BEYOND ALL REASON

Reason, according to my dictionary is "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by the process of logic; that which is practical, or possible; common sense."
If we all have the ability to reason, then why do so many people believe what is illogical or makes no common sense at all? Why do they believe in things without evidence?

In my opinion, it is just wishful thinking. One wishes that crystals and pyramids have healing powers. One hopes there is an afterlife. One would like it if one's personality conforms to an astrological sign. One hopes prayer will make a difference. But wishing doesn't make it so. People who believe such superstitions are apparently BEYOND ALL REASON.

There is no scientific evidence that any of these things are true. Not one problem, be it medical, scientific, political, or social, has been resolved by mere hope or faith. We need to reason out problems, develop solutions, experiment to see what works, then work long and hard to resolve problems.

* * * * *

ABBEY, EDWARD, American writer, controversial environmentalist (1927-1989):
• "Reason has seldom failed us because it has seldom been tried."

ALLEN, ETHAN, American Revolutionary (1738-1789):

• "Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistant with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument. (Reason the Only Oracle of Man, 1784)

BAKUNIN, MIKHAIL
• "The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice." (God and State, 1871)

BLOOM, LENNY
• "Phony pretexts repeated often enough become real reasons. Things that...are not true become true in the public mind simply through endless repetition."

BUDDHA, spiritual leader(c. 563 BC - 483 BC):
• "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

BURROUGHS, JOHN, American naturalist, author (1837-1921):
• “Our civilization is founded upon reason and science.”

DARROW, CLARENCE SEWARD, American criminal lawyer (1857-1938):
• “Anybody who can believe those old myths and fables isn’t governed by reason.”

DAWKINS, RICHARD
• "The time has come for people of reason to say: Enough is Enough! Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's divisive and it's dangerous."

DUPUIS, CHARLES FRANÇOIS
• "A great error is more easily propagated, than a great truth, because it is easier to believe, than to reason, and because people prefer the marvels of romances to the simplicity of history." (1794)

DRUMMOND, WILLIAM
• "He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not, is a slave."

EDISON, THOMAS, American inventor (1847-1931):
• “To those searching for truth -- not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction -- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.”

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN, American statesman, scientist, author (1706-1790):
• “I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats...”
• "The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason." (Poor Richard, 1758)

GALILEO
• "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

HARRIS, SAM, American non-fiction writer (1967- ):
• "Religion gives people bad reasons to be good, where good reasons are actually available."
• "There is no society in history that has ever suffered because its population became too reasonable — too reluctant to embrace dogma, too demanding of evidence."

HECHT, JENNIFER MICHAEL, American poet, philosopher, author (1965- ):
• "A reasonable scale of probability--what is likely--forbids believing a whole range of imaginative possibilities, even though we do not know anything for sure."

HITCHENS, CHRISTOPHER, British-American author, (1949- )
• "Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something. That is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated."
• "Gullibility and credulity are considered undesirable qualities in every department of human life — except religion.... Why are we praised by godly men for surrendering our “godly gift” of reason when we cross their mental thresholds?" (“The Lord and the Intellectuals,” Harper’s July 1982)
• "Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith."

INGERSOLL, ROBERT G.
• "Ignorance worships mystery; reason explains it; the one grovels, the other soars." ("Humbolt" speech)
• "Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the unreasonable the impossible, the unknowable, and the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains... Religion has not civilized man — man has civilized religion." ("The Ghosts" speech)
• "The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called 'faith.'"

JEFFERSON, THOMAS, 3rd U.S. President, founder of the University of Virginia (1743-1826):
• “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." (to Peter Carr, 8/10/1787)
• “Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.” (to James Smith, 1822)
• "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
• [The spirit of truth] is “that frame of mind by which men who acknowledge their own fallibility, and who desire above all things to discover what is true, should adjudicate between conflicting arguments.... Reason, reason alone, should determine their opinions.”(A History of Rationalism, 1900)

KANT, EMMANUEL
• "Have courage to use your own reason! - that is the motto of enlightenment."

LOCKE, JOHN, English philosopher (1632-1704):
• "Every religion, as far as reason will help them, makes use of it gladly - and where it fails them, they cry out: "It is a matter of faith, and above reason!"

LUTHER, MARTIN
• "Reason is the greatest enemy of faith...."
• "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight...."
• "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."

O'HAIR, MADALYN MURRAY
• "Religion has ever been anti-human, anti-woman, anti-life, anti-peace, anti-reason and anti-science. The god idea has been detrimental not only to humankind but to the earth. It is time now for reason, education and science to take over." (Speech, 1990)

PAINE, THOMAS, English-born American patriot (1737-1809):
• “The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and trust I never shall.” (The Age of Reason)
• "Reasoning with one who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to a dead man."
• "When men, from custom or fashion or any worldly motive, profess or pretend to believe what they do not believe, nor can give any reason for believing,... being no longer honest to their own minds they feel no moral difficulty in being unjust to others."

