has a Herculean task before it. Uganda's population is 84% Christian (roughly split between Catholics and Protestants), and highly conservative if not reactionary in their religion. A proposed bill that would make certain homosexual acts--already illegal--capital crimes, was inspired in part by American evangelicals like Scott Lively, and given tacit support by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who has said that homosexuality is "against God's will". AAU opposes the 2009 bill, which would make homosexuality punishable by prison or death. "We stand for human rights," Mpagi says. Mpagi has also taken a stand against extra-governmental forces that threaten human rights. Since 1987, Ugandans in the northern part of the country have been terrorized by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), headed by the murderous Joseph Kony: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMicheal Mpagi and the Atheist Association of Uganda

Avoid These Topics to Help End Civilization

Courtesy of WikiMedia There are four subjects the polite American avoids discussing in public: Politics, Religion, Sex, and Money. The ostensible reason for this taboo is to avoid offending anyone. But here I argue that this over-correctness is a causative factor in the decline of a civilization. Let's do money, first. As far as I know, this is a particularly American obsession. My European parents had to learn not to talk about money when they came to this country. Other places, the question, "So, how much do you make?" is as normal as "Are you married?" But in the U.S.A, we maintain a fiction of a classless society. We ask the same question only obliquely: "Where did you go to school?" is a good indicator of family income and social position. It is to the advantage of the landed class employers that their serfs employees not compare incomes, as well. By not allowing people to honestly gauge their economic value, they stay insecure. And insecurity leads to all manners of submissive behaviors, shoring up the security of the ruling classes, both secular and religious. Sex is a more generally repressed topic. There is no stronger drive, yet we must never directly say what we feel about it. Western churches even teach that one should deny and ignore the strongest drives within ourselves, leading to all sorts of perverse (read as counter-social) behaviors. To discuss it in public would allow people to see how normal their lusts really are, removing a major source of insecurity. Minor curiosities would not blossom into obsessions and perversions. Such openness would reduce the influence of those very organizations that profit from its repression, like churches and (other) marketing firms, whose urgent short-term goals are only occasionally and accidentally in line with continuing our civilization. Religion is a big one. People wear "subtle" symbols to let others of the same brand know they can be approached on the subject. The third eye, a cross or fish, a Koranic verse, and a star are some of the more obvious "secret" symbols. But it is a major faux pas to overtly declaim about your own faith to someone who may not agree. Unless, of course, the purpose is to stir controversy or solicit, two disreputable (completely human) drives. Again, by not knowing when and to whom you may come out,one feels insecure. This gives the leaders the upper hand. Especially when they strive to sow divisiveness, as in malignant fundamentalist sects. Finally, politics. This is the least stringent of the social prohibitions. I think this is in part because the churches and marketing firms rule the field, anyway. In our land, there are basically two sides: The established American parties, and those who can barely tell them apart. The parties do have differences. One wants to conserve our resources, reduce capitalist predation, and protect the underclass in hopes of a better tomorrow, and the other wants government to protect the minorities (specifically the rich, the unborn, and corporations) and let God (or the invisible hand) sort out the others until the imminent judgment day. So it occurred to me that hiding from these basic topics destabilizes civilization. Social groups balkanize into small, trusted segments that define themselves by their perceived differences. Each of the 30,000 Christian sects publicly claim the sum of all members of all denominations as supporting them, yet privately know that most of the 30,000 others are wrong and hell-bound. We have been divided, and conquered. If the people knew where they stood, and knew where the leaders stood, we would have actual checks and balances as were envisioned by our founders. Without such things, our nation may well founder.

Continue ReadingAvoid These Topics to Help End Civilization

The illogic of Atonement

Over the years, many well-meaning Christians have tried to convince me to give Christianity "another chance." All such people have walked away frustrated with me. I don’t reject religious beliefs because I’m stubborn (but it probably looks like it). Rather, I reject such stories because I insist on credible evidence, especially fantastic stories about ghosts. I also insist that stories should have internal consistency. I insist on a tight underlying logic before I'm willing to believe extraordinary claims. What is illogical about Christianity? The following story is not meant to offend, but rather to illustrate some traditional Christian beliefs in an unfamiliar way. I offer it to all of those people who have tried to convert me over the years. Imagine that you heard the following Assimulated Press story on the radio. What would you think?

