"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf," Bush said in an interview with Yahoo and Politico.com.

"I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them.

-from Reuters.

I'm sure that makes people feel better there, Bush. Way to go.

...you intended to do an essay on medieval German literature, but the lecturer on Old French made the Chanson de Roland seem so awesome that you will probably do that instead. Said lecturer looks like someone gave him a puppy when you tell him this.

...you fall asleep in the cubicles in the library.

...you spend most of Old Norse Reading Group talking about psychology and linguistics, despite knowing little on those fields.

...you burn your thumb on the tray where you are grilling cheese and don't even feel it.

...you finally realise that all that Latin work you're planning to type up and study could probably wait until the study week before the exam, that being the whole point of a study week.

...you stare at the pile of books on Russian history, next to the pile on women in Old Norse society and literature and think that you have a great life.

Transcribing Latin manuscripts is still hard, but it is at least done now. Badly, mind, with most of it making no sense whatsoever. Thirteenth century papal chancery script is bitchy. Stupid abbreviations.

I learned about classical Latin invectives for homosexuals. Poor Professor Tatum, trying to lecture us and balance teaching about Latin dirty words, being politically correct and not offending the mostly-liberal-with-a-few-older-types group of students he had. Those Romans were some vicious bastards, mind.

I have no idea how to write descriptions of scripts, or how to assign provenance. Oh well. That's what university is for- to make with the learnin'. Big shout-out thanks to both highlyeccentric and areyoustrange for putting up with my whiny shit.

Transcribing Latin from manuscripts is really, really hard. Especially when said manuscripts are photocopies of photocopies. And when one text has almost every single word abbreviated, sometimes to the point of a single letter.

Egill Skallagrímsson is one of the most unpleasant characters in all literature. I am sure that Egil's Saga is fantastic in the original Old Norse, but the Pengin edition is decidedly less so. I fail to see why anyone would want to study the period after reading this particular piece of work- I find myself spending the entire thing looking forward to the protagonist's death.

Despite writing far too much for that Byzantium essay, I cannot figure out what to cut. Darn it to heck, I'll just leave it far too long. I doubt that Professor Karalis will care too much. Right.

Draft completed. Conclusion: sucks. Word limit: 3000/1500. Didn't get to talk about: Armies, Iconoclastic Bishops pre-726, details on Islamic non-influence, nearly everything. Time: half past midnight. Weekend Plans: Latin Transcription and finishing Egil's Saga. Hopefully with some translation at some point.

Desire to die in a fire: 85%, down from 95% two hours ago.

Alienated blog readers after this post: 95%

World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War, Max Brooks.

Oh, man. Has it been a long time since I read this. I really should be better about posting these reviews up around the time of the actual reading- this book was the first I read in the new year. I've read approximately twenty since then.

So, World War Z is a fictional history of a world which has just come out of a terrible worldwide zombie epidemic. It reveals the pattern of what happened by recording stories from figures key and marginalised in the struggle to rid humanity of it's dead self. Wikipedia, as always, has a brief summary and some notes on the kinds of zombies depicted.

On the whole, I liked the book. I have a weak spot for these kinds of things. I find the history of the Warhammer World or Tolkien's universe to be almost as much fun to read as playing the game or reading the novels. There is a reason I'm an historian after all, and reading about a fictional environment and the people within is almost as much fun as reading about the real one.

The problem is that many of the voices in the book are the same. Brooks tries to capture a variety of viewpoints- from refugees in Canada, American soldiers to Palestinian refugees in Israel and Australian astronauts. But because Brooks is a white, middle-class American male, that is what many of this voices sound like. The Chinese submarine captain still feels Western more than Eastern, and the Australian -aside from vague references to opals- does not feel like one of my people at all.

This comes across in the events of the war. Israel opens it's borders to all those descended from those they originally ejected. That's lovely, and utterly unrealistic. America, while not doing well, nonetheless manages to remain a solid power.¹ Russia degenerates into a third world theocracy, which feels so out of character for Russia it makes my head explode.²

The war itself is interesting, although Brooks -through his characters- gets bogged down in technophilia, describing military techniques and gadgets and the like in excrutiating detail. It's interesting and fun as long as it lasts, but I'm glad the book is not longer.