"The Age of Reason [by Thomas Paine] was
responsible for making more people into infidels
than any other book except the Bible."
—Gordon Stein

PAGELS, HEINZ, American physicist (1939-1988):
• "I like to browse in occult bookshops if for no other reason than to refresh my commitment to science." (The Dreams of Reason)

RABAN, JONATHAN, Britsh writer (b. 1942):
• “Arguing with people’s supernatural delusions is a losing game. But ideas are different. Ideas are negotiable: one can expose their false premises, concede their partial truth, disentangle their conclusions, rob them of their magic by force of sweet reason.” (“Our Secret Sharers”, My Holy War, 2006)

RUSSELL, BERTRAND, English mathematician, author, Nobel Prize winner (1872-1970):
• “If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather then by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless and will therefore result to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called education.”
• “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” (Is There a God?)
• "My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity." (Is There a God?)
• "Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." (attributed)

SMITH, GEORGE H., American author and educator (1949- )
• "I am arguing that faith as such, faith as an alleged method of acquiring knowledge, is totally invalid and as a consequence, all propositions of faith, because they lack rational demonstration, must conflict with reason." (Atheism: The Case Against God)
• "Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation." (Atheism: The Case Against God)
• "Reason is not one tool of thought among many, it is the entire toolbox. To advocate that reason be discarded in some circumstances is to advocate that thinking be discarded — which leaves one in the position of attempting to do a job after throwing away the required instrument." (Atheism: The Case Against God)

SPINOZA, BARUCH
• "I call him free who is led solely by reason."

STEPHEN, SIR LESLIE, British author (1932-1904):
• "The division between faith and reason is a half-measure, till it is frankly admitted that faith has to do with fiction, and reason with fact." (Essays on Freethinking and Plainspeaking)

SWIFT, JONATHAN, British author/theologian (1667-1745):
• "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

TAYLOR, RICHARD
• "What I conclude is that religion has nothing to do with experience or reason but with deep and irrational needs." ("WIll Secularism Survive?" Free Inquiry)

TWAIN, MARK, American author, journalist, humorist (1835-1910):
• “Many...people have the reasoning faculty, but no one uses it in religious matters.”

VOLTAIRE, FRANÇOIS MARIE AROUET de, French author, philosopher (1694-1778):
• “The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost their power of reasoning.”
• "You will notice that in all disputes between Christians since the birth of the Church, Rome has always favored the doctrine which most completely subjugated the human mind and annihilated reason."

WASHINGTON, GEORGE, 1st U.S. President, commander-in-chief Continental Forces (1732-1799):
• “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition..."

This post is not complete. I future-dated it to give myself time to complete it, but life interfered. By the time I got back to it, it had already posted, so everyone might as well enjoy it in its unfinished state. I will be adding more quotations and additional biographical info in the future, so check back again.

HOMESCHOOLING - Is it dividing us?

Because I used to work in the field of education someone asked me, a few days ago, what I thought of homeschooling.

My first reaction is that I am against it. However, it's not a simple question, nor is the answer simple.

I decided to read up on homeschooling. When I searched for books that were critiques of homeschooling on Amazon, I found very few, but I found dozens of books to help the homeschooler and many critiquing public schools. I also searched online to find some pro and con arguments for and against home schooling. I also found lots of websites telling home schoolers how to silence their critics.

I found that there are many reasons people choose to homeschool their children. There are, of course, the ultra-religious who don't want their children mixing with people of different faiths, who want to shelter their children from learning about evolution or other worldly matters. There are also people who want to give their children the opportunity to pursue their own interests and give them quality one-on-one attention. These two opposite ends of the homeschool spectrum want to either keep their children from thinking for themselves or encourage them to think for themselves.

As long as parents can show they are qualified to teach their children, or if they can hire someone to tutor subjects with which they are not qualified or comfortable, I believe they have the right to school their own children. I also believe they have the right to send their children to private (including religious) schools if they wish, as long as tax-payer money isn't being used to support the schools in any way.

Unfortunately tax payer money is used to support religious schools. Depending on the state, tax payers may pay for school buses to private/religious schools, school nurses, books, and other supplies that supposedly do not involve religious teachings. In my experience, nearly everything is taught from a religious point of view in a parochial school.

Taking students from the public school works for and against the schools. Parents of home schoolers still pay taxes to support the schools, yet if their children don't attend the schools, they aren't using the resources. This is to the schools' advantage.

On the other hand, those who can either afford to pay for a private school or afford the time needed for home schooling, are depriving the public schools of valuable resources. The mother that home schools could be volunteering to work with the public school's PTA, being a chaperone on field trips, tutoring students who need extra help with reading. Parents of public school students who must work may not have the time to volunteer for those activities.

Some school activities cost money (such as field trips.) Most schools will cover the cost of those who cannot afford it. But when the richest 10 or 20% of students aren't contributing to the cost of the bus, the fuel, or the museum entrance, a higher percentage of students may need to have their trip funded.

I admit, I had to admire some of the home schoolers. While I often hear parents say they can't wait until school starts so they can get rid of their children, home schoolers have made a commitment to spend all day, every day, with their children and many seem to love it. I know many a parent who would be burned out within a week.

There are, of course, advantages to home schooling. One is that, in most states homeschoolers are required to devote a certain number of days and hours to schooling, but there are no set days or times. If a parent works in, say, construction, s/he can plan a winter vacation while spending some of the summer on learning. Some choose to travel in the spring or fall when rates are lower. Some continue teaching all summer to maintain retention that is often lost over long breaks.

I have been in a position to know the personal cases of about a dozen home-schooled children. Most of the home-schooled children with whom I had significant personal contact were in good to excellent situations. My problem is that 25% of the children I know personally and that were home-schooled were in what I consider to be poor situations.

