The Invisible Library

This week is Banned Books Week and of course, some people don’t like the word “banned”:

Judy Platt with the Association of American Publishers is a proponent of Banned Books Week. But not even she could come up with a book that has been banned.

“I can’t think of any book that has been banned across the country.”

Phil Burress with Citizens for Community Values says the event is a fraud put on by the American Library Association.

“What people need to understand is that this is the American Library Association’s way of trying to censor those who exercise their free speech rights and say that there are books in the library that should not be available to children.”

These are the same people who often don’t like the word “book” either unless it is preceded by the words “The Good” (a euphemism I’ve never really cared for, as it carries with it the implicite assumption that if this is The One and Only Good Book than whatever subject covered in all those other Books is by definition Bad).

But they’re missing the point. The ALA wouldn’t have to sponsor a Banned Book Week if idiots didn’t keep trying to ban books. That’s the operative word, trying. Because while we no longer ban books on a national level, it wasn’t that long ago that we did. Not that illiterate jackasses would know that, since they weren’t the ones trying find a copy of Ulysses or Lolita back in the sixties when those books were still being seized by customs officials.

Hat tip to Bookslut for reminding me it was one of my favorite weeks of the year.

 [Update below]

After pissing off the Muslim world (again) Pope Rat said this weekend that when he said that Muslims were filthy barbarians and that Islam was a religion of violence, he was just quoting a predecessor, from the 14th century. Memo to the Pope (who, I’m sure reads this blog): If you’re trying to win over the Muslim world, here and now in the 21st century, it’s probably best not to quote from a document that dates from the tail end of the Crusades. They’re a tad sensitive about that whole time period.

Of course, this is all based on the common assumption that the Pope really was trying to open a genuine dialogue with the Muslim world. But let’s be honest, Pope’s aren’t known for their ecumenical olive branches (JP II aside, and even he had limits). Pope Benny “I never was a Nazi, really” XVI has made it clear in the short time he’s been wearing the Funniest Hat of All, that he has no intention of following in his predecessor’s fancy footsteps by trying to foster understanding between people of different faiths. Benny has declared that it’s his way or the highway, and here’s a quarter for the toll booth. Which I’m sure is the best way to fill empty churches and inspire a new generation of pedophiles to become priests. Everyone I know says, “I’m tired of thinking for myself. My life would be so much better if only I had one more authoritarian asshole to tell me what to do.” And the kids, they love 14th century didactic dialogues.

Once again, this demonstrates the whole problem of two groups who both wish it still were the 14th century trying to talk. There’s no way to do so without making a lot of people angry, setting Burger kings all across Southern Europe on fire and generally fuelling religious violence. And, predictably, to prove the Pope right, the Mujahadin Army is threatening violent reprisal against Vatican City.

So, it’s the usual mess. Bloody, violent Islamic fundamentalists getting irate because a bloody minded Catholic fundamentalist called them bloody and violent. And the root of all of this lies in a disagreement as to just which book, supposedly penned by an invisible man who lives in the sky, should be used as the basis for world domination.

Back in my D&D days we solved all disagreements with a swift roll of the ten sided dice. To this day, there’s still no better way of solving petty squabbles about the peculiar rules governing intricate fantasy worlds.

Update:

Sam Harris gets a few good punches in, too:

While the pope succeeded in enraging millions of Muslims, the main purpose of his speech was to chastise scientists and secularists for being, well, too reasonable. It seems that nonbelievers still (perversely) demand too much empirical evidence and logical support for their worldview.  Believing that he was cutting to the quick of the human dilemma, the pope reminded an expectant world that science cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps: It cannot, for instance, explain why the universe is comprehensible at all. It turns out that this is a job for… (wait for it) … Christianity. Why is the world susceptible to rational understanding? Because God made it that way. While the pope is not much of a conjurer, many intelligent and well-intentioned people imagined they actually glimpsed a rabbit in this old hat. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, praised the pope’s “deep and complicated” address for its “clarity and openness.”

As PZ Myers points out, Pope Rat comes off as more dottering and opaque than crystal clear:

This was an appeal to treat Christian superstition as primary, ruling over the false religion of Islam and the even more detestable godlessness of much of Western culture. It was played for the Catholic conservatives, no one else.

The Secular Outpost reviews a fascinating new book, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously, by Jacques Berlinerblau.

