Baptism Is Primitive, Irrational and Grotesque - Now You Can Strike Back By Undoing It

"With soap, baptism is a good thing." Robert Green Ingersoll

When I was born in Philadelphia in 1938 to Irish-Catholic parents, baptism was not a choice - it was as much a part of getting started as cutting the umbilical cord and being burped. As an adult, however, I was a decade removed from my entry culture, a staunchly secular and a well-educated father who had no use for, interest in or tolerance for the old customs.

However, even though I thought the ritual was silly if not crazy, when my first child was born, I went along with the desires of my parents for the baptism of their first grandchild, as well as my wife's wishes given that her parents (as well as mine) viewed the baptismal rite as an absolute necessity, as consequential as feeding, clothing, changing, sheltering and loving our sweet little infant daughter. Their religion, passed down from their parents and their parent’s parents through generations, had inculcated the "sanctity" of this ritual at a deeply emotional level.

I understand their attachment: They were taught that if a child were to die without having been baptized by a robed priest of the only authentic creed (Roman Catholicism), the babe would be consigned by God to a place called "Limbo." Limbo was better than hell (no fires) but nowhere near as cool as heaven. If you are not Catholic or, like me, an ex-Catholic, this Limbo idea must seem really weird. Trust me - it's weirder than you think. An online American Heritage dictionary describes Limbo as "a place where souls remain that cannot enter heaven." What souls would that be? Why un-baptized infants, naturally. The dictionary contains this clarification: "Limbo in Roman Catholic theology is located on the border of Hell."

Well, if there is a hell, I'm certain the lunatics who foisted this nonsense on an ignorant populace in the middle ages are roasting there, along with the charlatans who came up with the idea of baptism itself.

When the time came to baptize my daughter, I did initially resist. It seemed unprincipled to go along with this egregious nonsense, however much the older folks wanted it. For a while after the fact, I wondered if I did the right thing by caving in to the loving mob. I rationalized the incident as something that made my wife, my parents and my in-laws happy and avoid strife and grief. Besides, I suspect that someone in the family would have done what Christians did with Jewish babies in Europe for centuries, namely, clandescently baptize the child without my knowledge or consent. So, maybe I did the right thing, after all. Since everything about religion is BS as far as I'm concerned, maybe it's best to just laugh the long-past incident off and think of it no more.

Well, maybe not. Why continue to consent to any practice that seems primitive, irrational and grotesque? After all, consider what baptism represents: That an infant must be cleansed of a stain the church calls "original" sin - and only the baptism ritual can do the trick. Imagine that - a newborn already requiring forgiveness from God. "What is the babe's offense?" you ask? Being human, I suppose. The new human is held partly responsible for a creationist character that ate an apple that a snake advertised - thousands of years ago. (Someone please cue the theme music of "The Twilight Zone.")

Well, it's not too late for me or my daughter and millions of others who were caught up in this craziness. There is a remedy. We can all have ourselves "Debaptized!" What began in England when more than 100,000 Britons downloaded "certificates of de-baptism" (created by the National Secular Society - NSS) has been adopted by the Madison, WI Freedom from Religion Foundation.

You can order two original embossed frameable copies on parchment signed by Dan Barker online for $5 or print copies available at the FFRF website free of charge.  Just sign it, have it witnessed and Voila - you are free of mumbo-jumbo. You are de-baptized.

Check it out and be well.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (573 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

Can Religion Make You Fat? No, But It Might Make You Judgmental, Irrational, Mean, Prejudiced and Credulous

I have had several requests to assess from a REAL wellness perspective a recent study suggesting that religion might be a risk factor for obesity. How valuable is a finding that something "might be" this or that? I can identify unlimited things that “might be” do this or that, and I wouldn’t have to kill a single laboratory mouse to list all kinds of such possibilities. However, because the subject is religion, the latest "maybe yes, maybe no" study finding got a lot of what I think is unwarranted attention.

