The Pervasiveness of Nonsense

Sooner or later you too will get the email chain – the “I am honored to pass this along” thing with all the photos of crosses and babies and the American flag and such. It asks some basic question. Did you know the ACLU has filed suit to have all crosses removed from military cemeteries? And Obama is having all military chaplains fired if they mention God? And churches across the nation are being sued, forced to remove their crosses from their won grounds? And, in one variation, Obama will not have a Christmas tree – or a Christmas anything – at the White House this year?

It’s very odd, and dealt with at the urban-myth sites here and here. The ACLU has filed no such suit. That claim that they have has been going around for six years now. The rest is nonsense. And there this fact-check – or, if you have access to Lexis-Nexis or any other such tool at any law office or research library, try to find the case number, any case number, or any filing requesting a case number. Good luck with that. There’s nothing there, no such suit. But if you believe this is true, of course that won’t convince you. Yep, you accept things on faith.

The latest case slightly related to this matter is about the Mojave Cross, argued at the Supreme Court recently and discussed here. Should this big concrete cross in a federal preserve be removed? Veterans groups worried that other religious symbols that serve as war memorials could be threatened by a ruling against the Mojave cross. Can we have no symbols? The ACLU lawyer said they need not worry – the Veterans Administration offers a choice of thirty-nine different emblems and beliefs on tombstones at Arlington. And it was the Jewish and Muslim veterans, in an amicus brief, who objected that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans and excludes others, like them. Explicitly, the ACLU said it was not the intention here to remove religious symbols everywhere, and it never was. That wasn’t the issue. The actual facts of the case have to do with the establishment clause and just who has standing. But some think they know what is really, really going on, secretly. That’s fine. Believe what you will.

No atheists filed amicus briefs. This was an insider’s thing, one religion against another. And it all started when someone wanted to erect a Buddhist shrine near the cross, and was told to forget about that nonsense. They got pissed off.

You see, some folks who are Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist, or whatever, do get a bit grumpy when you try to shove Jesus down their throats one more time, again, and tell them that have to accept Him as their personal savior. As atheists, some of us have no dog in this fight. But looking on from the sidelines, are these people firing off these emails crazy? And if you’re an evangelical Christian, why are you so consumed with abhorrence for everyone else’s symbols, like those Buddhists? Hell, when our Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist friends see one more cross they shrug – whatever. And if you’re on a jihad for Allah, you’re just as irritating.

But people really do want to believe this stuff. Why they want to believe what just isn’t true is another matter. That’s probably best left to those who study the interrelationship of fear, resentment and anger. But one wonders just who is being served by this petulant fury at the imaginary. One thinks of Abe Simpson, Homer Simpson’s father – “Old Man Yells at Cloud!”

But bring that up and you get responses like this one that landed here, from a friend of a friend of a friend:

I guess we choose to believe it because many of us live in towns or areas where Churches, under the pressure of various activist organizations or a threat of a lawsuit from someone with an axe to grind, are removing their crosses. We see this trend increasing and it makes a rumor like this believable.

Okay, find a case where any church has been pressured to remove a cross from its own grounds, and send it along. Where has this happened? Perhaps this person is thinking of municipal displays, on government property, subsidized, directly or indirectly, by government funds. And aside from safety issues, something big and rusty that might fall over and hurt someone, or a traffic disruption issue, I suspect you’ll find no such private cases. There is case law where both ringing of church bells at odd hours and Muslim calls to prayer have resulted in restraining orders – both in Detroit, two years ago. But there seems to be no case law where a church has been told to remove its symbol(s) from its own property, nor a synagogue told to remove its Star of David from its own buildings or grounds. This is news. Why hasn’t it hit the law reviews and news? Constitutional lawyers love this sort of thing. So does Fox News. There should be a trail. So? What trend?

And the odd thing is that if a church were told to remove its cross from its own steeple, the ACLU would probably represent that church, pro bono.

But, as usual, there are those who choose to believe there is a war on the poor outnumbered Christians, and everyone is out to get them, the few that remain, and they are a persecuted minority. And martyrdom plays a big role in all religions. That’s the way it goes.

So here’s the deal, just like it says in the constitution. Your cross is fine. Not my business. But it’s not the government’s business either. They have enough to deal with as it is.

But you know the response (quoted precisely):

It has happened. New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts. Having lawyers as relatives on the East Coast and hearing about such cases that never reach the ears of the public because they are resolved in mediation because churches don’t want havoc in their immediate communities does make me aware of some things. Maybe you should look around you a little more. You might be surprised.

