Marco Rubio

Sometimes living in Utah is like living under a rock. I try to find out what is going on in the world by reading the local papers, but I am often left wondering what an article is talking about…or why. Such was the case with an article I was just reading on Marco Rubio’s new autobiography.

The article was titled: “Rubio’s book explains why he left Mormonism”, and I thought: “OK I’ll bite. Who is this Rubio guy, why did he leave the LDS church, and why is this story about him in the front page of the Salt Lake Tribune”. I would not really get an answer from the Trib article to any of my questions.

The answer to both “who is this Rubio guy” and “why is this story about him in the front page of the Salt Lake Tribune” should have been fairly obvious from the sentence “Rubio is on the short list to be Romney’s running mate”. Unfortunately that explanatory sentence did not occur anywhere in the article. I found it only after I booted up this computer, and googled “Marco Rubio”. I found the explanatory sentence in almost every article that popped up about him; sometimes it was the first sentence in the article.

One place that I found the explanatory sentence was in the online edition of “LDS Living” which reposted a header for the Trib article in its “Mormon Report” section with this additional bit added before it:

"MR says: Marco Rubio, a potential running mate for Romney, spent three important years as a Mormon in his youth. Though he and his family ended up leaving and becoming Catholic, he has nothing but positive things to say about the Church." -- LDS living Mormon Report

So…I’m confused. Obviously the running-mate thing is so important that even people re-posting the article feel the need to add it, but its lack was missed by a whole slew of editors. Since I have a well tempered sense of suspicion I think this is because the purpose of the article is to establish Rubio as a Mormon amongst potential donors without muddying the narrative with speculation about his being a vice-presidential candidate. Of course the oversight could simply be due to synergistic incompetence on the part of the Trib’s entire staff; don’t know.

So why did Rubio leave the LDS church?

According to the article he joined when he was 8, and was a member for three years. The article quotes Rubio’s autobiography where: "He said leaving the Mormon religion was his decision.”. Though I have to take off one shoe to count that high I figure he is saying that he left the church when he was 11, and that there were reasons both understandable and compelling enough for an 11-year-old to successfully use them to convince his family to leave the church.

“OK” I thought “I’ll bite! What are these reasons to leave the LDS church that are so simple that a pre-adolescent boy can create a compelling argument from them?”

There are deeply personal reasons why some boys leave the LDS church during the psychotic turmoil called adolescence. One common reason is that they discover that they are homosexual, and the combination of hormones and backwards morality is too much to bare; something has to go. I’m sure many have fantasized about doing something messy like gouging out their hypothalamus with a plastic fork. Some commit suicide. The smart ones leave the church. The really smart ones leave all churches and find Atheism. The lucky ones leave the church and find happiness.

Reading the article about Rubio’s autobiography it is apparent that he either not homosexual, or has yet to come out. Personally I think the fact that he married a Miami Dolphin’s cheerleader is a hint that he could be overcompensating.

Reconstructing Rubio’s religious conversions it looks like he is a Catholic turned Mormon turned Catholic turned Baptist turned Catholic. I could be missing some conversion steps as I did not do in-depth research on this. I suppose I could read his autobiography or the other biography on him that are hitting the shelves any minute now.

Leaving the LDS church requires that one send in a letter and be officially removed. I cannot tell from the article if he officially left the church or if he is simply “inactive”. So he might be, in the eyes of many Mormons, still a member of the LDS church.

The closest the article gets to describing why he left the church is this sentence: “Eventually, a friend from Rubio’s grade school who was Catholic piqued the future senator’s interest, and he began learning about the faith his mother grew up in.” This says a whole lot of nothing. I’ve been “piqued” by many theologies. I spent a couple hours last year with my interest “piqued” by some Greek mythology, but I did not sacrifice any goats (though I did eat a particularly tasty goat curry from a restaurant called “Negril” near the Silver Spring Metro station).

Mitt Romney has been steadily establishing the importance of being a member of the LDS church in his campaign. Just about every potential Mormon (except maybe Harry Reid) has been tapped by Mitt in one way or another. Establishing the LDS bona-fides of a potential running mate is consistent with this.

Rubio does have identity elements that will play well outside of Utah. He is a first-generation offspring of an immigrant family. His parents traveled by boat from Cuba to the US just six months before Castro and the 26th of July movement landed on the yacht “Granma” in Cuba.

Rubio is many things to many people. He may be the lesser half of the first all-Mormon presidential ticket. He will probably be more visible in the 2016 elections if Romney is not elected.

