My Universe Is Too Big For Your Little God

To quote the incomparable Douglas Adams:

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.

I often hear religious believers expound on the wonders of their faith and how it gives them a sense of transcendence; a sense that there’s something beyond this world and beyond our understanding and beyond and beyond and beyond …

It mystifies me when that kind of transcendence is found in religion.

The gods of our mainstream religions are just so small.

Take the Jewish god. He’s a petty misogynist obsessed with diet, fabrics and personal hygiene.

The Christian god (thought to be the same guy once he’d become a father and calmed down a bit) wants his followers to ritually cleanse themselves and demands legal marriage before any rubbing of genitalia can take place.

The Islamic god is also obsessed with sex, calling for adulterers to be stoned and women to cover their bodies lest the men around them fail to control themselves.

Just stop for a minute. Would an omnipotent and omniscient god really be interested in these things?

Look at the stars. Look at the Universe around you. Look at all the wondrous things these gods supposedly created.

We are a vanishingly small island in an unimaginably vast ocean of energies and forces.

Do you really think a being capable of mapping the galaxies cares how many times you wash your hands?

The Curious Case of the Pope and Dr Green

Pope Benedict’s recent comment on condom usage in Africa has sparked a firestorm of comment and counter-comment.

Liberals have accused the Vatican of promoting their religious dogma over public health. Catholics and their apologists have responded that the Pope was right: research shows distributing condoms just make things worse.

In their latest salvo, apologists have pointed to Dr. Edward C. Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health. Their claim is that he agrees with the Pope.

This comes from a recent interview with Dr. Green, conducted by Christianity Today’s Tim Morgan:

Morgan: Is Pope Benedict being criticized unfairly for his comments about HIV and condoms?
Dr. Green: This is hard for a liberal like me to admit, but yes, it's unfair because in fact, the best evidence we have supports his comments — at least his major comments, the ones I have seen.

It’s not quite the ringing endorsement apologists would like to pretend it is. And if we look closer at what Dr. Green actually thinks, it’s obvious that his views are being conveniently twisted by the Catholic PR machine into something they’re not.

In today’s Washington Post, Dr. Green makes his position clear:

In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked.

Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship.

There are two separate issues at play here.

On one side we have a debate about the efficacy of disease control methods in Africa. There, Dr. Green’s research has shown that promoting both monogamy and condom usage has been the most effective method of slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Uganda. In this 2003 paper, Dr. Green details why this has been a more effective solution than relying on condom distribution alone.

On the other side, we have the Vatican and their moral view that condoms should never be used. When Pope Benedict made his comment, this was what he was promoting.

Here’s the point: the Vatican’s view has nothing to do with the condom’s efficacy in disease control. It’s Catholic church dogma wholly relating to their opinions on appropriate sexual behaviour and their moral opposition to contraception.

Pointing out Dr. Green’s “support” for the Pope is an attempt to bolster this dogmatic position, but any suggestion that the Vatican’s view is based on any kind of science is laughable.

The fact remains that availability of condoms and appropriate education on how to use them is a cornerstone of HIV/AIDS control programs.

The Pope’s implication that availability of condoms makes things worse is at best incredibly irresponsible, and at worst an evil and cynical attempt to promote religious dogma at the expense of public health.

This is a debate about disease control and nothing more. Dr. Green’s research, the research of others working in the field and the science behind are all that’s important.

The moral position of the Pope and the religious dogma of the Catholic Church are utterly irrelevant.

Pope Benedict is a Dangerous Lunatic

In his first visit to Africa today, the Pope said these words:

“AIDS is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.”

It must be true because he’s infallible, right. Right?

This is a perfect illustration of so many things.

. . . the fact that so many of our religious “leaders” are more interested in maintaining their moral authority than helping people.

. . . that religion is far from innocuous and has the power to cause real and genuine harm in our world.

. . . why it’s so important to keep religion out of politics.

But most of all, it throws into sharp relief the fact that the Catholic church is nothing more than a dangerous relic of a bygone age. With this one unconscionable statement, the Pope has damned his faith and his followers to the trashcan of history.

This is just cause for every Catholic in the world to denounce their leader as a misanthropic lunatic and demand his resignation. If they fail to do this, then the necessary response from rational thinking people worldwide is clear.

We must declare that the Catholic Church is no longer worthy of any political or social influence.

We must declare that its priests and cardinals are never again to be considered authorities on any matters of morality or ethics.

We must call on our governments to withdraw funding from Catholic churches, schools and organisations.

And finally, we must demand that this pompous and sanctimonious dipshit known as the Pope Benedict XVI, who has proven himself to be dangerously out of touch with reality, should immediately and without further delay pull his ignorant fucking head in.

Homo-Christianity

Over at the blog “Apologia” I’ve been debating self-described Christian apologist Eric. The discussion has ranged over a wide spectrum, which was surprising given that Eric’s original post said he was sick of debating atheists.