Student #1: The parents were born-again Christians. The 7th-grade boy who was supposed to be home-schooled rarely got up before noon and I never saw one iota of schooling going on except when the once-a-week math tutor showed up. His parents worked, so they weren't there to school him during the day and were often out in the evenings, too. The boy was very bright and liked to read and surf the internet, so he was able to pass his tests, but (except for math) there was no formal schooling happening. He was hyper-critical of other children his age, well actually of almost everyone.

As they say, the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree. Both parents considered themselves morally superior to almost everyone else. They both considered themselves to be highly-intelligent. They were extremely judgmental and voiced opinions such as "Gays should be exterminated." I once heard one of them refer to a client as "a dirty little atheist." I have to assume they had no idea that I was an atheist, too.

In my opinion, they were the most morally bankrupt people I ever met. They cheated on their taxes, gouged their customers, didn't pay their bills. Their company resumé claimed they worked on projects that former employees worked on before they ever worked for the Born-Again company. Mr. Born-Again claimed a chemistry degree from a large university, yet he could not calculate the area of a room nor teach his son 7th-grade math. In reality, he attended only one semester of college. He was having an affair when in his out-of-town office. Mrs. Born-Again was always on the emotional edge which was exacerbated when she suspected her husband's infidelity.

I have no idea what happened to this boy or family after seventh grade. For his sake, I just hope he didn't turn out to be gay.

Student #2: From a conservative Christian family. This child seemed to have no friends. Maybe once a month, there were other children in his back yard, but usually they were with a woman visiting his mother, not there to see him. He didn't play little league nor was he involved in any other sports teams in the community, nor anything like scouting. Occasionally he rode his bike in the neighborhood alone. I would think other children from his church would have been friends with him, but they were not. Except for his mother, a hand-held video game seemed to be his best friend.

I do believe schooling was going on in the home. His parents were college graduates. Weather permitting, his mother read to him outside, but I have seen him look at a book by himself only once. While she read, he was usually throwing a stick into the air, rolling in the grass, tossing stones into the street. He may have been listening. It was difficult to tell.

Although he seemed to be of normal intelligence, he exhibited very immature behavior, yelping at nothing, beating with a stick on the cover of his sand box. Was 14 too old for a sandbox?

I have had no contact with this boy for several years because his parents moved to another state. However, I foresee this child as having a great deal of difficulty with socialization when he gets to the point that he will be with other students ---or even in the work place. He has been taught all of his life that others ---not of his religion ---are evil at worst, riff-raff at best.

Student #3: This girl had been home-schooled during her elementary years by parents who wanted their daughter to learn at her own pace. When she was placed in a public school in 7th grade, she had a very difficult time adapting. When tests were given, most students completed the tests within 20 or 30 minutes, but everyone had an entire class period (50 minutes) if needed, to complete each test. After 50 minutes, she would be only about half-way through it and would demand more time. Her teachers allowed her to skip the next class to complete the exam, but advised her that, within a few weeks, she needed to complete tests in one class period. I might add, the girl tested highly for intelligence with no learning disabilities.

She told her teachers that, at home, she could take an entire day or a week to complete a test if she wanted to, and thought it was terrible that she was given a time limit. I don't blame the girl; I blame her parents. Why didn't they acclimate their daughter to normal school procedures And didn't they know that no matter what field the girl chooses, she will most likely have to follow a schedule and meet deadlines?

The student also was extremely disruptive and told her teachers that, at home, she could interrupt her mother whenever she pleased. After a month in a public school, her parents decided she wasn't ready and withdrew her.

I might add that pubic schools aren't perfect. There are disruptive students, those who think they are superior to others, some who have problems with socializing and socialization, those who learn more quickly or more slowly than others. Some have difficulty learning at all. And then of course are the bullies, drug addicts and instigators.

Public schools often have a cookie-cutter mentality of conformity, although with new educational methods and cooperative learning, I believe that is slowly changing.

I also know not all public school teachers are good teachers, or even good people. However, schools have oversight. A bad teacher will be found out sooner or later. Homeschoolers have no or very little oversight. It is possible that a parent could be locking a child in a closet or beating the child daily if she doesn't know her lessons, but we would never know.

Megan Holland (see below) says oversight ranges from the strictest state New York, to Alaska where students don't have to be registered, have no requirements, don't have to pass state tests, don't need to report attendance. Some students excel in a learn-at-your-own-pace atmosphere, but a parent in Alaska can simply keep a child at home without teaching anything because there is no oversight. An example was given of a family that taught nothing but the Bible and the father's strict religious interpretations of it.

Robert Kunzman (see below) who found many homes that used creative ways to teach concepts, still finds the lack of oversight troublesome. He gives examples of a homeschooled 12-year-old who didn't know what 3 times 3 equaled. In another situation, a parent constantly berated her child for not grasping certain concepts when it was obvious to Kunzman that the child had a learning disability.

In most public schools, one teacher does not teach all subjects. In the middle school with which I am most familiar, a single student has different teachers for twelve different subjects, plus a few teachers' aids. If the teaching style of one teacher doesn't meet the learning style of the student or if their personalities clash, or if a teacher just isn't a quality educator, the child still has the opportunity to do well in other classes with different teachers.

I suspect homeschoolers are good and bad teachers in about the same ratio as in public schools. The problem is when a bad teacher is a student's only teacher, for every subject and for many years, the child loses. On one website the case of a 9 year old who couldn't read was attributed to a lack of rapor between her an her mother.