Many writers have expressed disdain for religion – among a few of my favorites are Robert Green Ingersoll, H.L. Mencken, Friedrich Nietzsche, Madeline Murray O'Hair, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. However, not many religious skeptics have done so from a limited health and wellness perspective. This, I like to imagine, is my specialty! Therefore, I’m pleased to offer a REAL wellness perspective on the question, "Can religion make you fat?"

However, before providing this perspective, let me summarize the study that looked at the link between religion and obesity, conducted at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. The research involved tracking 2,400 men and women over a period of 18 years. (Details on the religion and fat study are available in an article entitled, "Can Religion Make You Fat?" in "The Week," March 25, 2011.) http://theweek.com/article/index/213602/can-religion-make-you-fat study in question. Highlights include the following:

* The faithful seem to equate gluttony as being next to godliness. Praise the lard and pass the ice cream. Potluck gatherings and post-worship coffee and donut gatherings seem not to be helpful to the "bottom" line.

* Church attendance is a sedentary way to spend a good part of Sunday morning - bike rides, runs or walks on nature trails would be more physically and possibly more "spiritually" uplifting.

* Young churchgoers are 50 percent more likely to become obese by middle age than those who reject religion.

Why are churchgoers more likely to be fatter than the average infidel, like me? The authors offer a rather lame explanation, almost preposterous in nature and hard to take seriously. Yet, here it is: "Being religious is associated with doing good works and those who do good works reward themselves by overeating."

Can you believe that? It's almost as entertaining as Newt Gingrich’s explaining marital infidelities as caused by his overwork in turn driven by his intense patriotism!

Wait - hold your hat: It gets even more ridiculous. "It's because of marriage," explained another scholar associated with the study. Kenneth F. Ferraro of Purdue University told CNN: "Weight gain is common after marriage."

That's odd. Don't infidels also marry? Why are heretics not fat in middle age? Surely some are, but the headline about the study did not read, "Can religious skepticism keep you trim?"

Not surprisingly, there is NO evidence that religion CAUSES weight gain. Alas, one has to read below the sensationalized headlines before this fact is finally acknowledged. 

So, to end the incredible suspense, my answer to the question, "Can religion make you fat" is "no more than any other sedentary activity based on blind faith in ludicrous superstitions." The dogma won't make you fat - it will only reinforce whatever tendencies you already have toward being judgmental, irrational, mean, prejudiced and credulous.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (570 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

Fox News Dissected by a Famous REAL Wellness Pioneer

I just read an interesting, highly critical assessment of Fox "News," though it was written quite some time ago. The author is someone whose body of work I very much admire. This highly regarded commentator described the "fair and balanced" network as a "sewer of bad news, of slander and of all base and unpleasant things." Harsh - yes, but justified in my opinion. Better than any critics on the Left or elsewhere, my hero seemed to accurately identify the effects of misinformation and poison that the oligarchs and Right Wing fundamentalists at Fox release on a daily basis. 

It may seem harsh to some but I could give examples of all the charges leveled. Perhaps you could, as well. Paraphrasing, here is the entirety of the Fox News critique by my REAL wellness role model. 

They seem to know every mean thing that has been said against those who do not embrace the regressive and strident agenda or the Right. They know where your party is losing, and the other is making gains. They believe every story against the interests of the opposition and distrust any defense. They display a stupid candor, that is, they always believe the statement of their allies and never suspect anything coming from their side. Nothing pleases them so much as horrible news concerning a good man not of their camp and they never deny a lie in their favor. They always find fault with the one side and favor with the other. They are frightfully anxious that all candidates should stand well with their perspectives, and perceive only the virtues of their allies. They search every nook and corner of their conscience to find a reason for deserting a principle. They expect that in moments of victory the opposition will be magnanimous, while in defeat they repeat prophecies made after the event. They regard the reputation of the other as common prey for all the vultures, hyenas and jackals and take a sad pleasure in the misfortunes of their critics. They forget principles to gratify their friends and slander their enemies. They expect forgiveness for their malingering while slandering those of different views. 