How's It Hanging?

As part of an ongoing attempt to redeem the image of this blog as a serious affront to theism I have decided to properly attack some scripture. I want to put paid to the accusations that this is not a “properly atheist” blog, and I decided to start out by grabbing some low hanging fruit.

What better place to find low hanging fruit of the biblical variety than Leviticus? Despite the fact that Leviticus is considered so nutty by many that ridiculing any passage from it might be thought of as an affront too easily wiped away, I still think it is a reasonable pace to start; even if I have no hope of scoring a true money shot with it.

Leviticus is important because it is one of the books of the bible in which god is really chatty. He just grabs Moses’s ear and won’t let go till he fills it up.

That reminds me. As a tangential aside I should point something out. The 1987 movie “Prick up your ears” is “ the story of the spectacular life and violent death of British playwright Joe Orton” , and not, as the name might suggest, gay fetish porn.

In choosing the passage from Leviticus for this initial adventure into hard-core bible bashing I decided against any of the abominable passages. However, I still wanted to get the nasty stuff right from god’s mouth. The variations available from Leviticus are astounding; I simply had to decide how I wanted to position my attitude.

I’m sure several of you will question my choice, but here it is:

‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the LORD. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy. ’ – Leviticus 21:17-23 NIV

This appears fairly straightforward. If the individual doing the offering looks deformed they can’t go behind the magic curtain. They can apparently get take out for “the most holy food of his God”, but they cannot sit at his lunch counter.

I could talk about Leviticus and the female gender, but I’m after hanging fruit here, and protected in the center of this passage I think I see some.

There is one deformity specified in the list that might slip by a casual examination. That one is the “damaged testicles”. How did god expect Moses to direct the priests to test for this? Were the people with potential offerings to drop their drawers and be subjected to some sort of prodding? Would a simple “turn your head and cough” work or would a thorough digital exam be needed to properly please the LORD?

That reminds me. As a tangential aside I should point something out. Testicular cancer is the most common cancer in males age 20-39. If caught early the cure rate for testicular cancer is nearly 100%. There are many conditions that can cause lumps on the testicles that are not tumors. Vestigial remnants of the paramesonephric ducts occur as lumps on the testicles of 90% of men.

So how much damage is too much testicle damage for the LORD? Bruising and lumps? Pain? The idea of oozing sores is covered separately in the passage I chose so there must be some specific type of testicle damage the priests are supposed to look for.

Perhaps the specific nature of the damage was lost in translation?

The King James Version of the bible avoids the use of the word testicle. Reading it one might confuse the direction to call for a check of the potential priest’s umin and thumin rather than a more intimate examination.

“stones broken” – Leviticus 21:20 KJB

Young’s literal translation repeats the “broken” description from the King James version. What is a “broken” testicle? They might squish, but they don't fracture. This is a specific direction straight from the LORD, and I think it requires a literal interpretation, and you'd think a "literal translation"would help better with that..

Since testicles are the place where sperm is produced in the male body, are broken testicles simply those that cannot produce sperm? Is this a admonition to future Jews not to get vasectomies, and how did Iron-age peoples huddled in desert huts do sperm counts?

“broken-testicled” –Leviticus 21:20 Young’s Literal Translation

The Lexham, Easy to Read, and New Life bibles provide a bit of specificity as to the nature of the testicular injury, but they don’t really provide direction concerning the amount of damage. I would think the word crushed would not be a common modifier for the noun testicle, but it occurs eslwhere in the bible. 

"If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD." -- Deuteronomy 23:1 New Living Translation

Apparently if you have crushed testicles you are not allowed to eat with everybody else, or go hang out with them afterwards.

You would think that if crushing was such a displeasing testicular injury in the eyes of the LORD that he would have done a little safety training to prevent those type of injuries. Why not a commandment 11 like: “Thou shalt wear a cup when playing full contact sports, or sports involving a rapidly moving ball”.

And what is “crushed” ? I can picture some monk trying to minimize his injuries during the required examination: “No…that’s not a crushing…that’s just…uh…a bad pinch…yeah…just a bad pinch”. I know that when I was younger I would try and squirm out of being caught even when the accuser had the evidence right in their hand.