There are many reasons why I prefer public schools. First, they represent the diversity of our population and expose children to students from different backgrounds and different life styles. Next, they give students shared experiences ----"Do you remember the time....?" ---the kind of things we share with lifelong friends. We also share the joy or disappointment of sports teams, the high school prom, school picnics, school plays and musical performances. These are the kinds of things that bring us together and keep us together. Public schools give students the opportunity to deal with some of the negatives in life. I wouldn't wish a school bully on anyone, but learning to deal with one will certainly prepare one for a bullying boss or spouse down the road. Public schools give children a chance to spread their wings and become themselves without being tethered to their own family's narrow views of the world.

Homeschoolers deprive public school children of getting to know them and their points of view, which are part of the texture and patchwork of the country.

I know that public schools have their shortcomings. However, most families can work to overcome those by stressing the importance of reading and study at home and providing opportunities to pursue special interests such as sports, science, art, dance, or music.

I am not totally against home schooling. For me, it comes down to the reasons for wanting to keep children at home to learn. If someone is doing it to protect the child from a violent or dangerous school situation or to better his/her educational quality, then I'm fine with homeschooling.

If it is to keep them from meeting students of different religious, ethnic or economic backgrounds, to shield them from differing belief systems, or to present the parents' tunnel vision of the world, then those are bad reasons to homeschool.

I was not homeschooled, but I was sheltered from the diversity of the world to a large degree. When I hit college and discovered that people unlike me, people of other ethnic backgrounds, of differing religious views or no religion at all were wonderful people, I resented the microscopic view to which my parents had confined me. I overheard my mother's side of a phone conversation telling a friend she wished I had never gone to college because I had adopted beliefs and values unlike those of my parents. She would have preferred I stay in a cocoon and never spread my wings. I can only imagine how much worse it would have been if I had been homeschooled.

An argument against private schools is that the haves get to attend and have nots are stuck in public schools. But with homeschooling, instead of money, in many cases we are talking about religion. Apparently approximately 2 million students in the U.S. are now homeschooled. A study conducted in Washington, Nevada and Utah found that 98% of parents who homeschool are white, most had some post-secondary education and above average incomes, that 78% of the homeschooling teachers were women, and 91% stated the high importance of religion in their homes. (See Mitchell Stevens below.) It scares me to think that there are hundreds of thousands of young people in the U.S. who believe the earth is 6000 years old, that America is a Christian nation chosen by God, and are preparing for end times rather than looking ahead to advances in technology, science, medicine, diversity, international relations, the humanities, and environmental sciences.

I don't like the way home schooling and private schooling divide us, just the way religion does. In John Power's The Last Catholic in America (a very funny read) the author told how he and his friends would hang outside public schools on Saints' days to tease and provoke public school students because the Catholics had the day off and the public school students did not. What they were really saying was, "Na-na-na-na-na-na. We're better than you are!"

Today, the Religious Right believes that only Christians can be good, moral people. They believe that their own particular brand of Christianity is the one true religion. Everyone else and every other religion are on the road to hell and should be avoided. Homeschooling for religious reasons just exacerbates those notions.

What do you think?

=========

Suggested websites:

Critics question home-schooling success by Megan Holland

Home Schooling Versus Public Education by Neal Lawrence

Suggested books:

Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling by Robert Kunzman, an empathetic, but critical look inside the homes of six homeschooling families.

Millstones & Stumbling Blocks: Understanding Education in Post-Christian America by Bradley E. Heath, perspectives on education from a Christian point of view.

Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversey in the Homeschooling Movement by Mitchell Stevens, a generally balanced but favorable look at homeschooling.

WHY TORTURE IS WRONG - Part 3

JESSE VENTURA

former MN governor

Jesse Ventura claims he was waterboarded as part of his Navy Seal training.

On Larry King Live he stated that waterboarding "is torture... It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning... Let me put it this way, you give me a water board, Dick Chaney, and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders."

(as reported in The Progressive, August 2009, p.5)

MISTRESS OF THE VATICAN - Book Review

Mistress of the Vatican

The True Story of Olimpia Maidalchini:

The Secret Female Pope

by

Eleanor Herman

This nonfiction account of Olimpia Maidalchini (1591-1657) who was the skirt behind Pope Innocent X (reigned 1644-1655) ---well, I guess he wore a skirt, too (scroll down to view Velazquez's portrait of him) ---is both a fascinating biography of an intelligent and independent woman ahead of her time, but also an absolutely eye-opening account of the Catholic church of the 17th century.