Berlinerblau premis is that Secularists don’t take religion seriously:

Today’s secularists too often have very little accurate knowledge about religion, and even less desire to learn. This is problematic insofar as their sense of self is constructed in opposition to religion. Above all, the secularist is not a Jew, is not a Christian, not a Muslim, and so on. But is it intellectually responsible to define one’s identity against something that one does not understand? And what happens when these secularists weigh in on contentious political issues, blind to the religious back-story or concerns that inevitably inform these debates?

It’s a bit of a generalization but he has a point: Sometimes, for some of us, we define ourselves by what we aren’t. I disagree that we need to take religion as serious as the true Believers would like. That gives the fundies too much leeway. If we start granting their beliefs prima facie value, they have enough wiggle room to build their usual wicker traps, “But you agreed that the Bible has some validity, and God wrote the Bible, therefore you admit there’s a God!”

But that’s not really what Berlinerblau is suggesting, which makes this book sound all the more intriguing:

Jacques Berlinerblau suggests that atheists and agnostics must take stock of that which they so adamantly oppose. Defiantly maintaining a shallow understanding of religion, he argues, is not a politically prudent strategy in this day and age. But this book is no less critical of many believers, who–Berlinerblau contends–need to emancipate themselves from ways of thinking about their faith that are dangerously simplistic, irrational and outdated.

To this, I wholeheartedly agree. You must know your enemy and why they believe the crazy ass shit they do. You also need the scholarly tools to pick those irrational beliefs apart, leaving the rational though dodgy bits intact so that, eventually the believers begin to doubt their long held superstitions and reject them on their own terms. That’s how you help people see the light without being thought of as an asshole. But to suggest that Secular thought is in some sort of crisis, as Berlinerblau does, is a bit of a stretch. Tanner Edis, from the Secular Outpost made a similar point:

So I’m not sure about secular thinking about religion being in a state of crisis. I don’t want to deny that Berlinerblau has a valid point, and that it would be good if there was more explicitly secular reading of the Bible going on. This would have immense practical value, and it might even help break the isolationism within religious studies. Nevertheless, there’s a lot more secular thinking about religion going on that Berlinerblau does not recognize. And in this wider context, I suspect that a certain lack of interest in the Bible is more understandable.

still, it sounds like a fascinating book and will be added to my Amazon wishlist, forthwith.

Have you ever wondered if there were a way to completely restrict what your computer does (I mean besides using anything by Microsoft)? Ever wanted to have some Jesus on your desktop? The Pope in your RAM? Well, now you can have your very own Christian Operating System:

Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support.

[…] Ubuntu Christian Edition includes more than 16,000 pieces of software, but the core desktop installation fits on a single CD. Ubuntu Christian Edition covers every standard desktop application from word processing and spreadsheet applications to web server software and programming tools.

Along with the standard Ubuntu applications, Ubuntu Christian Edition includes the best available Christian software. The latest release contains GnomeSword, a top of the line Bible study program for Linux based on the Sword Project. There are several modules installed with GnomeSword including Bibles, Commentaries, and Dictionaries.

But the real question is, does it quote scripture at you when you try to downlaod porn?

ALA:

“Throughout history, there always have been a few people who don’t want information to be freely available. And this is still true,” said ALA President Leslie Burger. “The reason more books aren’t banned is because community residents - with librarians, teachers and journalists - stand up and speak out for their freedom to read. Banned Books Week reminds us that we must remain vigilant.”

Bookstores and libraries around the country will celebrate the freedom to read with exhibits, readings and special events during Banned Books Week, September 23-30, 2006. First observed in 1982, Banned Books Week reminds Americans not to take this precious democratic freedom for granted. City Lit Theater in Chicago and ALA will kick off the week with theatrical readings from recently challenged books September 24. The ALA also will participate in a virtual panel discussion with author Chris Crutcher (”Whale Talk”) and 15 high schools on September 25. Participants will hear about Crutcher’s experiences as a frequently challenged author, learn more about the history of book banning in the United States and examine contemporary issues in intellectual freedom and access to information.

There were 405 known attempts to remove books in 2005. Challenges are defined as formal, written complaints filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness. About 70 percent of challenges take place in schools and school libraries. According to Judith F. Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, the number of challenges reflects only incidents reported, and for each reported, four or five remain unreported.