So there is a vast, wholly unreported but highly coordinated effort, a conspiracy, to rid America of all religion – and the media, even Fox News, has been kept completely in the dark about it. But some people – those with eyes to see – know all about it. The lack of evidence actually proves the conspiracy. It’s hard to argue with that.

But emails are one thing, and the “On Faith” section over at the Washington Post is another, an influential and widely-read faith-based site where you will find is this column from Catholic League President Bill Donohue. Yes, the man is a bit controversial and his Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has only a tangential relationship to the Catholic Church. They’re not affiliated with the Vatican – they take it as their task to defend it from the outside, so to speak, and they’re no part of it at all.

And as for this new column, Steve Benen notes here that this is “the kind of wild-eyed rant major news publications tend to avoid.”

Actually, with its contention that gays and atheists are desperate to destroy western civilization and modern Christianity, it is much like those emails:

Sexual libertines, from the Marquis de Sade to radical gay activists, have sought to pervert society by acting out on their own perversions. What motivates them, most of all, is a pathological hatred of Christianity. They know, deep down, that what they are doing is wrong, and they shudder at the dreaded words, “Thou Shalt Not.” But they continue with their death-style anyway. …

Catholics were once the mainstay of the Democratic Party; now the gay activists are in charge. Indeed, practicing Catholics are no longer welcome in leadership roles in the Party. …

The culture war is up for grabs. The good news is that religious conservatives continue to breed like rabbits, while secular saboteurs have shut down: they’re too busy walking their dogs, going to bathhouses and aborting their kids. Time, it seems, is on the side of the angels.

Benen calls this vile and ridiculous, as Donohue’s accusations don’t even make any sense – “If ‘practicing Catholics are no longer welcome in leadership roles in the Party,’ how did Nancy Pelosi become Speaker and Ted Kennedy become the heart of the party?”

Well, that’s an interesting question, and Benen goes on with “putting aside reason and reality, the question many asked this week is what on earth the Post was thinking publishing Donohue’s enraged invective.”

It makes no publishing sense:

In many faith communities, there are concerns that major traditional news outlets fail to appreciate news related to religion, and only care about matters of faith when some high-profile lunatic/personality, known for his/her religiosity, says something insane. It’s why so many shook their heads in disgust when “On Faith” found Donohue’s madness worthy of publication.

And at salon.com, Alex Koppelman was one of them:

The idea of printing a controversial piece, even one that insults as many people as this did, is a fine one. But there’s simply no way anyone can say that what Donohue wrote here added to the discourse. There were no facts, no arguments, nothing new – just a long string of insults.

Koppelman calls it certainly a low for the Post, and he points out some Donahue curiosities:

Yesterday’s radicals wanted to tear down the economic structure of capitalism and replace it with socialism, and eventually communism. Today’s radicals are intellectually spent: they want to annihilate American culture, having absolutely nothing to put in its place. In that regard, these moral anarchists are an even bigger menace than the Marxists who came before them.

Yeah, yeah – run for the hills.

And there’s this:

There was a time when Hollywood made reverential movies about Christianity. But those days are long gone. Now they just insult. And when someone finally makes a film that makes Christians proud, he is run out of town. Were it not for Mel Gibson, there would have been no “Passion of the Christ.” But for every Harvey Weinstein who likes to bash Catholics, there is always someone else waiting in the wings to do the same.

It’s those damned Jews again, but Koppelman is puzzled:

There are at least two factual assertions in there that are just plain wrong – Gibson wasn’t “run out of town” for making “Passion of the Christ;” he was shunned for his alcohol-fueled, anti-Semitic rage.

But of course Gibson there was acting like an Irishman, and Bill Donohue is an Irishman. Alcohol-fueled rage is an Irish tradition. It’s an old cliché. It’s in the books and movies. What’s the problem? Stop picking on Mel.

Koppelman says, however, that for the most part all this just isn’t worth engaging. And yes, that’s true, as, with the next barrage of emails, rather than hitting reply-all with a note that all of the stuff you just received is demonstrably and entirely false (and the extensive array of high-resolution inspirational JPG pictures just crashed your system), the best thing to do is delete the damned things as they pop up.

But the Washington Post is another matter. That’s where you go for news, for the facts of the matter, whatever it is. And although the Donohue thing was an opinion piece, the Post seems to be okay with publishing rants not exactly tethered to any facts at all, or even any examples. You’d think there’d be a minimum standard or something. If you get the Post to publish your opinion, perhaps that Obama will ruin America, they might want you to include why you think that. And if why you think that is based on proven falsehoods, or as with Donohue, on nothing at all, they might not print your rant. This is not crack chain email here – this is one of the nation’s premier newspapers. What happened here?