Still, a few issues were passed over for lack of time, so I though I might pick them up here.

At one point in the discussion Eric made the comment

“It’s obvious to anyone who reads the Gospels that Jesus considered homosexuality to be a sin.”

This stopped me in my in my tracks for a moment, because it should be obvious to anyone who reads the Gospels that Jesus had precisely nothing to say about homosexuality.

Zero. Zip. Nada. Not a word.

And yet strangely, Eric’s view is very common. For so many Christians in the world today homosexuality is Public Enemy No. 1 when it comes to the nebulous field of “sexual immorality”.

And this is despite the fact that Jesus himself, the man supposedly at the centre of their religion, didn’t think it was important enough to mention.

Further damaging the Christian position is that the most common biblical quote thrown around (you know . . . “homosexuality is an abomination”) is from the Old Testament; that bit of the Bible that Christians mostly ignore.

Supposedly Christians are all about the New Testament. Or they’re supposed to be. That’s where Jesus came along and did away with all the old laws. This is, for example, why Christians don’t eat kosher.

But back to the Old Testament.

In the same section in which homosexuality is denounced we also have prohibitions against wearing clothes made from two different types of material (Lev 19:19), cutting the hair at the sides of your head (Lev 19:27) and sleeping with a menstruating woman (Lev 18:19 and 20:18).

These other things are obviously no longer important. But for some reason, homosexuality is an exception.

So what about the New Testament?

There are four references in the New Testament which could be regarded as relating to homosexuality. These were all made by Paul, the guy who took control of the nascent church after Christ’s death (and alleged resurrection) and in my mind, royally screwed up the humanist message Jesus was trying to deliver.

Each of these references is no more than a throw-away remark put in as a sideline to a different point he was making. None of them are decisive condemnations, and there’s a nice summary here (from a Christian website) of why they shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

Modern Christianity’s obsession with and bigotry against homosexuals is one of the main causes of continued discrimination in our culture. The passing of the noxious Proposition 8 in California (largely because the Christian community mobilised to support it) is just the most recent example.

The sooner this attitude is seen as the irrelevant cultural relic that it is, and the sooner it’s recognised that even those who propound it have no reason to do so, even within their own doctrine, then the better off we’ll all be.

Tintin 80, allegedly gay

Belgian boy reporter Tintin is 80. And he doesn’t look a day over his ill-defined age somewhere between adolescence and twentysomething.

It’s been 80 years since that quiffed visage first appeared as a strip cartoon in the magazine Le Petit Vingtième, and 80 years later he’s still stirring up controversy, with professional tosspot Matthew Parris’ recent article on Tintin’s “obvious” homosexuality (he’s got a best friend who’s a sailor and whatnot).

That in itself is hardly worth mentioning. What is interesting is the backlash that it’s prompted.

The cult of Tintin is clearly still around, even though the stories (and quiffed hairstyles) are looking a bit dated.

It’s not going away anytime soon either, what with über-fans Peter Jackson and Stephen Spielberg collaborating on a trilogy of films, the first to be released in 2010.

I wonder if they’ll explore the sexuality issue? I’m guessing not.

The Burlesque Hour

fortyfivedownstairs, Flinders Lane

Moira Finucane has returned to Melbourne with her latest show, combining grand old saucy burlesque with some other stuff you probably wouldn't show your granny.

Borrowing elements from gothic horror, Virginia Woolf and Japanese lolita culture, it manages to cross every line you think of, some you don't, and ultimately plays like Cirque de Soleil on magic mushrooms. There's acrobatics, dancing girls, nudity, adult themes and some violence.

The revue format is good, mainly because it means that if you don't like this act, the next one is not far behind. Also, there's no common theme, except in the most general burlesque tradition of sex-as-comedy.

And make no mistake, it is very very funny.

Some will find the show offensive, but those will invariably be the same people guilty of taking sex far too seriously. The show is more or less designed to offend such people.

In fact, the beauty of this style of burlesque is that it dares to treat sex precisely as it should be treated . . . as something wonderful and something to be enjoyed, but at the same time something very human, a bit grotesque and most importantly, faintly ridiculous.

3.5 out of 5

Once again, Bolt just doesn't get it

Last week Age arts critic Robert Nelson reopened the debate on the representation of children in art by publishing a naked picture of his daughter Olympia on the cover of Arts Monthly magazine.

Professional dyspeptic Andrew Bolt, in his new role as moral crusader (taking a break from his role as fingers-in-the-ears-antiscience-climate-change-denier) was obviously horrified.

On Thursday Bolt published on his blog an earlier piece by Nelson, in which Nelson talks about the ways in which images of children are sexual. Bolt describes Nelson's piece as "disturbing", but as is often the case, he's completely missed the point.

If what Nelson says about the images being sexual isn't true, then Bolt's own argument that the images shouldn't be seen . . . because they're sexual . . . make no sense!