“We are as busy as we’ve ever been in fighting censorship attempts in schools and libraries,” Krug said. “Libraries are no longer simply about books - but also about DVDs, videogames and online information.”

Number one on the list of most-often banned books? That hot-bed of radical thought, Judy Bloom’s Forever.

All through September I’ll be featuring reviews and discussions of some of my Favoite banned books.  As always, suggestions are welcome, in comments.

There are some truly excellent pieces by an astounding array of talented bloggers up at the 41st Skeptics Circle, hosted by Interverbal. And I’m not just saying that because I’m one of them.

Americans love God. Love, love, Love! God. Pat Robertson and George W. Bush say so. And they wouldn’t lie. According to recent statistics, 90% of Americans profess belief in the invisible Man that lives in the clouds. 9 out of every 10 Americans think an anthropomorphic dude with a flowing white beard and preoccupation with shellfish and butt sex cares about fetuses, who they vote for and which language the Bible was really written in. ¹ I’d think, being King of the Whole Friggin Universe, he might be more interested in what Black Holes and Pulsars are up to but that’s just me. 9 of 10 people you and I know, think otherwise. Which sounds pretty damn impressive. Except, it’s not true:

• The percentage of American adults who identify themselves as Christians dropped from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001. This is an unprecedented drop.
• Confidence in religious institutions has hit an all-time low.
• There appears to be a major increase in interest in spirituality among North Americans. However, this has not translated into greater church involvement.
• Mainline denominations have been losing membership for decades in the U.S.; conservative denominations have been growing.
• At the present rates of change, Islam will become the dominant religion in the world before 2050 CE.
• At the present rate of change, most Americans will be non-Christians by the year 2035 CE.
• The numbers of “unchurched” people has increased rapidly in the U.S. These are individuals who have not attended church in recent months.
• Agnosticism, Atheism, secularism are growing rapidly.
• Interest in new religious movements (e.g. New Age, Neopaganism) is growing rapidly. In particular, Wiccans are doubling in numbers about every 30 months.
• The influence of the central, program-based congregation is diminishing as more cell churches are being created.
• Many Christians have left congregations and formed house churches - small groups meeting in each other’s homes.

According to one survey, 76.5% of adult Americans identified themselves as Christians in 2001. But less than half attend church regularly, if at all. A similar study found that those who practice what they preach is a modest 30% and falling. The survey breaks it down like this:

• 30% are totally secular in outlook
• 29% are barely or nominally religious
• 22% are modestly religious
• 19% regularly practice their religion.

If 60% of those who claim to believe in God act just like us Atheists, are they really religious? More importantly, do they really believe in God or are they just saying so to be polite? We are conditioned from a very early age to equate belief in God with good behavior. But what if in fact we do the reverse and equate good behavior with a presupposition that the person in question believes in God?

I know from personal experience that this is often the case. My in-laws thought I was a nice guy until my wife told them I was an Atheist. Her mother gave me suspicious looks for the first year we were married, to make sure I didn’t have baby’s blood staining my teeth or smell like I’d just been raping puppies out back. She eventually realized I was actually a good person and yet I didn’t believe in Jesus, or pray or anything like that. I think she’s still trying to figure out how that works.

In many places, specifically, the South where I currently live, this equation Good People=Theist is a given. It is assumed that you are a believer and more specifically, a Christian, regardless of the facts or actual behavior. ² And since first impressions are so important, well, so what if your girlfriend’s grandmother thinks you and she get up early on Sundays and go pray at Church (the other one, across town. No the other one, next to the one with the neon sign. No the other one) rather than sleep off a hangover form the party the night before? What she doesn’t know won’t make Thanksgiving any more awkward than it has to be.

Except, it’s not really even that conscious. Most people profess to believe in God, because they’ve never given it any real thought. God, like the wind through the trees, is just there. You don’t have to think about it or really invest any actual energy in believing in Him, except maybe on Easter or Christmas and even that’s more about candy and presents. So, what was the question again? Oh sure, I believe in God. But let’s skip church and go see Snakes On a Plane instead. That Samuel L. Jackson is one smooth motherfucker!