“crushed testicles” –Leviticus 21:20 Easy to read bible

“a crushed testicle” –Leviticus 21:20 Lexham English Bible

“sex parts have been crushed” --Leviticus 21:20 New Life Version

The Wycliffe bible cut’s through the crap and defines the unpleasing testicular status as being bruised. Unfortunately they replace the specific term testicle with “privy members”. What are privy members anyway? Are they members of some club that gets to use a special bathroom? I’m not sure the Wycliffe bible is even talking about damaged anatomy.

“bruised in (the) privy members” – Leviticus 21:20 Wycliffe Bible

The New century bible may be more specific than the Wycliffe bible in maintaining that the issue is anatomical, but by replacing testicles with “sex glands” they raise a whole new set of issues. How are they to test the prostate? Churches that use the New Century bible must have very invasive ceremonies.

That reminds me. As a tangential aside I should point something out. Prostate cancer is a significant cancer in men over the age of 45. In 2005 over 230,000 new cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed in the US, and over 30,000 men died of prostate cancer. Early prostate cancer usually presents no symptoms, yet early diagnosis is an important factor in survival from this disease.

“men who have damaged sex glands” –Leviticus 21:20 New Century Version

The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition bible eliminates talk of this issue altogether. Leviticus 21:20 ends with the word rupture, but there is no mention of where or what a rupture is. This translation also describes having “a pearl in his eye”. I’m a bit confused about what this means, and without more background on this translation any interpretation of it on my part would be premature.

“If he be crookbacked, or blear eyed, or have a pearl in his eye, or a continual scab, or a dry scurf in his body, or a rupture” –Leviticus 21:20 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

What should have been clear instruction is lost.  Because the passage lacks any moral, social, or philosophical structure it is impossible to determine why god was so interested in the testicles of the men in "all the generations" that would follow his direction.  Filtered through what appears to be prudish re-wording we loose our grasp on even the simple noun I have focused on.  If testicles were important to god, and god said testicles, then why is this not clear in every bible translation?

Leviticus, and other collections of awkward statements from the old testament, are often dismissed by stating that Jesus relieved "us" from living under the "covenant" or "old laws" or whatever.  One of the reasons I chose this particular passage is that it is clear about when it would expire.  That time is never, or more specifically: "For the generations to come".  If Jesus removed the requirement to fondle the testicles of potential priests in the hopes of uncovering damage he did so despite the specific expiration date Jehovah set for those requirements. 

It is important to point out that this passage comes directly from Jehovah's mouth.  The bible is full of begats, and historically questionable history, and other things; all of which were written down by scribes whose scribblings were divinely guided by the hand of Jehovah.  This passage I chose is one where the very words of Jehovah are captured. 

Contrast the authorship of these words from Leviticus with 1st Corinthians.  Paul is speaking in 1st Corinthians and Jehovah is speaking in Leviticus.   Who, I ask you, is a more authoritative voice?

The Jehovah's witness who came to my door yesterday was able to whip out 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 like he had it on speed-dial.  When I asked him about Leviticus 21 he stumbled. 

"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV

I would think the issues of precedent, authority, and divinity would be important ones for discriminating readers of the bible.  The bible is more often a source of justification for views rather than a moral code from which to formulate views. Usually this is a good thing; especially when dealing with Leviticus.

As an atheist my interpretation of the bible is suspect from the get-go.  I am expected to believe before my interpretation can be respected.  Finding something that questions belief is proof that one's interpretation is suspect.  One can go round and round on this.  The only safe way for a thinking Christian to read the bible is to lie about reading it.

I encourage all thinking Christians to really read the bible.  Critically reading the bible is a great first step for thinking caring theists to begin the wonderful conversion to Atheism with.

Cabbages of Nephilim

When is an Atheist not an Atheist? Often when they are Christian.

Before I discovered some actual Atheist groups (which, since they are based in Salt Lake City, distance prevents me from interacting with as much as I would like) I had met as many self described Atheists who were in fact hard-core Christians as I had met honestly self-describing Atheists. I had met many, many Atheists, but most refused to self-describe as such; preferring an “I don’t really think about it” approach.

Since I am a self-describing Atheist I should possibly be at odds with those who are Atheists, but refuse to self identify. However, there is an extra level of anti-theism achieved by realizing that most religious notions are not even worth the time to discount. The attitude that there are better things to think about than god completely discounts religion; especially when one goes about thinking about those better things instead of god. When pushed these individuals often self-describe as agnostics, but in reality they are the uber-Atheists.