Of course the pictures are sexual. But the point is that the pictures aren't sexualising the children. They're just bringing out, as Mr Nelson says, the latent sexuality that is already there.

You can't make a teapot sexual merely by photographing it naked.

Bolt and Nelson are actually in complete agreement on this point.

The only difference is that Nelson advocates the pictures' public display, while Bolt (along with Kevin Rudd and Hetty Johnston and all our other self-appointed moral nannies) wants them hidden away.

I have to agree with Robert Nelson. Let's bring it out into the open. Hiding our children away in dark corners does not keep them safe.

If we genuinely want to see a reduction in child abuse, then let's give our kids pride in themselves, pride in their strength and most importantly, ownership of their sexuality.

The problem with the current stampede of moral outrage is that it works completely counter to this goal. Kevin Rudd saying he "cannot stand" the picture of Olympia is a case in point.

Olympia was understandably offended by his statement because she's proud of her pictures, as she should be. And does Olympia sound like the sort of girl who would stand to be abused? Of course not.

A child with a healthy sense of his or her own worth is the child that will kick an abuser in the nuts and run away.

Surely that's what we want our kids to be.

Morality Redux

A day after my previous post, two articles appeared showing how much we're still prone to getting wound up about sex . . . for no reason other than an inherited and irrelevant moral sense.

Exhibit A Actress and sometime bollywood starlet Tania Zaetta is accused of having sex with soldiers while on a tour of Afghanistan.

Firstly: who cares? And secondly . . . no, that's it. Who cares?

I am utterly incredulous about this. She's an adult. The soldiers concerned are adults.

As long as she makes it to her show on time, which is what she's paid to do (and there's no suggestion that she didn't) then there's no problem.

If anyone can explain this to me in terms other than puritanical outrage, I'd be very interested to hear it.

Exhibit B An enterprising idea to distribute condoms with Vodka Cruisers was quickly stopped.

Again . . . what's the problem? In what possible sense (other than again, the puritanical) is this not a good idea?

The recent moral outrage over binge drinking has been happy to use the spectre of teen pregnancy as ammunition.

And this sort of beverage is precisely what's been targeted by the new "RTD tax" to, in theory, control binge drinking.

So giving out free condoms with every purchase makes perfect sense.

I'm very uncomfortable about all of this. This sort of thing should be left at the pulpit where it belongs, and not repeated ad nauseum by the supposedly serious media.

It's precisely this sort of nonsense that leads to abstinence-based sex education in schools, and soon after that, spiralling rates of sexually transmitted diseases.

Morality

There's an interesting discussion going on over at the "Religious Write" blog by The Age's Barney Zwartz.

He asks the question of whether morality is an evolved, absolute and/or God-given phenomenon.

My comment was this:

"I think what does knock out the God argument (assuming that argument is that God has hard-wired morality into our DNA), is that we see morality varies between cultures.

If it were hard-wired, all cultures would be the same. Why would God construct different moralities for different groups? And the "moving in mysterious ways" argument won't wash . . . sorry. :-)

The most likely explanation for all this is simply social evolution.

The practices that were of most benefit to a society, or fitted in best with a society's particular circumstances (demographical, geographical, environmental etc) become, over time, the accepted moral standard.

If there are morals that seem universal, it's just because they are somehow intrinsic to the health of all societies."

A couple of additional points occurred to me after leaving this comment.

This first was that the converse is also true: that if a practice is perceived as a threat to a particular society, then that practice becomes a moral taboo.

The second was that I find it interesting for any discussion on morality to be framed in terms of religion.

From my standpoint, the prevalence of religion in a culture acts to stymie moral development, not assist it.

Our three major religions dictate to their adherents a particular set of morals, determined centuries before and in a different country, and claim they are still wholly relevant and still must be followed.

A case in point is the Christian/Judaic/Islamic attitude towards sex.

In a small nomadic feudal community hemmed in by enemies, the family unit is obviously necessary for survival, as is the growth of the community by producing children.

Under these circumstances, it's no surprise that sex becomes primarily a means of increasing tribal numbers. It then follows that sex that does not lead to procreation becomes taboo.

The obvious outcomes of this are our major religions' attitudes towards homosexuality, and Catholicism's (in particular) rejection of contraception.

A related issue is the demonisation of extra-marital sex. Having children out of wedlock was taboo because (common to most societies) it causes complications when distributing inheritance, and so then extra-marital sex is taboo by association.

This kind of thinking also explains the apparent horror in the Islamic tradition of women who are menstruating, or who have recently given birth, when they are described as 'unclean'. They are unable, or unlikely, to conceive a child at that time, and hence have no usefulness.

Morality is clearly relative. But more importantly, it's prone to change as society and circumstances change.

And it must be allowed to change.

Any concepts of an absolute morality, which seems to be the favoured approach of all our religions, is anathema to the development and advancement of our society.