Way back in February I wrote about Sayed Pervez Kambaksh here; to jog your memory, this was the poor bastard who had the gall to download and distribute a report that was critical of Islam. As mentioned in that post, the penalty for this is, of course, death. 2008 and we’re going to put a man to death for speech. In a democracy. Nice.

The last I looked into this I left the matter with the feeling that it was going to be dealt with correctly. That is, the death sentence would be rescinded and the journalist would be let go. This was all in keeping with that whole “March of Democracy” that the President keeps talking about; you know, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all that good stuff.

Guess again. Today I received an email from the Center for Inquiry as part of a letter writing campaign that they are conducting to try and save Mr. Kambakhsh’s life.

A bit of background here - the Afghan constitution gives Islam as the state religion and declares that “no law can be contrary to provisions and beliefs of Islam”. However, it also states that people are free to practice other religions (As an aside, how this works with an apostate Muslim - which I believe is punishable by death in the Qur’an - remains to be seen). Continuing on with the constitution, Article 34 states that “Freedom of expression shall be inviolable. Every Afghan shall have the right to express thoughts through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with provisions of this constitution.” Article 7 commits Afghanistan to the United Nations charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Last time I checked, freedom of and from religion is one of those rights.

Yet they plan on putting someone to death for distribution of materials that state the Qur’an and Mohammed legitimize the oppression of women. Oppression of women….like not letting women drive, making women wear burkas, forcing women to only go out in public chaperoned by a male relative. Oppression of women….like honor killings. You know, all the things that happen in the Islamic Theocracies in the midle east. Seems to me that all Mr. Kambakhsh was doing was distributing literature that stated the obvious.

Please take a second to fill out the online petition here to try and convince Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan (the one our country’s blood and treasure helped put in charge) that he should heed the words of his constitution and not sink to the barbarism of executing a man for the ridiculous “crime” of blasphemy.

Early last tuesday I had the misfortune to be trapped in a hospital waiting room with the local (WEWS Channel 5 out of Cleveland) morning show. I say misfortune not because I was waiting for someone in the hospital - it was an outpatient procedure and everything turned out just fine and dandy - but more in the sense that I had to sit through the load of codwallop that was being served up by the credulous hosts of “5 In the AM” or whatever they call their goofy show.

Now, I know that the local morning shows aren’t known for their engaging intellectual content; mainly they seem to revolve around what clothes you should wear, a new receipe or two, and (if you’re lucky) an interview with a local author, sports figure, or the like. I’m willing to accept that fact; it’s not necessarily my cup of tea, but then again I don’t watch all that much TV anyways. That is, unless I’m a captive audience.

So what was it that drove me to the point of wanting to gouge my eyes out? Why, it was “Mary Ann The Ghostbuster”. Nope, not making that one up. That is actually what this woman calls herself…and that is also what she is called by the softball tossing crew at what bills itself as “Newschannel 5″. Yup. In-depth, investigative reporting there.

For at least 10 minutes - I lost track of time due to the high level of innanity pouring from the TV - this woman blathered on about ghosts and spirits in response to “questions” from viewers. I put questions in quotes, because in many cases Mary Ann was able to create her own questions from the simplest of caller statements.

For example, I paraphrase one exchange (unfortunately this stellar paranormal work does not seem to be recorded or documented anywhere so you’ll have to rely on my memory):

Caller: I have an old house - it was built in the 1870’s - and occassionally I feel and hear strange things.

Ghostbuster: Oh, that’s the spirt of a lady. You have steps that go down to a cellar?

Caller: Yes!

Ghostbuster: And the cellar has a dirt floor….

Caller: Yes!

Ghostbuster: She’s harmless…

And it went on and on like that. This was near the low end of the scale as far as cold reading goes - I took it as a fantasy prone person with an overactive imagination coupled with a pair of credulous local “news” people and a dozen or so callers who wanted to play the ghost game. For example, in the recreated section above I’m not all that impressed that she managed to “hit” the fact that a 138 year old house had a cellar or that the cellar had a dirt floor. Wow. That’s as impressive as managing to guess that a house built in 2005 has central air.

Initially I just dismissed this whole episode as someone starved for attention appearing on local TV. But then I did a bit of research and discovered that - in a profile on www.clevelandseniors.com - Mary has a business as a paranormal investigator. Why she even gives classes! I’m not sure what the classes are in…but she gives them. She even clears houses! And if the Indians would let her hold their legal papers she could clear the curse that’s on them! (You really should read the profile - it’s chock full of all sorts of exciting knowledge of the paranormal - it even covers their relationship with Cleveland sports teams).

