Burn It! Burn It!

This is an interesting post from Sam Harris (via the Friendly Atheist), in which he explains the many negative effects of wood fires, noting that the crackle of a fire and the scent of wood smoke are dear to many, but saying that it's hideously polluting and bad for your health to burn wood.

One is left with the impression that all of us who don't depend on it for life or health should pretty much cease and desist our wood-burning activities immediately.

Since so many people feel strongly about a nice wood fire, however, he makes an interesting comparison to the way many people feel strongly attached to religion, to the extent that trying to rationally persuade someone out of a religious belief (or a conviction that a nice bonfire or crackling hearth are good things), may be impossible.

Hmm.

Growing up in the backwoods in the 1920s as I did, we often had wood-burning stoves and campfires for heat and cooking. And I have certainly enjoyed a good bonfire as much as the next person. Roasting a marshmallow on a long stick...good clean fun, surely! Well, not clean, the marshmallows invariably get sticky and burnt, but good wholesome fun.

On the other hand, having relied on firewood for practical things in the past, I may have a less fond view of it than some, since it was just what we used and not a fun ritual or anything.

Honestly, I'm willing to forego wood fires in future, having learned that they're dreadful for your lungs.

That doesn't mean I'm more rational and ruled by cold common sense than people who are more attached to their wood fires, of course, just that my irrational attachment must be to something else.

I should try to figure out what it is...so that I can bury the secret so deeply that no one ever learns it, for surely it will be my undoing should it be discovered! I've read books before, I know how it works.

My Dark Forces are REAL

Ha!

Greta Christina has an interesting point about a comment by the Vatican's chief exorcist opposing the Harry Potter books because they "encourage children to believe in black magic and wizardry.”

Okay. Wait a minute. Let me get this straight.  

The Harry Potter stories encourage people to believe in black magic and wizardry.  

 And exorcists don’t.

Heh. 'Cause yeah, I guess if you believe in a valid need for exorcists in the world, you kind of have to believe in dark supernatural forces, and the distinction between 'black magic and wizardry,' and 'demons and evil spirits' (although I'm just guessing here that that's what exorcists might battle) gets a bit...fine.

I mean, yeah, there certainly is a distinction, and as a devotee of fantasy role playing games I am well aware of this and will happily discuss it at length at a nerd party sometime, but if you're going to go believing in one set of them, I'm not sure on what grounds you can rule out the other set.

And if you don't rule it out, then what does it matter if books encourage belief in something that's likely to be true?

Banning It Just Makes Me Want It More

I think I'm missing Banned Books Week. Sorry! My bad. Go read some banned books, everyone!

I was not organized enough to get any out of the library ahead of time, and I don't actually think I own any of the better known much-banned books, but I'm totally reading them on the street in my mind right now.

Mmmm...wicked.

In my experience, you don't run into many of those book challenges in a medical library, so it's not right at the forefront of our minds.

We did have a copy of Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (a faculty donation from years ago) go missing, and I wondered if someone might not have made off with it because they felt it wasn't appropriately science-based, but it could just as easily have been mis-shelved, or maybe someone made off with it because they thought it was awesome.

In any case, there was no formal complaint about it, so I can't cite its disappearance as evidence for anything.

But yeah, that's my harrowing tale. I hope you can all manage to get to sleep tonight.

Tripping on Tropes

I've decided I don't write enough about exciting topics like feminism and childbirth and religion.

So here's this video from Feminist Frequency on 'Tropes vs. Women: #5 The Mystical Pregnancy.' It's about how science fiction and fantasy shows have this thing that they do, where female characters will have mysterious and/or horrifying pregnancies involving aliens and genetic experiments and demonic possession and what not. Often, whatever it is is conveniently resolved within the course of a single show.

Basically, pregnancy is dramatic and makes for an exciting storyline, but having the characters actually raise a child would put a crimp in the show's style, so they have weird, quickly resolved pregnancies instead.

Near the end, the video mentions the case of the Virgin Mary as an early example of a mystical pregnancy.

The Unnecesarean, which addresses unnecessary cesarean section deliveries as well as representations of birth in popular culture, posted this video, and a couple of people commented to object that Mary's case was not a 'mystical pregnancy' trope because "Mary had a choice" and "Mary was chosen/asked."

Now if you want to argue that Mary's wasn't a mystical pregnancy in accordance with the trope because it doesn't match up with the usual quick resolution without lingering consequences for the female character, I'd be nodding thoughtfully along with you.

But I don't know if arguing that's it's fundamentally different on the 'consent' basis is going to help much.

I agree that if Mary was asked and did freely consent to bear Jesus, that makes it different from the trope, which almost invariably features things happening to women without their willing participation or, usually, even their knowledge, but I'm not sure we can really argue this based on the available text.

The King James just says that the angel showed up and says "behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."

She asks how that can be since "I know not a man" and the angel says "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

So she's not exactly being asked if this is cool with her, she's just informed that it's going to happen. There is no suggestion that it's a choice on her part, or that she has been given any option to refuse.

She is told about it in advance, which is different from the examples in the video in that she at least understands what's happening, but advance warning does not necessarily equal a request for consent.