The horror of the war is brought out well, although the human reaction to it is, I feel, better encapsulated by Shaun of the Dead than this particular novel. Maybe I'm cynical in thinking that humans would exploit the living dead, but I doubt it.

This review feels a lot more lackluster than I intended. I really enjoyed the book, but found aspects of it problematic. Too much literary criticism, I suppose. I'd recommend it, certainly. Especially to fans of zombie stuff in general, but also action literature types. Folk who aren't big fans of LOOK THE HEROES SAVED THE DAY AND AWWW POOR VICTIMS, LET US CONDESCEND AT THEM AND OH HAVE SOME WAR-ORIENTED HORROR in novels won't like it.

So... any questions? Some of you were hangin' out for me to review this.

Oh, and that whole '50 books in a year' thing: 1/50.



===
1:It also ends with universal health care, which is nice.
2: They also have breeding programs using captive women to rebuild their shattered population. I hate the Brooks' family and their rampant misogyny.

For some reason, today's A Softer World really appeals to me. It is probably a mix of the Unknown Armies gamer, the post-cyberpunk reference and the long conversations I've been having lately about binary gender/sexuality definitions.

Atheist Sunday this week is brief. Talk to me again after I'm done reading and writing about Leo III the so-called Isaurian.

My father finally forwarded some mail on to me, and amongst it was an invitation to join the Golden Key Honour Society. I'm not going to accept the offer, if only because it is past the RSVP date and I can't afford the joining fee. The elitism actually sort of appeals to me, but the whole thing reeks of a scam. The society claims they only offer membership to the top 15% of students, so that's neat. Clearly I did very well at USyd last semester.

I won't tell them about my checkered academic past at UQ if you won't.

I wonder, fellow academic readers, how many of you were extended this invitation- and how many of you accepted.

===

In popular medievalist news, Gunnerkrigg Court today talks on swords. Everyone should read this webcomic, incidentally; even Neil Gaiman recommended it once.

===

I've spent the day studying the Goddamned Iconoclasm, and looking at medieval palaeography. Does anyone know the format I should use for discussing the provenance of manuscripts and defining which script they are? I'm terrified of my lecture (although he is actually lovely) because I left it so late. I have good reasons, I guess (hooray illness!) but as I might not be able to get proof in time to get an extension, I thought I would ask publically. Details of what he wants can be provided, if anyone reading knows what I'm talking about.

===

I really hate studying Byzantium. So few sources translated; such a heavy reliance on secondary sources. *sigh* This essay is going to be so very first-year.

===

metaphoroflife discusses the etymology of arteries. Clearly I am a good influence on her. Apparently, medieval authors regarded them as wind-pipes.

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.

In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.

-National Geographic reports on some holy-shit-so-awesome news.

Tip of the broad-brimmed floppy palaeontologist hat to crumpetsfortea for the link.

Latin mode!

===

British Psychics start looking nervous. "[S]keptics might bring malicious prosecutions to force spiritualists to prove in court that they can heal people, see into the future or talk to the dead."

===

Dark matter detected. Science; it works. Bitches.

The Power of Atheism puts Sunday AFTER Monday!

This week, I'd like to bring up something I see time and again in the atheist community. I see it online, I hear it amongst friends, I read the rants in discussion forums. An' I'm sick to death of seeing it.

Atheists, generally speaking, are pretty darn angry at religion. Religious schooling, wars, xeno- and homo- phobia, terrorism and the like. Christianity cops a lot of that rage, simply because most outspoken atheists come from social environments heavily polluted with Judeo-Christianity. One particularly sharp and pointy problem which is brought up is Christianity's 'war on science.' From Galileo through Darwin through to the modern Intelligent Design movement, it appears that Christianity attacks scientific discovery. To a certain extent, this is even true.

So when an atheist commentator states that if he could go back in time and change anything about the world, he would prevent Jesus from dying on the cross, or Constantine from converting, or the like... one is supposed to agree. After all, so the claim goes, the ancient Greco-Roman world had a scientific methodology which the 'Dark Ages' destroyed. And the 'Dark Ages' are characterised by what again? Deeply involved faith- in Christianity.