This blog has been described as “not atheist enough” because I haven’t spent enough time introducing elements of theology and then destroying them. I should do something like introduce bible quotes, and then disassemble them into nonsense. Here is a quote:

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” – Genesis 6:4 KJB

But when I look at it I just don’t know where to begin.

I feel compelled to point out that Giants in the King James Version are called Nephilim in the New International Version, and that Nephilim would make a good name for a heavy metal band. I should point out that the idea of multiple sons of god detracts from the oft-repeated assertion from John 3:16 that “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” . You would think any reasonable cross-walking of the divine lineage would pick this up. I could create an historical list of men of renown, and then speculate on which were the cousins by divine impregnation of Jesus.

Unfortunately the deafening roar from my mental image of “The holiest of Spring Breaks” or “Gods Gone Wild” distracts me from such careful analysis of this scriptural gem. I begin to imagine God’s daughters. Were they party animals like his sons? The Roman’s had a mega-hottie actually called “the Goddess of Love and Beauty”. Does the Christian god at least have a daughter of “Awkward Infatuation” or “Lust and a Really Good Personality”?

If I re-wrote the bible I would add all sorts of interesting stuff. I would not just edit stuff out like Thomas Jefferson did. However, I might just throw out Leviticus entirely.

If I re-wrote the bible, and then disassembled it into absurdities, I would be doing something silly. Silly can be fun at times.

The Hard-Core Christians I have had introduce themselves as Atheists to me have not thought about Atheism much. Certainly not as much as I have thought about Christianity.  For some of the same reasons that “agnostics” who don’t think about religion at all are actually uber-Atheists the Christians who self-describe as Atheists consider themselves to be uber-Christians.

This pseudo Atheism is a popular ploy, but I have yet to see it employed effectively. I think it is actually meant for use with other Christians as a source of amusement. Not having real Atheists around they pretend to be one to display how foolish we are; a caricature show. This is analogous to the blackface minstrel shows which were popular in the USA till sometime in the 1960s.

I recall this one time that an acquaintance of a friend who was wearing a cross on a chain around his neck and a fish ring the size of rapper bling introduced himself to me as “an Atheist”. My friend rolled her eyes. He was smiling jovially enough, and would probably have lapsed into a set of jokes had I not cut him off.

“Welcome friend” I said “Isn’t it wonderful to appreciate this beautiful day, the love that good friends bring one another, and the special feeling you get when you know everything is right with the world without the oppressive notion of some ill-conceived invisible overlord. I know that it is so much easier to do the right thing by simply knowing what is right and wrong without pretending that some iron-age book describes anything worthwhile about morality. Isn’t it exhilarating to just feel the majestic complexity of the universe? I close my eyes and it feels like energy running up and down all the nerves of my peripheral nervous system; I love it!”

I had been slightly raising the tempo of my sermon as I progressed so no spaces were left for him to get a word in. My friend’s eyes had stopped roiling, and her hands had settled on her hips. Her lips threatened to form both a smile and a frown at the same time. I reached out to pleasantly touch my friend’s acquaintance’s shoulder, but he recoiled like it might hurt.

“Friend” I continued “We are at a pivotal moment in history. Great good is possible, and it is so wonderful that you are willing to stand as an Athiest, and by obvious extension stand for the greater good of the future of humanity. I know it is a difficult time to “come out” as an Atheist with so many folks –mainly Christians- who think it is righteous to belittle you. You may have felt abandoned by family and friends, or at least you know someone who has, but you are not alone. “

I spread my arms as if to hug him, and he stepped backwards. My friend’s lips collapsed into a momentary smile.

“Actually…I’m a Christian” muttered my friend's acquaintance.

“Born again?” I asked

“Yes” he replied while scanning for somewhere else to go.

“You can still abandon the idea of a judgmental invisible being” I said “you can still discard your awkward god and become an Atheist. We are the future”.

“No thank you” he replied quickly. Then he walked away.

My friend was no longer smiling, but she was amused.

“Will you give me a hug” I asked; spreading my arms wide to embrace her.

“No” she replied coyly “…at least not here where people might see me”

“Oh” I asked while trying to raise just my right eyebrow. “Why not?”

“Because you are an Atheist-Communist.”

I put my hand on her shoulder, which she didn't seem to mind, and asked her about the possibility of heading out alone with me to have a cup of coffee and "talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax of cabbages and kings and why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings."

"Okay" she replied, smiling openly now "I think I would like that"

"But first we will have to track down AOD and AYD." I replied "They have taken far too long returning from the bathroom, and I fear they have gotten distracted"