She of course famously says "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word," which certainly expresses agreement/consent to what she's been told is going to happen, but one could argue that when God tells you to do something, consent is meaningless.

God, who has ultimate power over everything, says it's going to happen!--what are you going to do, adjust reality?

To take it way far away from the starting point, imagine your boss says "from now on, we're going to be filling out all our timesheets electronically instead of on paper as we have been." You can complain about it, or you can do it with a good will and even think it's a great idea, but since you were informed that it was going to happen rather than consulted about it, you couldn't exactly be said to have a choice in the matter.

Also, since your boss is God, you can't even quit your job because there's nowhere else in the universe to work.

Seriously, we're talking about Mary's GOD. Your GOD says something is going to happen to you. Talk about a power differential.

Arguably, a human being can no more consent to the actions of an all-powerful god than a newborn infant can consent to the actions of its parents. Or a bunch of fruit flies consent to the actions of a scientist in a lab.

Consent means little unless a refusal without fear of punishment is possible. And it would seem likely that you cannot refuse your God, who is sending angels to tell you things and promising to make you pregnant against everything you know about human reproduction, and who has a long history of smiting people who don't do as he says, and expect that everything's going to be totally cool.

This fact is all over in religious thought, in the idea that we must humbly submit ourselves to God's will. Submission is key, and it is not consent.

It is not important that humans consent to God's will, it is important that they submit to it.

In old-school terms, we should submit because something terrible will happen to us if we don't (hence, I suppose, the term "a god-fearing person" as a positive descriptor: if you're properly afraid of God, you will also be a law-abiding and socially upstanding sort).

In many modern interpretations, we should submit not because we're terrified, but because God knows better than we do and only wants what's best for us. Here, it starts to make more sense to think of consenting. Now that God's not actively smiting people right and left for disobeying his commandments, it's possible to conceive of just declining to obey his will.

"No thanks, I think I'd rather not bear the Son of God. I was actually looking forward to bearing children with my human spouse. I particularly hope for some daughters."

Of course, this is a flawed presentation because we're often told that horrible things will still happen to us if we don't obey, just later on, in hell. Again, consent is meaningless if refusal without fear of retribution is impossible.

Therefore, however annoying it may seem to a Christian to have the Annunciation lumped in with modern fiction tropes, I don't think it's unfair to make the connection.

I would be more inclined to argue that it doesn't entirely fit because Mary's not a recurring character in an ongoing story who has a pregnancy happen to her and then moves on; she's more like a supporting character in another character's story who has a pregnancy happen to her and then spends the rest of her recorded history being renowned for it.

The mystical pregnancy is Mary's story, it's not just an episode in her TV show. Without it, she would be of no interest.

Nevertheless, as I said, I think it's a fair point for discussion. I obviously got some food for thought out of it myself.

Mmm...thought food.

.

Learning Something New

Two posts on learning things previously not known strike me today.

Elisa at HealthyConcerns finds that you can use Flexible Spending Account money (those pre-tax dollars you can set aside to pay for healthcare needs) not only for things like doctor's office co-pays and prescriptions and glasses, but also for basic household health stuff like cough medicine and adhesive bandages.

I myself have been known to stock up on this sort of thing near the end of the year when I have money left over...and will have to do so soon. It then occurred to me that if I could only think of some way to present bandages and aspirin as appropriate holiday gifts, I could be in great shape!

Who do I know who wants a pack of cough drops?


And Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check reveals that the North Carolina Constitution basically bars atheists (and arguably people practicing non-Abrahamic religions, though I suppose that would come down to how you define 'Almighty God') from holding public office.

As quoted from Article 6, Section 8:

“The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”

Wow. That's pretty definite.

Article 6 goes on to also bar:

Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.

That one sounds reasonable.

Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.

Yeah, OK, that makes sense too.

But obviously the most important thing is that you attend the right place of worship. Treason is also bad, but denying Almighty God, well, that's one step away from selling state secrets to the highest bidder anyway, right?

There is, naturally, some discussion on whether or not this is binding law given that the U.S. Constitution prohibits requiring a religious test as qualification for office (another Article 6).

Interesting.

.

What Fresh Horror--No, Classic Horror--Is This?

I've enjoyed a little series of entertaining posts at Dangerous Intersection, listed here blog-style from most recent to earliest:

• Mexican judge’s execution called a hoax!


• Bush Administration destroyed cancer research center and scattered the researchers


• Principal drowns hundreds of grade school students in school basement


• Father of two charged in child poisoning case

Each presents a sad, sometimes horrific tale of abuse, arrogance, misguided determination, and other human failings. Go read before I continue if you don't want to be spoiled.

[Pause in case anyone wishes to do so.]

All right, the not-so-shocking twist here is that each of these posts presents, as if it were a news item from contemporary sources, and with modern names and places, a biblical story.

It's very interesting to see these familiar (to many people who grew up more or less in the common popular culture in the United States, I should say) stories presented as if they referred to human beings.

Now the whole point of a god is that it is not a human being, and thus may easily be conceived to do things that seem hideously wrong from our point of view, but that nevertheless serve a higher purpose that still equals 'good,' so I can understand that one could argue this means nothing.

Nevertheless, an interesting mental exercise.