Remove Christianity, and science would have flourished faster and richer. There would be no Papal condemnation of Galileo, there would be no well-funded ID movement, Darwin's dangerous idea would be widely accepted. Not to mention all the wars, torture and whatnot we'd be saved. Hooray, right?

No.

The argument is completely nonsensical. To start with, the Greco-Roman world was also heavily religious. Modern secularists often focus on the People of the Book because the Abrahamic Trinity are the loudest and most popular religions of the twentieth century, but that does not make them the only expressions of religious belief. This is a topic to explore fully another time, but for now it is important to note that Rome was just as religious as any medieval kingdom. Her methods of fighting war, her justifications for war, her political and social structures: all riddled with religious connotations.

It is easy to forget this, in a world where they are relegated to the state of mythology, but it is true nonetheless. If Christianity had not arisen, we would simply have a different dominant religion. I see no reason to believe that this religion would lack the characteristics of Christianity that secularists find contemptible: a wealthy and corrupt priest class which seeks to maintain the status quo, a preference to believe in the words of God/s over those of science, and maintenance of faith-driven schools.

One has to remember that the destruction of the 'dark ages' had nothing to do with Christianity, but rather the pressure of tribal movements and global weather shifts. Christianised urban centres, monasteries, churches and the like maintain lost texts. Without the Carolingian Renaissance, we would lack many Greco-Roman texts. If Christianity had not led to a Hellenic/Roman-central view of the world, would such things have been preserved?

Moving along, it is simply untrue that the 'science' of the ancient world was in any way closer to the science of the modern world than that of the 'middle' ages. The scientific method developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was not 'rediscovered.'

The science of the ancient world was based on authority, and argument derived from pre-existing premises. It is theorized that the world is based on four elements, so it is. One can keep cutting until one can cut no more; this is an atom. This is logical, so it is true. Aristotle and Ptolemy were not interested in testing their theories, only in thinking them through. Observation was used (particularly in astrology, that most ancient of sciences), but only to refine the ideas already extant.

This is not science.

As I have written before, it was a combination of magical thinking and religious ideology that gradually led to the development of the scientific method. The former was the idea of studying effects that could not necessarily be observed. One cannot know from where or how magnetic power works, but one can theorise about them and study the effects. A lot of this work was wrong, but when it was it was discarded, and things gradually progressed.

The latter, religious thinking, was very simple. Christianity brought something new to the table: the idea that God had created the world as an expression of His will. Through studying this world, one could understand God. Therefore, studying this world was as central to theology as scripture or revelation. It must be studied.

So it was. This, combined with other factors, gradually led to the development of science. It revealed the grand truth of God's workings and showed the old ways to be wrong.

Religion brought about science.

It is as simple as that. This argument should not be misused; it is very easy to use this fact to buttress religiosity and that is not at all my point. Christianity may be an evil in the modern world. It may not be. My position on this is clear, but whichever is the case must be addressed on what Christianity does now.

Atheists who make an argument that Christianity has always been evil are as guilty of idiocy as their so-hated creationist and religious opponents. The simple fact of the matter is that without the development and power of the cult of Jesus, we would not have modern science.

I have been translating Caesar's Gallic Wars in Latin classes, and Skáldskaparmál in Old Norse classes. As a result, I have some comments to make on learning dead languages and how Latin is a nightmare bitch-goddess whom I nonetheless love and how I have all-new sympathy for folk learning (Modern) English.¹ For now, though, I want to share a lesson I have learned from the Poetic Edda.

Specifically, from Atlakviða (The Lay of Atli). In this delightful story, Atli the King of the Huns murders the brothers of his wife, Guðrún, after tricking them to coming to his court. The story is expanded in other poetry and sagas (notably Völsunga saga), where Atli also murdered Guðrún's previous husband. In the Second Lay of Guðrún, it is made clear that she marries Atli against her will. At the end of Atlakviða, Guðrún takes her revenge:

The bright-faced woman hastened to bring drink,
the terrible woman, to the nobles; she arranged morsels with the ale
for the pale-faced men, then, sickened, she told his shame to Atli.