You know, given her amazing abilities you have to wonder why Mary Ann isn’t all over the Randi Million Dollar Challenge….she definitely seems to think she has a demonstrable talent. Having followed Randi’s blog for some time know, though, I know that was asked why she hadn’t applied for the challenge there would be a million reasons/excuses. I’ll cut right through all those and go with the most obvious though; there are no ghosts, so there is nothing to talk to, exorcise, clear, or do whatever it is that she lays claim to doing as a “Ghostbuster”. To repeat, I unequivicably state that based on all available evidence THERE ARE NO GHOSTS. No matter what you want to believe; no matter what amazingly convincing anecdotal evidence you have; and no matter what Sting sang about in the song Spirts in the Material World.

You really have to wonder about people who believe this crap. How many of them are true believers and how many of them have that Mulder X-Files “I Want to Believe” thing going? How many of them just go along “for entertainment purposes only”? The one moderately encouraging thing I took away from my time in the waiting room with this garbage on TV was the fact that - with the exception of one woman - everyone else seemed to think Mary was full of it as well. This wasn’t a scientific poll; I was going mainly by the rolling of eyes, head shakes, and (on one occasion) laughter following one of the “Ghostbusters” more ridiculous statements.

To close us out, I will admit that the amazingly credulous writer who penned the article on ClevelandSeniors.com got at least one thing right in her writeup:

It is hard to believe the stories she tells, unless you sit across from her and hear her tell them. There is something about her that you want to believe, even if you’re not sure if you do.

She does not try to convince you. She just tells the stories. And there are a lot of them and each one is more interesting than the last.

Yeah, I’m sure the stories are each more interesting than the last. And I’m sure they’re all just as true.

So our President is making a personal apology to the Iraqi Prime Minister over some holes in a book. I will be the first to state that using a book for target practice is stupid - but I would say that about any book, not just a book that a certain group of people believe to be “holy”. With all the problems in the region, I would argue that this is pretty far down the list of things that the President should be personally involved in.

It gets better (or worse, depending on your point of view) - Bush then went on to assure the Iraqi Prime Minister that the soldier involved has been sent home and will face trial (not sure for what - that should be interesting). Am I wrong in finding this whole situation patently ridiculous?

We have a soldier who is going to trial for shooting a book. Simmering tensions in Iraq because someone shot a book. A President who has to issue an apology because of a book.

Could we please get some perspective here? This story appears in a list of stories with the following headlines: “Bombing at Iraq Funeral Kills 20″, “Baghdad Clashes ‘Kill 17 Gunmen’”, “Iraq set for Baghdad Exodus”, and “Iraq al-Qaeda Chief Not Captured”. Compared to this putting a few holes in a bunch of paper seems trivial to me, “holy” book or not. There are serious issues with anyone who values the sanctity of a book over that of human life. If, as is claimed, there are eternal truths in these “holy books” (The Koran, The Bible, The Talmud, The Veda, etc) shouldn’t they transcend the mere physical representation of these truths?

Bruce’s commentary from yesterday puts it in a nutshell:

“We’ll blow you up if you get in the way of a Blackwater hum-vee, but we apologize profusely for shredding yer book.”

In his remarks at Yankee Stadium, Benedict reminded Catholics that obedience to the authority of the church is the foundation of their religious faith. Am I the only one who thinks that this call by the pope to essentially “Respect my Authoritay!” is a bit misguided?

I’m no expert, but I would say that the abuse suffered by many, many children at the hands of the priests and nuns came about in large measure because they were taught that the clergy were called by God. By reinforcing the blind obedience to the church Benedict has set the stage for this to happen again.

As I mentioned in my last post, I know many Catholics who would just love to push this scandal away and blame it on a media conspiracy. My good friend James had a discussion with several ardent Catholics a few months back - in addition to denying evolution, one of these stalwart defenders of the faith told James that there were “no pedophiles” in the Catholic Church. It’s this sort of attitude, coupled with the place of trust the various members of the church hold in communities that contributed to these molestations.

Several of the articles hosted at Bishop-Accountability.org give credence to this argument. Take for instance this part of an article about Gilbert Gauthe, a parish priest who molested over 30 victims in the 70’s and 80’s.

In a deposition taken last October by Lafayette attorney J. Minos Simon, who represents one victim.s family in a civil suit, Gauthe said his victims numbered 35, 36, 37, something like that.. But Abbeville lawyer Paul Hebert, who began legal proceedings against the church on behalf of victims in 1983, believes otherwise. He cites a report by Dr. Kenneth Bouillion, a Lafayette psychologist who screened victims at Hebert.s request. Bouillion declined to be interviewed, but Hebert told The Times that, based on Bouillion.s report, .Our suspicion is that the number of victims Gauthe molested in his career as a priest could well exceed 70 children, many of whom are now over 18..

Why did it take so long.more than 10 years.before Gauthe was stopped? Consider his role in those young lives: He was a man before whom they saw their parents kneel, showing deference, receiving communion; a man to whom parent and child alike confessed sins; a guest at family dinners; a surrogate father and figure of consummate authority.

