Interesting developments in the Christian world...

Most readers know I'm an atheist, but I rarely (in fact, never, if memory serves) engage in anti-religious or anti-christian writings. A: I see no point, and B: I see religion, while I have no place for it in my life, as typically a good thing when not misused by goal-driven zealots. I've decided to start writing about religion more, because it's on my mind a lot more.

Two things I notice today. The first is an article about the stone ossuaries James Cameron and some other dude supposedly "found" (they'd been unearthed 27 years ago) that allegedly are the burial containers for Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and which possibly provide evidence Jesus fathered a son. I've been waiting for this nonsense to air on the Discovery channel so I can see what all the fuss is about - mostly because I enjoy archaeology a great deal. But yesterday, for example, I listened to an "expert" on the radio expounding about the DNA tests that are being performed - his claim was if the DNA tests showed that the Mary and Jesus are not related by blood, it would prove that they were married, as it verifies that Mary is not Jesus' sister.

What. the. fuck.

Anyhoo, in this Newsweek article, we find the following interesting objection to the story, from Stephen Hankins, a dean at Bob Jones University (that beacon of intellectual integrity and scientific inquiry):

Some conservative fundamentalists refuse to even consider the possibility of a Jesus tomb that contains his remains. Doing so would be to “travel down a dangerous road,” says Stephen J. Hankins, seminary dean at Bob Jones University. Hankins argues that Christianity is strongly rooted in historical fact, both in context and in the events that unfold in the Bible, and it is that historicity, he says, which separates the faith from what he calls, "other world religions that are based in myth." Speaking about the existence of Jesus’s physical remains amounts to heresy, Hankins suggests. "If you divorce the faith from the historical events, you have embraced something other than New Testament Christianity, which is not apostolic Christianity," says Hankins. "It’s a modern form of the faith that is untrue.

Okay, this screams out for discussion. First of all, the initial claim here is not that Cameron and crew are wrong on the facts or merits, but that it is dangerous to even consider the possibility. Not only is no research necessary, but any attempt to uncover the facts is, in fact, heresy. Taken further, what he's really saying here is that if Cameron is right, he will have proven history and apostolic Christianity do not agree, hence Cameron can only be wrong. No further inquiry needed. Prevent anyone from finding out if he's right or wrong, and we can continue to say that his lack of evidence proves us right.

As if that isn't convoluted enough, he then argues that Christianity, which I assure you Dean Hankins will tell you is based on faith, not reason, is "strongly rooted in historical fact". You see, this is why folks like Dean Hankins are constantly seeking and trumpeting "evidence" that Judea actually existed, or that there was once a carpenter in Bethlehem, or - even better - that Jesus was absolutely born on December 25th, despite biblical scholars now-common acceptance that that is extremely unlikely and the overwhelming historical evidence of the creation of the December 25th myth.

Furthermore, he dares to talk about "other world religions that are based in myth"? Seriously? I can't wait for Dean Hankins' physical evidence of the resurrection and ascension - I mean, since these aren't myth, clearly they must be historical fact and thereby provable beyond the provenance of text.

Lastly, I just want to mockingly linger on his idea that Cameron, by "proving" we've found Jesus' tomb (I happen to think Cameron's full of shit - this isn't the first Jesus ossuary), is divorcing the "faith from the historical events". This leads me to the obvious question - when I challenge Dean Hankins by saying the bible is not the word of God but is instead an interesting collection of historical stories passed down in oral and written form, will he agree with me or accuse me of heresy? I think I know the answer.

The next article pissing me off is this article from the Seattle Times, about the Freedom From Religion's faith-based initiative suit. Suffice to say, of course, that I side with FFR on this one. Here's the bit that's got me stirred up:

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement said taxpayers who believe the White House is unconstitutionally promoting religion should not be accorded legal standing to sue in court. It would be too "intrusive on the executive branch" to permit lawsuits contesting how the president and his advisers conduct their affairs, he said.

Note, please, that he isn't suggesting they're wrong on the merits (we see the goal-driven zealots understand that they're wrong on the merits), but that they shouldn't be allowed to sue because it would be "intrusive on the executive branch". He knows, as all rational people do, that the faith-based initiative is in fact unconstitutional and he's likely to lose in court. Ultimately, the government will place the case in the court of one of the many God-centric judges they've placed on the bench during their era of roughshod judicial appointment, but nonetheless, the public damage to their credibility will be done.

Last bit:

Roberts made clear he thought the group's claims should be thrown out of court. If taxpayers can sue the government whenever an official invokes God or religion, why couldn't anyone "sue our marshal for standing up and saying, 'God save the United States and this honorable court'?" asked Roberts, citing the invocation heard each day when the justices enter the court.

Note the language here. Roberts is clearly insinuating that FFR is suing because government officials invoke God or religion, which they are in no way doing. They are suing the government because it's using public money to support religious activities by private citizens and entities, which the Supreme Court long ago ruled unconstitutional. This is the classic goal-driven zealot defense - throw up a smokescreen. When a free-thinking person sues to have religious images (giant stone 10-commandment tablets in the courthouse) removed from places where the public is paying for them, the response is not that the government has a right to place religious images wherever it chooses, but that the free-thinker is challenging an individual's right to publicly proclaim his belief in God.

I call that lying. And I think God frowns on that type of thing.