Today, we are reporting on a bizarre story. Until last month, an old man had been living with his numerous children in his sprawling mansion, which included a vast garden. Last month, he kicked all of his children out of his garden. Since then he has been threatening to slowly burn some of his children in a big pit in his basement—the ones at risk are those who have misbehaved or otherwise upset him. One week ago, this unusual man committed suicide by nailing himself to a tree on a small hill in his backyard. Since he died, some of his friends have written a book of 66 sub-books describing the old man in megalomaniac terms. Many passages of this book are vague and self-contradictory. For instance, in these letters, he is described as having insisted that he committed suicide to "save" his children from being burned by him. According to the stories, the old man was purportedly trying to save his children from himself. Police contacted the children's mother recently, and she claimed that the old man was the true father even though she had never actually had sex with him. Neighbors have been complaining that she often spoke of her husband as her "son." The most amazing thing, though, is that after this purported "sacrifice" of killing himself on the tree in the backyard, some of the 66 books indicate that his children are still at risk of being burned in the basement. Some people are questioning whether the suicide was necessary at all. Nonetheless, the old man is currently being called a hero by many in his community for having “atoned” for the moral deficiencies of his children by committing suicide, so that he would burn fewer of them.
-- See also, the four other “Assimulated Press” stories at Dangerous Intersection. Here, here, here and here.

Continue ReadingThe illogic of Atonement

Why it matters that the Bible is not inerrant

In Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know about Them) (2010), Bible scholar Bart Ehrman explores many of the contradictions and inaccuracies found in the Bible, and then he comments on what his findings mean. Early in this excellent book, Ehrman invites us to consider the discrepancies in the four Gospels with regard to what happened on the third day after Jesus had been crucified.

Who actually went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem--possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "other women" (Luke 24:1; see 23:55)? Had the stone already been rolled away from the tomb (as in Mark 16:4) or was it rolled away by an Angel while the women were there (Matthew 28:2)? Who or what do they see there? An Angel (Matthew 28:5)? A young man (Mark 16:5)? Two men (Luke 24:4)? Or nothing and no one (John)? And what were they told? To tell the disciples to "Go to Galilee where Jesus will meet them (Mark 16:7)? Or to remember what Jesus had told them "while he was in Galilee," that he had to die and rise again (Luke 24:7)? Then, do the women tell the disciples what they saw and heard (Matthew 28:8), or do they not tell anyone (Mark 16:8)? If they tell someone, whom do they tell? The 11 disciples (Matthew 28:8)? The 11 disciples and other people (Luke 24:8)? Simon Peter and another unnamed disciple (John 20:2)? What do these disciples do in response? Do they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appears to them (Matthew 20:9)? Do they not believe the women because it seems to be "an idle tale" (Luke 24:11)? Or do they go to the tomb to see for themselves (John 20:3)?

[Page 48] Ehrman's book contains a 40-page chapter called "A World of Contradictions," in which he sets out hundreds of these contradictions and discrepancies. He goes to pains to remind his readers that this is simply a small sampling of the many more such issues one will find if one reads the Bible "horizontally," making a careful effort to compare each version of a story with other versions of the same story in other books of the Bible. Although in some of these differences are insignificant, one will find others that are substantial. One of the discrepancies that Ehrman finds more significant is the debate over the date Jesus dies.

In Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be. Moreover, in Mark, Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning: and in John, he is not condemned in till noon, and then is taken out and crucified.

[Page 27] After producing enough evidence to convince anyone other than the fundamentalist that there are plenty of contradictions and inaccuracies, Ehrman proposes several conclusions we can draw:

1. The Bible is not completely inerrant. There are many errors. 2. Christians "of a certain persuasion--such as many of those among whom I live, in the American South--would ever think to ask such a question": Is it now impossible to be a Christian given these many discrepancies? Ehrman suggests that most Christian faiths will remain "unscathed" by the imperfection of the Bible. 3. It is important to let each author in the Bible "speak for himself and not pretend that he is saying the same thing as another." Urban points out that each of the authors has his own agenda, and these become visible when we read each author separately and carefully. Erhman goes to great pains to distinguish the writings of the four Gospel authors, and this careful analysis has the effect of humanizing these authors and their writings. 4. It is impossible to read the books of the Bible as "disinterested historical accounts. None of them is that." At this point, Ehrman offers this thought experiment: "what would you do as a judge in a court trial in which you have conflicting testimony from eyewitnesses? One thing you would certainly not do is assume that each witness is 100% correct."

If there is an overall theme of Ehrman's book, it is that people should stop reading the Bible with the assumption that each of the authors is basically saying the same thing. Ehrman contrasts this "harmonizing approach" to reading the Bible, which is based upon emotional reading, to the approach he recommends, the "historical-critical approach." This latter approach assumes that the Canon of Scripture--

"[T]hat is, the collection of the books into one book considered in some sense to be authoritative for believers--was not the original form in which the biblical books up.. When Paul wrote his letters to the churches he founded, he did not think that he was writing the Bible. He thought he was writing letters . . . . These books were written in different times and places, under different circumstances, to address different issues; they were written by different authors with different perspectives, beliefs, assumptions, traditions, and sources.

[Page 63] [Note: I've written another short post about other points Ehrman makes in this same book].

Continue ReadingWhy it matters that the Bible is not inerrant