The emphasis is mine…and it’s the part that bothers me. The church put these pedophiles in a position of trust; the pope’s recent call to obedience just reinforces this position of trust. Also, note that this story came about in 1985 - twenty three years ago. Why didn’t the last pope express his shame and dismay then? Reading through the resources on this site, I’m struck by how the abuse victims were treated; ignored, minimized, blamed….these are the type of responses from the church and from the bishops who hid the monsters who perpetrated these acts.

I’ve mentioned it before and will do so again - I’ve personally known a number of good men in the priesthood. Most of these priests worked at my high school; all of them felt that they had a calling to the ministry. I may disagree totally with their theology and philosophy, but I cannot fault their dedication, intelligence, and compassion. The simple fact of the matter is that there are evil, twisted people out there in every walk of life - including the clergy.

What about the wider implacations of Benedict’s remarks? Let’s pick another of the Church’s outdated, medieval doctrines - birth control. I think I can safely say that less than 10% of Catholics I know (and I’m probably being conservative) follow the teachings of the Church. Of course, over in the developing world and Latin America the teachings of the Church are followed more slavishly, including this prohibition on birth control. How much suffering can be linked right back to obedience to this ridiculous doctrine? How many unwanted children; how many cases of AIDS; how many children are born only to starve?

Isn’t it pretty obvious that blind obedience to church authority and dogma is a recipe for disaster? History is full of examples; unfortunately for everyone Benedict wants to keep making them.

When I was about 7 or 8 years old I had a book that contained a story about a magical fish who could grant wishes. That was almost 30 years ago, and details are somewhat understandably sketchy in my mind. I do remember a few things, though. I can still picture the illustrations - they were rough black and white line drawings; and I can remember that the fish - who was in immenient danger of being fried by the other main character, a woman with an attitude and a frying pan - kept granting the woman wish after wish.

The first few wishes were for simple, useful things around the house. After that she got a bit greedy….she wanted to be mayor, then king, then emperor, and finally pope.

It was that last bit that confused me back then; I remember asking my Grandmother why this was. Was the pope more powerful than an emperor? I can’t remember exactly how she answered, but I know she parrotted the Roman Catholic party line on this and told me how important the pope was and that even presidents, kings, and emperors have to submit to his authority.

The same thing happened at St. Columbkille - during religion class I asked our teacher the same question, and she went into whole “God’s representative on earth” schtick. She then explained - in a simplified way; remember I was only in 2nd grade at the time - how the hierarchy of the church worked. Then she added the piece that has been bugging me of late, namely how all the men and women in the church were “called by God to serve in the church”. Later on, in high school, I read about church history and how, in many ways, the pope’s power extended way into the temporal world in addition to the spiritual. Being a Catholic School, this was all rationalized as being a “good thing”; after all, the pope was Christ’s representative on Earth.

This last week the pope has made a visit to the US, and has placed the Catholic Church’s sex scandal front and center. He’s vowed to not include pedophiles in the priesthood; he’s expressed his sorrow; he’s “deeply ashamed”. All of which are positive things, but speaking as someone who was raised Catholic and spent 12 years in Catholic school it’s a bit too little too late. They’ve known about this too long to fall on their swords and spin it away.

As a child I was taught that the parish priest was a direct line to God; I was taught that I had to honor and respect the priest; that he was called to his position by God; and that I should listen to what the priest and act on his advice. I was a naive, trusting child up through the fourth grade. I shudder to think of what would have happened to me if I had been unlucky enough to be around a pedophile priest.

When I was in college I used to have arguments with friends and family about priests; people would claim that, by nature of the enforced celibacy, Catholic priests were perverts who would bugger altar boys at the drop of a hat. I would mount a strident defense; even though I wasn’t going to church I still believed that these were good people who were called to a higher good.

Then the sex scandal hit, and I watched in disgust as it became apparent that this was something the church had been hushing up and covering up for years and years. Older Catholics I knew would pretend like it didn’t exist; younger Catholics would express dismay and astonishment about it, but in the end do nothing. The whole time this went on all I could think about was the kids who’s lives were - if not ruined - affected by this; and the church hierarchy that sat complacently by and let this happen. It amazed me to hear the rationalizations and the charges of a media conspiracy to inflate these “isolated incidents” to damage holy mother church. There was an inability to recognize that maybe these priests weren’t the paragons of virtue we were brought up to believe they were. Maybe the pristhood was just another career path and not some special sacrament? Maybe it’s all just like, you know, made up?

And it stays the same. Watch the coverage and listen to what the pope has to say about it. Devout catholics will eat his words up; cafe catholics will listen with one ear and continue on their way; other people will nod sagely at this holy man who is working so hard for good. Another group of people - myself included - will wonder why so many people are willing to give this old man in a funny hat the free pass he is getting on so many issues.