'Your own sons' -sharer-out of swords-
hearts, corpse-bloody, you are chewing up with honey;
you are savouring, proud lord, human flesh.
eating it as ale-appetizers and sending it to the high seat.

'You'll never again call to your knee
Erp or Eitil, two boys made merry with ale;
you'll not see them again amidst the seats,
generous with their gold, putting shafts on their spears,
trimming the manes or driving their horses.'

There was moaning on the benches, a terrible song of men,
howling under the battle-cloaks, the children of the Huns wept,
all but Guðrún, she who never wept
for her brothers fierce as bears and her dear sons,
young, innocent, whom she had with Atli.

[...]

Unaware, Atli had drunk himself to exhaustion,
he had no weapon, he did not defend himself from Guðrún;
often their sport was better when they lovingly
would embrace each other frequently in front of the nobles.

With a sword-point she gave the bed blood to drink,
with a hand bent on death she loosed the dogs;
hurled before the hall doors a flaming brand; wakening the house-servants,
that bride made them pay for her brothers.

-Atlakviða, stanzas 35-41 (sans 39). From The Poetic Edda, translated by Carolyne Larrington. Oxford: OUP, 1996.

You read that right: Guðrún kills the sons she had from Atli, feeds them to the king, murders him and burns down his hall.

Lesson learned from the Poetic Edda: Do not piss off a woman.

===
1: Vowel shifts. Sang, sung, that kind of thing. It occurs in Old Norse-Icelandic as well and it's a bitch to learn. Not like Latin grammar, which is all simple and smooth... there is just a lot of it.²
2: And the gerundive, which makes me want to bite the heads of tiny sheep. Maaa, they'd say, but I'll do it anyway. Maaa-*crunch*

"My own years as a teenager were marred by a sinister regime that thought it had all the answers," he told the crowd at St. Joseph's Seminary in Yonkers.

"Its influence grew, infiltrating schools and civic bodies as well as politics and even religion before it was fully recognized for the monster it was," the pope said.

"Many of your [ancestors] will have recounted the horror of the destruction that ensued. Indeed, some of them came to America precisely to escape such terror."

-Pope Sidious Discusses an Evil Regime.

There's an evil tableau for you: the callous torturer stands up with blood on his hands and a lie in his teeth, while the priest draped in gilt reassures him of his righteousness. How often has that scene played out in history, I wonder?

-Pharyngula discusses the meeting of President Bush and Pope Benedict.

I am personally reminded of Charlemagne, who butchered thousands of pagan slavs and was then crowned Emperor by the pope. The difference being that Charlemagne was honest, and so the comparison is unfair to his long-dead imperial majesty.

Read Myers' entire post. He asks a question that my Christian readers can answer, but others cannot. Also, his words on the Bible are pretty dang spot on.

[Neanderthal] vocal tracts lacked the ability to make "quantal vowels" that underpin modern speech, and so oral communication would have been limited.

-A Florida Atlantic University team reconstructs how Neanderthals would have spoken.

I wonder, have I managed a single Medieval Monday on time? No. Each week a new crisis seems to occur in my personal life, and the less said about this week the better. Especially Monday.

This week I would like to talk about the Byzantine Iconoclasm. Iconoclasm is the destruction of religious icons. It occured during the Protestant Reformation, where the altars of churches were smashed, paintings whitewashed and the artifacts of a thousand years of civilisation destroyed. Long before the Luther nailed his complaints to a door, the Byzantine Empire had two periods of Iconoclasm between 730-787 and 814-842 A.D. Wikipedia has a fairly decent introduction to the period, if you want to go take a peek.

The first period of Iconoclasm starts with the Emperor Leo III. A soldier-emperor, he defeats the Arab beseigers of Constantinople and promptly loses his entire fleet to a volcanic eruption. Deciding that the sudden rise of Islam and the volcanic eruption are signs of God's displeasure with the sybaritic empire, he decides to purify the faith. Going with parallels in the scripture, Leo decides that the injunction against making idols has been violated and that God is punishing the empire for their weakened faith.