Olimpia’s father, a merchant who was unable to afford dowries for his daughters, decided to place his girls in nunneries. The problem was, that the availability of young women to reproduce new Catholics was dwindling, so the church declared that no girl could be placed in a convent without her consent.
Convents at the time were dismal places. Nuns lived in tiny cells with no comforts. All windows faced inward, so the women could see only the convent’s courtyard and never the outside world. They were not allowed to chitchat with other nuns. Some were so love-starved that they adopted convent chickens which resulted in floors being covered in poultry droppings. (For a lengthy description of 17th -century convent life, find a link at the end of this review.)
Olimpia’s father would not accept Olimpia’s refusal to become a nun, so sent an aunt who was a Mother Superior and, later, the local priest to convince her. Only 15 years old, Olimpia went directly to the bishop, accusing the priest of sexual abuse and her father of trying to force her hand, and thus Olimpia had her first experience in getting what she wanted, or in this case, what she didn’t want. However, for the rest of her life she was shaped by the fear of being controlled by men.
At age 17, she was married into a wealthy family despite her small dowry, but her husband died within a few years. She made a second marriage into a noble family that was down on its luck and thrilled to have Olimpia’s fortune, while Olimpia received the social status of nobility that she desired.
Her second husband’s brother, a priest, was in a position to resolve family disputes and other legal matters for the church, but the man was hopelessly indecisive. He often consulted his sister-in-law, Olimpia, who understood each problem and devised expert solutions. Evidently, he could not make a decision without her. When he was sent to Spain, people respected his sound judgment, but complained that it nearly always took two months for him to make decisions, the time it took for letters to travel to Rome and back with Olimpia’s advice.
Through cunning, bribes, promises, flattery, and deals which diluted the power of her enemies and increased her family’s standing, Olimpia worked for years to position her brother-in-law to become a Cardinal and eventually to be elected Pope Innocent X.

Innocent was, by 17th-century standards, rather incorrupt, but Olimpia who enjoyed both power and wealth, used every means possible to acquire what she wanted by being the brains behind the pope. She wheeled and dealed with everyone, accepting a fortune in “gifts” to influence the pontiff.
Innocent’s brother, Olimpia’s husband, had died so there were rumors that the pope and Olimpia were lovers, perhaps even before the death of her husband.
Underlying Olimpia’s story is the history of the church at the time. Corruption was so rampant and the populous so angry, that it is a wonder the Catholic church survived. It must have endured only by instilling the fear of hell in the Italian populous.
Some of the stories are truly sad ---accounts of the Vatican wasting vast amounts of money when the populous of Rome was experiencing floods, droughts, locusts, famines, and the plague. There was the banishment of all Jews to a ghetto along the river that flooded frequently leaving them homeless, and also the church’s idiotic, and often cruel, efforts to convert them. There were petty rivalries between countries, parishes, Cardinals, and families (including Olimpia’s own.) Then of course, is the selling of indulgences that required the ill to make a twenty-five mile trip (on foot) to four churches, at least 15 times, to have their sins forgiven.
Some of the actions of the “good” Catholics would be humorous if not so tragic. When Pope Urban VIII, the pope who died leaving the opening for Innocent X, the tradition was for the servants in the Vatican, upon the imminent death of the pontiff, to pillage his personal chambers of all valuables, leaving the naked pope in his stripped bed or on the floor. When Urban VIII died, the Roman citizens, knowing his family had profited from their relative's position, descended on the homes of the pope’s family to ransack them.
Urban’s family crest had had a fly on it, but Urban felt it was not dignified, so he had changed it to a hardworking bee. While he was pope, he had bees carved all over the city. When he died, the Romans were so irate that he had raised their taxes over 60 times, they tore through the city chiseling off every bee they could find. Without a pope, the highest authority of the church, the city was in chaos. What made things worse was that, in a fallback to Pontius Pilot’s releasing of one prisoner, when a pope died it was traditional to swing open all prison doors. Because there was so much crime at such times, those who had been holding long-held grudges, had an opportunity to take revenge on their enemies with little chance of being arrested. Thus, there were countless incidents of beatings, theft, and murder.
Urban died on July 7th of 1644, one of the hottest months of the year. He was not put on public view until July 31st. Expectedly, a chronicler of the time remarked at the horrible stink coming from the cadaver. The pontiff had to be laid out surrounded by an iron-grid enclosure that prevented mourners from stealing the dead pope’s vestments and jewels. Only his feet stuck out, allowing mourners to kiss them. His red slippers often went missing.
When a false rumor flew that a Cardinal had been chosen as the new pope, his family’s home was plundered. When Olimpia’s brother-in-law was revealed as the true new pontiff, another round of ransacking took place. Olimpia, expecting this event, had all of her valuable furnishings removed ahead of time and replaced with cheap, used furniture. When the hoards arrived, she threw open her doors to the crowd, but the disappointed people hated her for cheating them out of her valuable goods.
Every church felt an obligation to have a religious relic, a piece of the true cross or the crown of thorns, or bones of a saint to enhance its status. There were frequent thefts of relics ---including Olimpia’s engineering of the theft of a saint’s shoulder bone ---to advance the number of pilgrims who would visit (and leave donations to) a particular church.
Grave robbers claimed the bones they dug up were those of a particularly-desirable saint, resulting, at times, in several churches claiming skulls of the same saint. One church went so far as to assert it had the skull of John the Baptist as a boy.
Jews in Rome were permitted to engage in only a few professions, one of which was selling used furniture and antiques. They often sold relics to the churches. One can imagine them grinding up old furniture into splinters and selling them as pieces of the true cross at an enormous profit, undoubtedly finding great amusement at the silliness of the people who considered them holy.
There was an amusing story of a Spanish count who had been married in a small church by his local priest. The problem was that he was already married and that his new bride was a teenaged boy dressed in woman’s clothing. The priest claimed he had received a papal bull allowing homosexual marriage, which he was able to produce with the pope’s own signature affixed to it. The truth was that Mascambruno, an enterprising employee of the Vatican, inscribed short innocuous edicts on long pieces of paper. After the pope’s signature and seal were applied to the bottom of the pages below large blank areas, Mascambruno cut off the already-written edicts from the tops and wrote his own in the blank spaces. He had amassed a fortune by creating papal bulls to fit any circumstance a payee would desire ---that is, until his deception was discovered and he was defrocked, then executed.
The people of Rome either loved or hated Olimpia. She had a special affection for the hardships of the city’s prostitutes and allowed them to ride in carriages sporting dove images, the symbol of the pope’s family. To some, this was like supporting immorality. She all but disowned her son when he left his position as Cardinal and the “pope’s nephew” (a traditional position as assistant to the pope) to marry a woman Olimpia despised. Many put on a show of loving Olimpia, but really only wanted her to influence the pope. Some were afraid of her power.
If Olimpia had been, say, the pope’s brother, she would have been admired for her cunning ways, aggressiveness and greed. In fact, many women loved her. Some waited outside of her home to catch a glimpse of the woman who had defied the social norms of the day. However, most men hated her, perhaps because she was much smarter and more savvy than they were.
Most thought it was terrible that a woman was allowed to influence any man and especially the pope. Rivals minted gold medals with Olimpia on one side wearing the pope’s tiara, while Innocent was pictured on the reverse wearing a bonnet and curls. This, of course was more embarrassing to the pope than to his sister-in-law who relished her own power. Innocent was frequently reminded that every scandal made him the laughing stock of the “heretic” Protestants, Jews, and other “infidels.”
As a woman, Olimpia finally went too far in her demands to control everything in the Vatican, to make all the pope’s decisions based on what would be favorable to Olimpia, not to the pope, the church, or the people, to make and accept bribes, and embezzle all the money she could. Eventually, Innocent banished her from the Vatican in 1650. In disgrace, she left Rome.

