God’s Big Chance

As this historic presidential election wallows in its eleventh hour, it grows bigger with meaning. Another layer of significance has been added, this one perhaps trumping all the rest.

You see, with this election the stage has been set for the Almighty to demonstrate his existence and potency once and for all.

Who dared set the stage thus for the Omnipotent? The faithful themselves, of course. All across America, prayers are being whispered and shouted for God to put the “right man” in the Oval Office.

One Pam Olsen, co-pastor with her husband of a church in Florida, insists to her fellow believers that

[w]e have just days to pray that someone who upholds the sanctity of life and marriage between one man and one woman will win.

Olsen also urgers anyone who will listen to implore “the Lord to move in swing states”.

This puts believers (and God!) in a mildly interesting but not necessarily favorable scenario. What happens when Obama wins and perhaps goes on to push for pro-gay-marriage or pro-choice legislation? Will Olsen and her ilk come to the unavoidable conclusion that God either respects the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry and of a woman to choose or would allow this “evil” to persist, in spite of the fervent pleading of his “elect”? Either way, conservative Christianity receives another well-deserved blow.

Of course, if their greatest fears should come true, these Christians will most likely resort to their stock rationalizations, e.g., men are exercising their free will to pursue the lusts of the flesh, the End Times are coming, etc.

So if McCain wins, then this will be evidence that God is in control and the prayers were answered. But if Obama wins, then this will be evidence that – what?

That God is in control, even though the prayers were not answered?

This is another example of the non-falsifiability of religious claims. Why are they non-falsifiable? Because they are not connected in any way to the world as it really is. If they were, then it would be possible, at least in principle, to delegitimate them, even in the eyes of those who hold them most dearly.

This non-falsifiability is quite contrary to the spirit of the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel, where God sent fire from the sky in a drastic, and drastically empirical, demonstration of his power. Because history is written by the winners, we have no inkling what Elijah’s response would have been if Yahweh’s offering had not been consumed but Baal’s had.

I have a feeling we’ll get an inkling when Obama gains the presidency. Furthermore, I have a feeling it will make no sense at all.

Focus on the Family Demonizes Obama

Senator Obama has not even taken his oath of office, and he’s already managed to offend the ever-offensible Focus on the Family. Jimmy Dobson and his pals have issued a long, tedious document entitled “Letter From 2012 in Obama’s America”. It is a typically insipid and divisive Rightist affair.

The whole thing amounts to one, giant slippery slope argument: if Obama is elected, terrorism will rain down on the U.S. and Israel, Russia will go berserk, aborting babies will replace baseball as the national pastime, and – perhaps worst of all – the U.S. might have to acknowledge the rights of those (gulp) homaseckshuls!

At least they didn’t call him the AntiChrist. At least, I don’t think they did. I only got about half-way through the letter before I started grinding my teeth.

Click the link above and read this garbage for yourself, if you want a good laugh (or a good cry, depending on how you feel about these things).

For myself, I agree with the Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell, who remarked that the Letter “looks like, walks like, talks like, and smells like desperation”.

This document is just a last-ditch effort. Focus on the Family knows that, in a couple weeks, this will be “Obama’s America”. Thank God!

But wait. Maybe not! In other news, Senator Obama is pledging expansion of the Bush administration’s faith-based programs.

Are poli sci professors the only people who read the Constitution anymore?

New Fisher Price Doll Says “Islam is the Light”!

Fig. 1. A real Muslim doll.

Fisher Price has released a new doll with a very un-doll-like feature: according to some, the doll proclaims to anyone who will listen that “Islam is the Light”. At least, that is what disgruntled customers allege of the international toy manufacturer’s “Little Mommy” doll.

Fisher Price, of course, denies what appears to amount to a min-jihad on its part. They say the baby just makes baby talk. Decide for yourself what the doll is saying by watching the video here.

As for me, I doubt the doll is saying “Islam is the light”, although it does sound that way. We could blame the well-known psychological phenomenon called “priming”, in which the brain is conditioned to construct the sounds in a particular way, except that the first customer who bought the doll heard it right away!

Retail chains like Wal-Mart and Target have pulled the doll off their shelves. But why? Don’t Muslims shop at those places? And don’t Muslim kids want dolls? And don’t Muslim parents want Muslim dolls for their Muslim kids? And won’t Muslim pay good Muslim money for good Muslim dolls?

I think Fisher Price should run with this and make dolls for all the major religions. I mean, how cute would a little baby Buddha doll be?

Also, I think Fisher Price should make dolls for atheists like me. When you push the doll’s hand, it would say, “There is no Light!” And then it would cry inconsolably for its Mommy.

I don’t think there’s foul play by true Muslims here. Why? Because no true Muslim would say that Islam is the light. A true Muslim would say that Allah is the light. Muslims aren’t like Christians: they don’t worship their own religion.

Besides, there are already genuine, quality Muslim dolls on the market, which you can buy online. They wear hijabs and everything. (See Fig. 1)

Radio Personality Fired for Ridiculing God

In the United Arab Emirates earlier today, a radio personality made the mistake of making fun of God. No, he didn’t get smitten into oblivion. However, he did get fired, at the instigation of Christians and Muslims who were offended by his playing pretend.

So what did the host do that was so offensive to the devout? He enacted a sketch in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturns a lawsuit against the deity. (The Associated Press fails to give much detail as to the content of the sketch.)

As far as I know, the station that employed the host acted as a private entity. Such is the marketplace: if you piss off your customers, you gotta go.

But take this to heart: To praise God is meaningless in a world where one cannot also insult him.

If you are a theist, and you doubt this, just think of your own response to the Problem of Evil: To obey God is meaningless in a world where one cannot also defy him.

Thanks for Asking!

In a recent edition of my local metro newspaper, Kate Randall has offered a great example of what I call the Pluralist Dilemma.

In her commentary, Randall mildly objects to strangers constantly asking what church she attends. (This is indeed a question one gets often in my conservative community.)

She writes that this

is a problem because it is based on huge assumptions about people’s beliefs. The question assumes I am Christian (as opposed to another religion, or – gasp – a non-believer). The question assumes I attend church (as opposed to temple, worship center or – gasp – no organized center for religion at all). The question assumes what so many assume […]: We are all Christians; we all believe in the one and only God, and we all should attend church. Or we should.
And if you don’t, we feel sorry for you, because you’re going to spend eternity burning in hell. Would you like paper or plastic? (Grand Rapids Press, 18 October 2008)

I applaud Mrs. Randall’s courage in publishing this commentary, which runs strongly counter to the culture to which the newspaper in question gives voice. (They did stick her piece on the bottom of the last page of the paper’s “Religion” section. But I found it, dammit!) No doubt she’ll garner some indignant Letters to the Editor.

In a pluralist world, awkward situations like the one Randall describes are bound to happen.

“So what did your wife say?”

“Uhh.. actually, I’m gay.”

“Oh.” Awkward silence.

So is it rude to ask where someone goes to church? I wouldn’t go that far. It is, however, presumptuous and inconsiderate. (OK, it’s rude!) It leaves you with a mouth full of foot and your interlocutor with a refreshed sense of alienation and marginalization.

So please, if you’re really interested in someone’s spiritual life, keep your questions open-ended. After all, whether you like it or not, we live in an open-ended world.