I briefly examined the case for any outside influences on Leo III for university, be it from heretical influences, Judaism, Islam, an internal social pressure or anything else. The sources from the period, particularly the iconoclastic ones, are mostly distorted or destroyed. As iconodule theology (icon-liking) was eventually victorious in this dispute, the now-heretical books were burned. These sources tend to place blame for iconoclasm on such things. We can look at eastern sources to gain a clearer picture, as well as simply examine the influences themselves and attempt to trace parallels.

Firstly we have the possibility of monophysite influence. Without going into a lot of detail about the movement, which involves some pretty darn complex theology, is is pretty clear that the iconoclastic tendencies which Leo III inaugurated are not derived from monophysite theology. For one thing, monophysite theology dictates that divine power permeats material things, and thus would be iconophillic (icon-liking) rather than clastic in nature.

Similiarly there is a case for Paulician/Armenian influence. Unlike the monophysites, these chaps are iconoclastic in nature. However, this applies to all images, and the fact that the iconoclam under Leo III specifically retained the cross utterly destroys such an argument. If the iconoclasm of Leo III was Paulician in nature, he would have also destroyed crosses.

Moreoever, the extant sources are relatively clear that Leo III was fairly orthodox in his beliefs. His does not ascribe to any other the other notions these heresies adhere to. Ergo, heretical influence is not possible.

Jewish influence has a strong case. The Byzantine sources of the seventh and eighth centuries declare that Leo III was under the influence of Jewish soothsayers; his wife was a Khazar. Unfortunately, not only do the eastern sources completely disagree, so do all extant Jewish sources and archaeology. Moreoever, Leo III forcibly converted the Jews and continued the pogrom of anti-semitism that Justinian began. It is clear that this is a charge added later, in order to posthumously tar Leo III with a Jewish brush.

I will come to Islam in a moment, as I find it the most interesting.

Peter Brown put forward an interesting idea,¹ theorising that the destruction of the cities by the Muslim invasion led to a move by the government and secular clergy (non-monk clergy; the ones you see in a local church) to suppress monastries and destroy icons. His reasoning is complex, but immaterial as his claims do not match reality. Some monastries were iconoclastic. More significantly, urban culture does not collapse during the seventh and eighth centuries- not until the Turkish invasions of the eleventh does this happen.

Islam is commonly theorised to be a source for the iconoclasm. Leo III sees himself as purifying a corrupted religion, and saving the empire from the wrath of God; so does Islam. He spent part of his youth in Muslim-ruled Mar'as, and almost certainly spoke Arabic and had contacts in Islam. The caliph Yazid II's campaign against figurative representation occurs well before Leo III's iconoclasm starts in 726. Connections between these two events are made in the ninth century Byzantine sources.

However, these connections are not drawn in eastern sources for another three centuries, and even then the connection is tenuous at best. Moreover, Islamic states were havens for iconophile refugees. The earliest evidence for Muslim opposition to Christian image-veneration occurs in the late eighth century, and even when it does they also attack crosses. Muslim iconoclasm methods (decapitating the image or tearing open a hole in the chest) do not match those used by the Byzantine iconoclasts.

Most importantly, eighth century Islam was simply not iconoclastic. For starters, there is no specific injunction against them in the Qur'an. Moreover, when looking at the evolution of Islamic art, it is generally aniconic, not inconoclastic. While there are never any images of God, figures in general are regarded neutrally or well: rulers and lesser patrons have figurative images of them made. Even where rulers turn against them, they generally only forbid them in their presence.

So if it is not any of these things, what is it? Leo III did not exist in a vacuum; the idea must have come from somewhere. Simply put, it came from his own head. The Byzantine iconoclasm is a uniquely Imperial heresy. Leo III seems to be an 'individual serenly convinced of divine guidance in his task,' who acts utterly without the impetus of his church. He acts in the manner he sees as necessary to do God's work; iconoclasm, forcible conversion of the Jews and moving militarily against Islam.