This put many powerful people in a quandary. If they rejoiced that she was gone and cozied up to her rivals, they would be in Olimpia’s disfavor if the pope relented. If however, they remained rivals of Olimpia’s rivals, they may have ended up in their own disgrace if Olimpia did not reconcile with her brother-in-law.
After two and a half years and numerous scandals and other problems in the Vatican which he was unable to resolve, the pope decided to forgive Olimpia’s excesses and allow her to return to assist him. She was reinstated in 1653 and again took over most of the duties she had previously performed. However, Olimpia, the one person who had been devoted to her brother-in-law for nearly 40 years, had been humiliated and would not forget that.
Olimpia knew that the pope could not live much longer, so she began to prepare for the next pope. She created alliances that might ensure that the Cardinal who succeeded Innocent would be sympathetic to her and not strip her of the wealth she had plundered from Vatican funds.
When the pope died in 1655, Innocent X left the Vatican with a debt of 8 million scudi. Olimpia got her revenge for his humiliating her by refusing to pay for his funeral. She sent the church officials to her son who sent them back to his mother. Eventually a cardinal paid for the funeral out of his own pocket, by purchasing a makeshift coffin and burying the man unceremoniously. In 1677 the family reburied him in a more appropriate coffin. His funerary monument was not completed until 1729.
When Alexander VII --a very principled man ---succeeded Innocent X, he started an investigation into the large sums Olimpia had apparently pilfered from the papal treasury. In her defense, all funds given to her with Innocent’s consent were legal. Innocent had been an honest and thrifty man, but nepotism was expected. Just how much Innocent knew of what Olimpia acquired is unknown.
Before the matter could be settled, Olimpia succumbed to the bubonic plague in 1657. Eventually the new pope succumbed to the nepotism that was rampant in ecclesiastical circles at the time and finally decided that Olimpia and her family had raked in much less than previous papal families, and let the matter drop.
Olimpia died as many of the popes had. Her servants had left her naked on the floor. Because the plague had hit hard in the region where Olimpia died, there were no available coffins. Her son had to create a makeshift one from boards left in the basement of her home, and thus she was buried under similar circumstances as Innocent X.

Knowing women’s lowly status at the time, I admired Olimpia for her courage, stubbornness, determination, independence, intelligence, expertise in foreign affairs, and ability to influence others, but as I read on, and Olimpia became aggressive, corrupt, and greedy for power and wealth, I lost respect for her, as did the people of 17th-century Rome, and eventually Innocent X.
I loved this book. I learned much that I hadn’t known about Rome and the Catholic church during the 17th century. And, as background, the author often tells of how things got that way with stories of earlier Roman or church history. I also learned much about the relations the Vatican had with France and Spain (who hated each other) and how this caused rivalries that were resolved by bribes and inappropriate appointments to appease one side or the other. And although I was aware of church corruption throughout history, this book was filled, page after page, with the moral corruption of nearly everyone involved. Every day, I told my husband one outrageous story after another from my reading. As a recovering Catholic, he may have enjoyed the anecdotes more than I.
I have only touched on the wealth of information in this book, every page filled with intrigue and a quest for power. It is well-documented with excerpts from letters, news sheets, diplomatic papers, church records, legal documents, wills, diaries and other writings of the day.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in history, especially Roman/Italian history and/or church history. As a woman, I especially liked the story of this independent, although flawed woman, but I am sure men would enjoy it just as well.

copyright 2009, C Woods

Lengthy excerpts from Mistress of the Vatican can be found HERE.
At that site one can click on Table of Contents, The House Olimpia Built, Olympia’s World, and other topics. A particularly interesting account of 17th-century convent life can be found HERE ---scroll down a little beyond the half-way point for that section.

