Why Must Religious Morality Always Be Negative?

Over at Paryngula, PZ takes Minnisota columnist Katherine Kersten to task for a pretty batty rant about New Atheism, or atheism, or materialism, or something. It changes. She trots out a many of the tired old gambits many on the religious right have been riding to death for years (If there's no god, how come there's altruism? How can we believe that life has value if there's no afterlife?), puts a bow on them, and sets them out there as if she came up with some fresh new line of reasoning. Our Squid Overlord fisks her better than I ever could, but a thought occurred to me as I read her article which kind of struck a chord: perhaps because I'm a recovering Catholic.

Why the growing audience for notions like these? Religion poses a serious challenge to our cherished idea of personal autonomy. Unlike our forebears, we define freedom as the right to live as we choose -- to "be ourselves" -- unconstrained by social norms or a morally grounded sense of guilt or shame.

It says a lot about the religiously devout that when they speak about morality, it is almost always about constraint and control, about shame, fear and guilt. That's a pretty sad way to live your life. They can't be moral on the grounds of love? Of concern or empathy? They can't do the right thing out of simple kindness?

Why is it that they feel incapable of behaving themselves if they're not constantly beaten over the head with accusations of fault and dire warnings of eternal torment?

So I'm apparently a "Bo"

Ben Loves Babies is not pleased with me:

Is this blog a Bo?

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/2009/january/boslaw.html

I really can't tell. Like most atheists, this blog is vulgar and low-brow, and demonstrates no critical thinking abilities whatsoever. It results to name-calling ("assholery"? Are we 12?) instead of intelligent discussion.

Ben, let me clue ya in to a thing or two.

1) This blog is not "an atheist", nor is it's author (not yet, anyway: but people like you are pushing me there).

2) There are circumstances under which name calling is entirely appropriate. Scott Roeder's crime is one such circumstance (as is any circumstance in which a Stucky is given out: you have to be a gigantic douche bag to even be considered).

3) Landover Baptist Church is a spoof. It's making fun of you, and "Bo's" law is a reference to Poe's Law (Landover's website itself is a Poe), of which you are obviously blissfully ignorant (big surprise there).

As for my blog's popularity (or lack thereof), I really couldn't care less: it's just a place for me to vent (hence it's "low, vulgar" nature)

But thanks for playing.

June 2009 Matthew Stucky Award: Scott Roeder

Well, that didn't take long.

Asshole.

Club Tap Corn Roast: Come on Down!

Good corn, other food, and music. 2-7 PM. Stop on in at 8828 W North Ave, Wauwatosa, WI.

Maddow and Isikoff on Obama Recalcitrance on Prosecutions of Bush Officials

I think I'll let this stand on its own: very informative. One comment I'd like to make, however: when have Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or any of that crowd been so honestly, frankly critical of anyone on the right?

OK, Science Can Stop Now: There's Nothing More to Accomplish

Now that we have achieved glow-in-the-dark monkeys.

HT: Drug Monkey

Mindless Right Wingers so Worked up over Over Sotomayor, They Forget Basic Math.

This is why I can't vote Republican anymore. Stupid overload.

So Tuesday afternoon, the Washington Times (Motto, "All the news everyone else would be embarrassed to print") cries to the world that 3 out of 5 of the decisions that Sotomayor was involved in which came before SCOTUS were overturned. That, they claimed was a 60% reversal rate.

AHHHHG! EVERYONE RUN AND HIDE!!!!!!!!! ACTIVIST JUDGE COOTIES!!!11!!!

But even a casual perusal of the data easily shows that the Times is (surprise!) full of it. Sotomayor participated in 380 cases as an appellate judge. That's a helluva body of work. Of the decisions in which she participated, only 5 were granted a Writ of Certiorari by the SC. Of those 3 were overturned. That's a 1.3% review rate and only a 0.79% reversal rate. Pretty damned impressive, actually.