While the other People of the Book have long traditions of anti-iconic thought, Christianity also does. While there is no strict evidence in any direction for it not being Judaism or Islam, there is no evidence for it being so, either. And where there is no specific evidence of influence, we must look to parallels. Here, there is no reason to think that Leo III came to the conclusion that icon-veneration was the problem from anything other than his surrounding environment.

Byzantium was an autocratic, theocratic Empire. The Emperor was the supreme head of both Church and State (Constantine believed he was the Thirteenth Apostle). As such, Leo III believed he was uniquely suited to acting on the behalf of God to save civilisation from those which God sent to destroy those straying from the path: idolators.

( A Brief Bibliography )

===
1: It must be noted that I have not read this idea, merely a rebuttal. I intend to do so. For those interested, it is included in the bibliography.

My maw is never filled, and I hunger.
My belly churns, and I sicken.

Glass twists inside me, and I shiver.
Thoughts tumble around me, and I still.

Night embraces me, and I awake.
Light suffuses me, and I sleep.

What am I?

===
You know the rules: three guesses. Win, claim a prize. Lose and be devoured.

It is not 'string, or nothing.' Comments screened.

I unexpectedly spent large swathes of this weekend talking to areyoustrange. Amongst a great deal of angst and hand-wringing, we had several conversations about atheism. She is herself an atheist, although one who despises Richard Dawkins.¹ The conversations were not so much about whether the religious are right or wrong, for we agree on that. We discussed the nature of the 'new' atheism movement, and the way we all approach the issues of religion, religites and religious influence in society.

I have long been using this blag as a platform for my atheist-inspired ravings. Amongst the declarations of creationist-hate, the hand-flailings about women's rights and the laughter at American gay homophobes I have hinted time and again that faith is, in itself, the problem.

I have been meaning to write at length about this for some time. To state out unambiguously and clearly what it is about faith that is poisonous. In last week's post on Jesus Camp, I wrote a fairly brief summary with the intention of coming back to it in more detail. My problems with faith are not simply with that held by the People of the Book, it should be noted. Buddhisms and Hinduisms and Neopaganisms and the New Age are all equally problematic. Personal nonsensical beliefs are also just as jagged-edged as the organised, and I intended to address these things.

More importantly, the position needed to be clarified. Personal faith is the problem, because that is the root of society's acceptance of faith. Without personal faith, public faith -political decisions based on faith, laws created and enacted based on faith, ideological conflicts based on faith- would wither and die. I attack personal faith because without personal religious faith, there is no societal religious faith.

This is the same perspective held by Dawkins, Myers, the commentator known mysteriously as 'Pip' and large swathes of the atheist blogosphere. It is a pretty solid position, I feel. There is no point in only attacking the obvious bad guys;² we must point out sloppy thinking wherever it occurs. Personal faith is held by most people; society regards personal faith as great; societal faith is then accepted: and presto! we have an environment that cultures extremism by accepting moderism. This is problematic.

This is part of what I mean, when I say that faith is bad.

The problem is, that is not entirely accurate for Australia. Our Prime Minister is a Christian and regularly attends church. He almost certainly takes advice from his minister and faith plays an uncomfortably large role in his personal life and political decisions. Yet every one of these decisions is made with secular justifications.³ While not always successful, our religion in Australian society has been moving rapidly towards the status that Myers wants: that of a side dish and a hobby, not the main course. There is indeed a rise in religious extremism (Hillsong, Mercy Ministries, Family First) but that is why we must constantly strive against it.

In order to do that, we must educate the public. If religiously themed-and-funded private schools are the problem, pour money into the public education system and build accessible schools to thin the ranks of children being sent there. Demand that religious schools adhere to state standards on science education and that religion remain in the timetable which states Study of Religion. Create watchdogs to ensure these standards are set, all the while encouraging families to send their children to secular schools.

We need to continue to create publically-accessible science. In 2006, Brisbane started a regular series of free public science talks. Put David Attenborough on television more. Extremist religion teaches that the sky is green; science teaches children to go outside and look up.⁴ The way to erode faith in the invisible sky-father is not to proclaim that he does not exist or that holding that position is foolish. The way to erode faith is to educate people on the scientific method, on logic, on reason. When they realise that their faith is incompatiable with science, they will adapt it. Eventually, they will move on.