GEORGE CARLIN on Religion

GEORGE CARLIN

1937-2008

I miss this man. He saw everything, including "taboo" subjects like religion and politics, from a unique point of view and made us laugh at ourselves.

According to Wikipedia (where you can read more about Carlin's life and work):
Although raised as a Roman Catholic, which Carlin describes on the albums FM & AM and Class Clown, he was an atheist and often denounced the idea of a God in interviews and performances, notably with his "Religion" and "There Is No God" routines as heard in You Are All Diseased.
Carlin also joked in his first book Brain Droppings that he worshiped the Sun, one reason being that he could actually see it. He said he prayed to his friend Joe Pesci because he "looks like a guy who can get things done!"
In his HBO special Complaints and Grievances, Carlin introduced the "Two Commandments," a revised "pocket-sized" list of the Ten Commandments ending with the additional commandment of "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY #12 expelling other Christians

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY

TOWARD OTHER CHRISTIANS

(imagine how they would treat non-believers)

According to Compass Direct News (News From the Frontlines of Persecution) on July 13th - 17th, Catholics in Mexico tore 57 evangelical Christians from their homes in Hidalgo and Oaxaca for refusing to join religious festivals consisting of drunken native rituals and the worship of Catholic icons, which the evangelicals regard as idol worship.

Expelled Christians lost their lands and crops after being dragged from their homes. In some instances members of the group have been threatened with violence or death. They have not been allowed to earn money for food, nor tend to their crops or plant for the new crop season. Children have been denied school registration.

In Los Parajes, Catholics offered to allow the evangelicals to return if they denied their faith and paid approximatelyly $14,000 in fines, but the expelled Christians refused.

Read the full story HERE.

What ever happened to "LOVE THEY NEIGHBOR...."?

I am an atheist, but I would never deny someone the right to worship as they believe, or refuse to worship what they do not believe, a long as they were not hurting anyone or infringing on the rights of others.

This is just one example of how hypocritical religious people can be.

It is just one more example that demonstrates religion does not bring people together, but divides us. When one thinks s/he is in possession of the "truth" it justifies any behavior in the name of God.

MARK TWAIN TONIGHT on religion & other matters

In March of 1967, CBS aired Hal Holbrook's one man performance MARK TWAIN TONIGHT, for which he earned an Emmy award. This is an excerpt from that broadcast in which Twain has much to say about the human condition, religion, war, and other matters.

Note that Holbrook never adds his own materials to his performances, uses only Twain's own words.

WHAT KIND OF FREETHINKER ARE YOU?

In my reading about freethought, and my interaction with nonbelievers, I have run across three basic types of freethinkers in America. I am including humanists, agnostics, atheists, deists, freethinkers, rationalists, nonbelievers, nontheists, godless, unchurched, secularists, brights, and other religious skeptics, whatever they may wish to call themselves.

#1. The non-engaged.
The non-engaged are nonbelievers, but they don’t particularly care one way or the other about their lack of religion or the attempts religious folks make to inject religion into the public domain. They don’t join organized groups nor wish to be active in any movement to better the status of nonbelievers in this country. Some may be apathetic while others don’t feel the need nor have the desire to engage in freethought activities.
I would suggest the non-engaged freethinkers are somewhat like people who are Christians, but never go to church, don’t pray, and don’t make religion a part of their everyday lives.

#2. The militants.
Militants spend a lot of time arguing or debating the nonexistence of a god or gods. Some would label these militants as intelligent thinkers, others as arrogant. In a sense they are “true believers” in atheism, much as fundamentalist religious people are “true believers” in their own religions, whatever those may be. Many militant atheists know much more about the Bible or other “holy books” than those practicing a religion, especially Christians. in my experience, Jews and Muslims know their own holy books much better than most Christians know theirs.
Militants often think anyone who believes the superstitions into which they were indoctrinated in youth are immature, ignorant, or downright stupid and aren’t afraid to tell them so. Meanwhile they are annoyed that religious people tell them they are evil and going to hell.
As I have pointed out elsewhere on this blog, studies have shown that no matter what evidence is produced, even overwhelming or irrefutable evidence, it is almost impossible to change a long-held belief. In fact, the more evidence produced to refute a belief, the more likely someone is to dig in their heels and believe it even more. Thus, it is likely that arguing the existence of god with a religious person is nearly futile.

#3. The integrationists.
Integrationists are much like those who supported integration for racial minorities during the Civil Rights Movement. They work to have freethought or nonbelief become accepted and respected in the mainstream of society and fight discrimination against nonbelievers.
Studies have shown that atheists are the most hated group in America, yet most religious people confess they don’t know any atheists. (Since atheists make up 12-15% of the U.S. population, they certainly do know some atheists, they just don’t know that they know them.) Atheists are often thought to be drug users and thieves, despite the fact that most atheists, like most believers, are ethical, moral people.
Integrationists don’t care to convince others to become nonbelievers, but want to feel comfortable and safe in a country in which the majority are believers. This group might be more interested in informal discussion or engagement with the religious community rather than a formal debate with a religious scholar.