These words were written in the 1890's by Robert Green Ingersoll, the great American orator in a piece called "Fool Friends." No, it was not about Fox News. However, I thought of Fox when I read "Fool Friends," so thought I'd see how well the criticism of such friends applied to the network. It does seem to fit our times for that purpose. 

If he were around today doing what he did then, I think Ingersoll would target this dreadful propaganda ministry. He might try to shame it into reforms or, more likely, give speeches that would turn off the some of the enthusiasm of its easily deluded follows. 

That's my take on Fox, in any case.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel.  He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality.  His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (569 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

Can't We All Just Get Along? Probably Not

American society is fractured along ideological fault lines. To name a few of special interest, there is Republican versus Democrat, progressive versus conservative and secular versus religious. Yet, however divided these pairs might be, I believe nearly all persons affiliated with such segments favor the following:

* Accurate self-knowledge.

* A capacity to distinguish what is true from what is false.

* The importance of employing reason and evidence.

* The value of science and the scientific method.

* The desirability of an open mind.

To agree as a matter of principle about the merits of these qualities is one thing; interpreting and applying such perspectives in specific cases is something else. In my view, those who embrace these perspectives are most likely to fit in the progressive/ Democratic/secular (henceforth PDS) camps; however, I don't doubt for a moment that most in the other camp would claim such qualities. Yes, religious conservative Republicans (henceforth RCR) would surely endorse self-knowledge and love of truth, attest to the importance of science and claim to have open minds. And yet, they support beliefs that to the PDS camp are viewed as superstitions, supernatural, paranormal and pseudoscientific. Many in the RCR camp also embrace revelation, divination, energy medicine, prayer, faith healing, the paranormal, creationism and/or intelligent design - fantasies all. Few RCR types have a high regard for Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detector Kit" or respond well to skeptics like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, Steven Novella and others. The latter, in fact, challenge beliefs and practices revered by RCRs. Despite all this, RCRs claim to value the traits sketched at the start of this commentary just as much as the PDSs.

How can this contradiction be explained? As Yul Bruner noted in "The King and I," "is a puzzlement."

Or is it?

Maybe there is another way to explain why humans make decisions and line up as they do on a range of issues, social, political and otherwise. Maybe it's not so much about reason, science and evidence as it is about genetics in general, neurons and the way they're assembled and function in particular.

A new book by John S. Kennedy called, "The New Anthropomorphism," describes the convoluted ways humans categorize things. His work deals with consciousness, intentionality and self-awareness - in animals. However, lessons are applied to human animals, too. It's all about neurons and how they fire. Another book by Jacques Vauclair entitled, "Animal Cognition" offers "a theory of mind" to explain why chimps line up (assemble along their own fault lines) as they do. Maybe the lessons from these studies might explain RCR types. And, of course, we PDS characters, too.

Consider the very human trait of morality. Do animals have a sense of morality? If so, how might it be described? How widely are different kinds of morality spread across varied species? Some investigators think morality is basically a collection of psychological instincts, not so much learned and conscious devotion to moral standards. It is not "language-based laws, philosophical arguments and abstract values that set mankind apart," Stephen Budiansky suggests in a Wall Street Journal article entitled, "Still Red in Tooth and Claw," March 12, 2011. Rather, it is our instincts. Here is a key section of the article expresses the core of Budiansky's point of view:

"A sense of fairness and reciprocity, for example, does not depend on formal rules or any 'complicated intellectual' processes, he writes, just a gut check: Our sense of justice is really nothing but a 'quick emotional' assessment. Empathy does not require a mind capable of imagining the feelings and thoughts of another mind, but arises from 'mirror neurons' that are automatically triggered when an animal witnesses the actions of others, generating the same sensations experienced when it performs those same actions itself."

That's it - maybe we're all working off instincts and can't help or reform ourselves. This is the best explanation I've read yet to account for the existence of conservative Republican true believers and the ghastly beliefs and policies they embrace and support!

Of course, we PDS types are running on instincts too but, naturally enough, we think our instincts are more humane, fair-minded, compassionate, and conducive to democracy and, naturally, conducive to REAL wellness lifestyles of quality marked by reason, exuberance, athleticism and liberty.