That does not always happen, of course. Not all minds think rationally. Not all people can lose their faith so quietly. But education is key. When all things are considered equally, held up to the same standards, the majority choose to go with what can be seen. The rest? Society will move past them. Folk were slow to accept heliocentrism, but all now do.

For a clear example of my point, look at astrology. Astrology still has yet to die, but no wars are fought over it, leaders no longer make decisions based exclusively on astrological data. Reason has won the battle over astrology through evidence, reason and education. The few remaining folk who still rely on their star charts for important decisions are regarded as gently foolish. Most people do it as a hobby.

Railing against the wrongness of personal faith is great fun. I love to have raging arguments about everything when I think someone is wrong.⁵ I still feel it is important to have these kinds of discussions. As xkcd so famously pointed out, people are wrong on the internet. It is important that Dawkins published The God Delusion, that other atheist authors are debunking the case for God. I will almost certainly continue to do so, from time to time. When I encounter a particularly foolish argument, or when I get around to writing about my search for gods and the slide away from a faith-based reality.

As a movement, though, atheism needs to stop crowing about how right we are. We have demonstrated that, clearly and unambiguously. The books are there for people to read; the blogosphere is active and determined; the people are coming out. We are right. That's nice, dearies, but it does not actually mean anything.

Now we need to do something about it. We can rail all we want, but that is not going to change things. We can create political parties based on our opposition to faith-based politics, but that just brings religion into the public sector again. What we need to do is make sure that personal faith is a side dish to the meatier fare of reason.

Faith is central to the faithful. An outdated definition of religion is 'that of paramount importance.' So it is foolish to demand that the faithful not use their religion to determine their personal morality or help with their decisions, however idiotic that may seem to the rest of us; just as the astrologer is allowed to make a decision about herself with her chart.⁶ The key is that any public decision, any political platform, any law being created, must be done with secular justifications.

It does not matter if you play lawn-bowls on the weekend, so long as your lawn-bowl lifestyle is not how you justify public decisions.

This is a great problem for Americans and other theocratic nations, I admit. Nations like Australia and much of Europe have already managed this. Even Family First claim their platform is secular, although their disguise is very thin, because Australians tend not to like religion in politics.⁷ I do not know how to resolve it, and American atheists certainly need angry spokespeople.

The only way to defeat personal faith is with education, not with impassioned ranting.

We need to take our impassioned ranting, take our anger and our righteous indignation with the faith-driven smothering of society, and direct it at the public sphere. We need to tear apart politicians who hold faith-based platforms without rational justification (e.g, anti-choice, anti-research). We need to do that even when we agree with their conclusion. We need to demand better public schools for areas where the only decent schools are religious. We need to demand that television networks show more David Attenborough and Mythbusters and less Secrets of the Da Vinci Code.

We are doing all these things, I know. But it is obfuscated with our anger at personal faith and that is foolish and self-defeating. There are religious that agree with us. And we have seen, in Australia, and in Europe, and yes in parts of North America, that when there actually is a seperation of religion in education, when children are taught to go outside and look up, that they see what is actually there.

Ally with the ones who agree with us. Attack them when they justify their actions with faith alone. So long as the public face is that of reason and science and logic, what difference what they do behind closed doors? When a friend orders a side dish I dislike, or plays lawn-bowls on the weekend, or reads his horoscope, I gently mock him.⁸

Let religion become these things.



===
1: I am a bit of a Dawkin-o-phile, I must admit.
2: The post intended for next week; we will come back to it.
3: Or so it seems. Bear in mind I am quite pleased with his government for the most part, so there is some small bias.
4: A fantastic figure of speech stolen wholesale from P.Z. Myers.
5: My favourite part is when I am shown to be wrong, which happens more often than you'd think. Stupid intelligent friends.
6: Obviously, if one's friend is being foolish, you should talk to them. But that applies to all decisions a friend makes, regardless of why, yes?
7: It must be pointed out that this distaste for religious politics has been slipping in recent years, and must be stalled with all our powers combined.
8: A friendship with me is served lightly seasoned with a sprinkling of sarcasm.