That being said, not everyone falls squarely into one category. Militant atheists may also be interested in feeling more welcome into society at large. The non-engaged might wish to argue the nonexistence of gods, but feel ill-equipped to do so, preferring to stay out of the fray.
To some extent or other, all of these groups might support efforts to enforce church/state separation. The non-engaged would applaud the efforts, but not participate. The other two groups might participate by donating money to a group, such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, that initiates law suits where infringement is perceived, or they might picket in front of a courthouse that displays the Ten Commandments.

Which am I?

I tend to lean toward being an integrationist. I want to be accepted for who I am and what I believe. I don’t expect most people to agree with me, but I do wish they would respect my right to believe or disbelieve as I wish.
Yet, there is a little of the militant in me. It is probably the result of frustration at the assumption (by many) that I believe as they do, the annoyance of the constant bombardment of religion in all walks of my life, and not feeling comfortable about discussing my lack of belief with many family members, friends and coworkers, and especially neighbors, without some fear of reprisal.
I am a member of or a supporter of several freethought groups, and the very existence of this blog indicates that I am not among the non-engaged.

Many nonbelievers are accused of being angry at god. However, if one doesn’t believe in god, how can one be angry at her/him? That would be like being mad at a mythical or fictional character, like Merlin or Huckleberry Finn. If I am angry, it is at religion, which is completely different from god. I know many believers who are angry at religion in general or at religions other than their own. Thomas Paine was a deist. He believed in god, but thought religion ruined belief in god.

How can we change the hearts and minds of religious people?
Forget turning them into nonbelievers. As stated above, that quest is futile. Just think about how you became a nonbeliever. In some cases, you were born into it, just as most Protestants had Protestant parents. In some cases, you were brought up in a religious family, but had small tinges of doubt which gradually grew to large blocks of doubt either through logical thinking and/or study.
I had my first twinges of doubt at age 12. It took until I was 19 for me to think I was an atheist and a few more years of reading and study to be certain. For some the process is faster, others slower, but it rarely happens overnight. No one has instantly turned into a nonbeliever by seeing a vision of Madalyn Murray O’Hair in one's morning toast. If they did, they might be subject to a quick trip to the local asylum. Yet, those who similarly see religious visions are rarely shipped off to the mental ward. They may, at some point, even be sainted ---St. Joan of Arc, St. Bernadette. Perhaps this is discrimination against nonbelievers?
You might ask why I write my blog, if not trying to convert people. I have no intention of converting anyone. My blog is informational. Most viewers are already nonbelievers, or if not, at least doubters or skeptics. I would guess that most religious people who happen to stumble onto my blog, jump off it within seconds rather than be “tainted” by it. Of course, there are the mildly curious, who either stick around because they agree with most of what I have to say, or leave shaking their heads at the poor fool who will surely end up in hell.

Of course, there are a few religious people who feel the need to argue their point of view by leaving comments ---some damning and preachy ---most attempting to show the error of my ways in a somewhat respectful manner.

Set ourselves as good examples. On several occasions when I have told people I am a nonbeliever, they have said it was impossible, because I am a good person and don’t act like an atheist. That was supposed to be a compliment, but it was really showing their lack of understanding of what an atheist is.

I have told people arguing religion with me via email or on this blog, that if they met me, I could almost guarantee, that as long as we did not discuss religion, they would have no idea that I am an atheist. I don’t have horns. I’m not antagonistic.
I am a productive member of society. I’ve never taken an illegal drug. I volunteer time and money to many worthwhile causes. Most of my working life was for non-profit organizations that worked for the public good. When I worked at a for-profit corporation, I always treated customers the way I would want to be treated, with kindness and respect.

I disagree with a religious point of view about the same way most religious people view other religions. A Catholic doesn’t agree with a Protestant on dogma, but probably doesn't hate him/her either. Yet Protestants and Catholics probably look at each other and wonder why the other doesn’t believe as they do, because their own religion seems so “right” or “true.”

Play nice. I don’t normally tell people with whom I disagree that they are stupid. I admit, I sometimes think it ---don’t we all sometimes think that those with opposing opinions are irrational? But what good does it do to insult someone, whether it be the Christian damning the atheist to eternal flames or the atheist telling the Christian how unreasonable or unintelligent she is? Such behavior polarizes us instead of bringing us together. I believe in agreeing to disagree without being disagreeable.

Come out of the atheist closet when you are comfortable with that. I admit I am not good at following my own advice on this one. Although many of my friends know I am an atheist, I don’t discuss it with my elderly parents. I also avoid all discussion of religion with my neighbors because I live in an area where being an open atheist could get myself shot by “good” Christians. I don’t mean to imply all the Christians in town would take up arms against me, but there are a few fanatics that might.
Coming out of the atheist closet might be akin to coming out of the gay closet. Until gays and lesbians came out, they were invisible. People thought there weren’t very many of them and that they were not an economic nor a political force.
As the latest polls show, at least 12% of the U.S. population are nonbelievers. That is a larger group than the Hispanic vote (9%), the Jewish vote (2%), the gay vote (4%) and only slightly lower than the African-American vote (13%.) (Statistics from “Rise of the Godless” by Paul Starobin, National Journal, 03/07/09)

So, let's act in a polite, ethical, respectful manner. Let’s stop name-calling. Let’s come out of the closet. Don’t expect miracles ---well, atheists don’t believe in them anyway ---but over time, things just might change for the better.

WHAT KIND OF FREETHINKER ARE YOU? Leave a comment to let me know.

* * * * *

Related post:

CAN CHRISTIANS AND ATHEISTS LEARN TO GET ALONG?