A Critical Mass

My attention was drawn to this story in an editorial by Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society (of which I am proud to be a member). Let me repeat the core of the story here:

The head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique has told the BBC he believes some European-made condoms are infected with HIV deliberately.

Maputo Archbishop Francisco Chimoio claimed some anti-retroviral drugs were also infected “in order to finish quickly the African people”.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Sanderson that this is an extraordinarily evil and stupid thing to do. Isn’t it about time that this ridiculous policy of the Catholic Church is challenged and outlawed? How many lives must the Church be responsible for ruining with these evil lies? At the very least, the reprehensible Archbishop Chimoio should be removed, but no doubt he will be defended by the Church. If paedophile priests can be protected, then a little thing like lying and causing the early deaths of perhaps millions of uneducated Africans must be small fry.

The Catholic Church sickens me.

It’s insidious. It’s aggressive, it’s invasive, and it spreads. It’s bad for people, yet the sufferers often don’t realise they’re affected at all. The affected often exist perfectly amicably among their neighbours and show no obvious signs, and no adverse affects are evident.

Other times, the affected actively seek to spread and ensnare others in it’s insidious clutches. It’s tempting to call this practice evil, but the affected do not know any better. It makes them seek to spread it’s influence; it’s a self-replicating thing, you see, and its agents are unknowing of its tragic consequences. Young and old are at risk. It spreads and spreads, and soon affects everything in a deleterious manner. At such an advanced stage, it’s difficult or impossible to cut it out.

Often it can be cured, and invariably gives the victim a new outlook on existence. Things that were taken for granted now become a source of wonder and appreciation; things that seemed important in the past are no longer a cause for concern. There is new understanding, and everything seems lighter. The transformation is spectacular.

And yet, tragically, many do not recover. They live with it all their lives, coping as best they can and never getting past its spread. They succumb, and are lost forever. But, there is hope for future generations! We are understanding it more and more, and one day, I hope, we will eradicate it forever.

Cancer is a terrible thing. Why did you think I was talking about religion?

Atheist Revolution recently wrote about prayer as an individual’s means to soothe oneself in difficult times, and I think this viewpoint is correct and obvious.

I would like to offer the opinion that prayer is useful to governments to keep the population docile and submissive. I think it’s fair to note that all governments seek to maintain power for themselves, whether it’s a dictatorship or a democracy, and it seems to me that some governments have latched on to the idea that a credulous population is a trouble-free population. What better method to prevent the threat of revolution or an unfavourable election result than to keep the population voluntarily on it’s knees, wishing for an alternative outcome but taking no action?

Furthermore, if the head of state purports to engage in the same activity, praying to and receiving instructions from an unseen deity, all the better to reinforce the idea that Average Joe is doing the right thing by staying indoors and fervently hoping that the laws of the universe will be changed to suit this individual’s wishes, or that world events will be influenced by an inactive and unseen being (I refer to both the prayer and the prayee here - both are highly ineffective).

The believer soothes himself by believing his prayer will be answered - but not yet - and that he is doing his part in doing good, never stopping to consider that evil is allowed to prosper by good people that do nothing, and that praying is exactly equivalent to inaction, for all the results it achieves.

I’m on holiday in the US at the moment, but here’s an interesting statistic for you:

“Ninety-seven per cent of non-religious people would help if someone collapsed, compared to 91% of religious people, according to a poll commissioned by the BBC’s new religious programme, the Big Questions.”

I’m guessing that’s not the result they wanted!