David Byrne has a blog. What’s more, he recently reviewed a documentary called Jesus Camp, about summer camps where the Am Taliban indoctrinates children:

There were some perfect sound bites — at one point Pastor Fischer instructs the little ones that they should be willing to die for Christ, and the little ones obediently agree. She may even use the word martyr, which has a shocking echo in the Middle East. I can see future suicide bombers for Jesus — the next step will be learning to fly planes into buildings. Of course, the grownups would say, “Oh no, we’re not like them” — but they admit that the principal difference is simply that “We’re right.”

In another scene a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush, with his trademark smirking smile, is brought out and the children are urged to identify — many of the little ones come forward and reverently touch his cardboard hands.

I kept saying to myself, “O.K., these are the Christian version of the Madrassas (those Islamic religious instructional schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, often financed by Saudi oil money)…so both sides are pretty much equally sick, there’s a balance.” (Although it must be said the Madrassas provide some regular education and literacy where no other option is available, they do community work that is non-religious…and they take in aimless troubled youth.)

They want to turn the U.S. into the “Christian” version of Iran or Saudi Arabia. A theocracy. The separation between church and state, already shaky with Bush in charge, is under full frontal assault by this bunch — and they are well organized, too. The megachurches tell their parishioners who to vote for, what judges to support, letters to write, and where they should stand on the issues. Well, we all do this to some extent — even in casual chats with friends we attempt to deduce and arrive at a consensus of opinion; a sloppy democratic give-and-take on any number of subjects often gives way to agreement. But this is top-down messaging — no discussion allowed. There’s a scene in the Colorado Springs megachurch run by the Preacher who talks with Bush once a week — same deal as with the kids, only most of the attendees are pliant adults.

People give me weird looks when the topic of conversation turns to American religion and I mention groups like the ones in this film. As if religion is somehow so different once you cross the border into America. we don’t have anti-fundamentalist radar, people and it can happen here and already is. That’s the scary part.

The good news is that there are people who are making these documentaries. People like the gang over at Science Blogs, PZ Myers and the lot, who make it their goal to spread scientific knowledge, to combat this virulent drivel. And, in no small part, that’s part of why I became a Librarian. If I can get someone, anyone to read a book and think a little bit more critically about some of these things, especially children, then maybe we can stop these Jesus freaks from turning the next generation into a bunch of Zombies for Jesus.

Charles Pierce says what iIm too pissed to say about President kill Again breaking the shrinkwrap n his Veto Power in order to put the Evil Eye on Stem Cell Research:

I have watched slow death from neurological disease once too often in my life to be anything but furious when Sam Brownback, a United States senator to the everlasting embarrassment of that body, pulls out a child’s drawing of an embryo with a smiley-face in order to argue his position. Or when Tony Snow, that towering public fake, starts getting glib about “murder,” as though there isn’t enough blood lapping at the ankles of everyone in this White House to float a barge. Or when Snow’s boss, that tough-talkin’, crumb-spittin’, neck-rubbin’ international buckaroo, uses the first veto of his presidential career and then hides behind children while maundering incoherently about a “moral line” as though he’d recognize one if he fell over it. Is there any doubt that, if this guy got Parkinson’s Disease, he’d eat those little buggers out of the petri dish with a spoon, probably dribbling some of them on Tony Blair in the process?

That Bush would make this issue his first Veto in five years is so telling about this administration. Fuck the environment, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any real issue out there. Vetos are for chumps. Unless you can stop scientific progress and pander to the Am Taliban.

A few readers have written in to let me know that I’m too hard on the Faihful, that religious people aren’t kooks, or idiots, that they are fine, upstanding and moral folk with a deep rooted sense of tradition and values. I direct those people to this piece in Harpers, which says otherwise:

I too am soooo excited!! I get goose bumps, literally, when I watch what’s going on in the M.E.!! And Watcherboy, you were so right when saying it was quite a day yesterday, in the world news, and I add in local news here in the Boston area!! Tunnel ceiling collapsed on a car and killed a woman of faith, and we had the most terrifying storms I have ever seen here!! But, yes, oh happy day, like in your screen name , it is most indeed a time to be happy and excited, right there with ya!!

* * *

I am excited beyond words that the struggle of this life may be over soon and I can finally be FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

* * *

This is so exciting….I’m having a hard time believing this is ‘real’!

True Believers are happy that a confluence of superstition and geopolitics has led to chaos, destruction and untold loss of life. Truely, these are the chosen people, the most holy and righteous.