Well, it seems the dividing line between the odd and absurd emails and the legitimate media is not a bright line. It’s a bit hazy. And the interrelationship of fear, resentment and anger is the stuff of news, or at least fodder for the cable news shows. Bill Donohue is on the air quite often, as “a prominent Catholic spokesman.” Yes, he does not speak for the Church, and never has, but no one mentions that much. He’ll do. He’s lively. It’s good television – compelling and all that.

You must have seen him. But to jog your memory, Media Matters has compiled some of his greatest hits, like this from 2004, from Paula Zahn Now:

I will stake my reputation on it right now! People will be paralyzed when they see this movie [The Passion of the Christ]. They will be breathless. It will bring people back to the church, and it will be a good thing for Catholics and Jews. And the people who are clamoring this – this rhetoric, this cacophony against Mel Gibson, boy, are they going to have to pay for it when it’s all over!

Hey, who has paid what? What did he mean?

And three weeks later on MSNBC, on Scarborough Country:

The fact of the matter is the media elite have an aversion to religion. Some of them even have a phobia and some of them are obviously anti-religion. … They want Tom, Dick, and Harry to get married. They want “under God” out of the pledge of allegiance. They don’t want anybody to see The Passion of the Christ. It’s all tied together.

Yep, a conspiracy, and the next day, on the same show:

After all, fifteen-year-olds, they go to abortionists. They get their babies killed without parental consent. The new Puritans [those criticizing The Passion of the Christ] don’t seem to worry about that. They like gay sex. They like [the film] The Dreamers, a brother and sister who bathe together and stuff like that. The same people in The New York Times who say this movie, I don’t think it’s not really right for kids, they have no problems when it comes to sodomy. It’s smoking they don’t like, and Catholicism.

And there’s more:

Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style. There are certain things that the left won’t tolerate. They are censorial at heart. Indeed, the signature appetite of the left has always been power. Now, they are running up against the American people.

And there’s this, about people saying that The Passion of the Christ was anti-Semitic:

That didn’t work. Then they said it was too violent. That didn’t work. Then they said it was S&M. That didn’t work. Then they said it was pornography. That didn’t work. Now they’re saying it’s fascistic queer-bashing. That kind of language would ordinarily get somebody taken away in a straitjacket and – put you in the asylum. I don’t know what about – the queer-bashing is all about. I’m pretty good about picking out who queers are, and I didn’t see any in the movie. I’m usually pretty good at that.

And for those of us who live in Hollywood, this was a gem:

We’ve already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, okay? And I’m not afraid to say it. … Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.

Has it lost? Some evidence would be nice.

There’s much more at the link, but you get the idea. He’s all those odd emails, in the flesh, the Word incarnate, as the religious folks would say. But unlike the emails, you cannot delete him. All you can do is avoid the Washington Post and the cable news shows.

What are the rest of us to do? The chain emails are just one version of some strange phenomenon, the pervasiveness of nonsense.

Well, at least we can make a buck. It seems that Christians who believe they’ll vanish from Earth in the Rapture can now hire an atheist to care for their pets. For one hundred ten dollars, Eternal Earth-Bound Pets offers a ten-year contract guaranteeing that an atheist will adopt the pet that’s left behind by its raptured owner. Additional pets can be covered for only fifteen buck a pop:

We are a group of dedicated animal lovers, and atheists. Each Eternal Earth-Bound Pet representative is a confirmed atheist, and as such will still be here on Earth after you’ve received your reward. Our network of animal activists are committed to step in when you step up to Jesus.

You’ve committed your life to Jesus. You know you’re saved. But when the Rapture comes what’s to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.

Cool, but there is a caveat:

Unfortunately at this time we are not equipped to accommodate all species and must limit our services to dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, and small caged mammals. [Please note: we can now offer rescue services for horses, camels, llamas and donkeys in NH, VT, ID and MT]

And from the Frequently Asked Question section:

Q: Is this a Joke?

A: No. This is a serious offer to our Christian friends who believe in the Second Coming and honestly care about the future of their pets after the Rapture occurs.

Q: Do YOU believe in the Rapture.

A: As atheists we do not hold beliefs in the supernatural or a divine being. Thus, we do not believe in the Rapture. However, we respect the beliefs of others and are open to the possibility that our perspective could possibly be wrong.

Q: How do you ensure your representatives won’t be Raptured.

A: Actually, we don’t ensure it, they do. Each of our representatives has stated to us in writing that they are atheists, do not believe in God/Jesus, and that they have blasphemed in accordance with Mark 3:29, negating any chance of salvation.

Hey, if you’re going to get bombarded with paranoid emails, and the media provides Bill Donohue a platform, at least you can make a buck off it all. That will have to do.