So, in the event there might be something to this genetic idea, let's try to be a little more understanding of and less astounded by the actions of our Republican fellow and sister citizens. They can't help themselves. It's not so much what they and we profess that matters but rather how they (and we) are wired.

Life is not fair.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (568 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

How Many Freethinkers Fantasize About Religion? I Do.

Do you ever tell people about your fantasies? I do, on occasions.
Sometimes, it's gotten me somewhere. Other times, things did not work
out as I hoped. I remember one woman's comment, very deflating: "Don,
if people were interested in your fantasies, they wouldn't be
fantasies anymore."

Nonetheless, I want to tell you about one of my recurring fantasies.
Don't worry; it has nothing to do with sex.

It's about time travel. Nothing grandiose, like having a chat with
Socrates or interviewing Napoleon—just a reverse journey back to a few
childhood scenes. My fantasy returns to 1946, 47 or 48 when I was in
3rd, 4th or 5th grade at St. Barnabas School in Southwest
Philadelphia. I had teachers named Sister DeChantal, Sister Lucy and
Sister George.

In the fantasy, I would ask questions in religion class. Nobody ever
asked an original question during those years. We were assigned
questions to ask! And we were expected to write out the answers—and
know them for tests later in the day.

Now, after what seems a century or two, I have many questions—all
original, not assigned. What fun it would be to put a few of my today
questions to the good nuns of many yesterdays ago. How would they
reply? Would they provide answers, or would my questions puzzle, shock
or offend and be referred to higher authorities, the parish priests?
Or, would they just beat the hell out of me for being Satan's little
facilitator?

I don't have any specific questions in mind for these fantasies, but I
can make up a few without a moment's hesitation. Nothing profound—I'm
genuinely interested in what the nuns of that time would have said
that never would have occurred to me then because we were to memorize,
not think. For instance, questions such as:

Why does God desire my worship?

Why does he welcome sacrifices?

Is he in difficult circumstances?

Is he poor or hungry?

How do my works satisfy him? I am (was) a little boy clueless about
the nature of things—he was (and presumably, still is and always will
be the nuns would say) the infinite, all-powerful lord of the
universe. I'm a grain of sand and he is everywhere and eternal. Why
me?

How can we know that he is who the nuns say he is? I heard other
adults are not even Catholic but say God favors them? Who's right?

Is it really true that God "gives rain for praise, gives sunshine for
prayer and blesses a boy simply because he kneels?"

I did not say this was my only fantasy—I have others having nothing to
do with boyhood time travel, nuns, religion or God(s) and would be
glad to share a few, depending on one thing or another (e.g., are you
female, cute and open-minded?). But, I remember that woman's comment
long ago, so I won't volunteer any more of my fantasies. Unless I
change my mind.

Be well.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (566 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

Iris Vander Pluym Discovers, Classifies and Explores Prospects of Treating A Terrible New Malady – CPD!

"Iris Vander Pluym" is a pseudonym adopted by an "an unapologetic, godless, feminist liberal who lives in New York City." (This is her self-description.) I have not asked, but from reading her blog, I'm pretty sure she would caution that as bad as things are in American extremist politics, they can always get worse. Much worse. See her incisive website - http://perrystreetpalace.wordpress.com/author/irisvanderpluym/

On February 14 of this year, Iris penned a pretty cool tongue-in-cheek blog suggesting that new research offers a promising treatment for CPD, the dreaded "Conservative Personality Disorder." It was a send-up, of course - there is NO treatment, cure or even hope for a cure for a malady this dreadful. But, it's interesting and wicked fun to consider a partial list of CPD symptoms:

* superficiality;

* hierarchical worldview

* willful ignorance

* irrationality

* hyper-religiousness

* global warming denialism

* unwavering belief in young earth creationism and the efficacy of prayer

* anti-intellectualism

* emotionality

* authoritarianism

* bullying; controlling and manipulative behavior

* tribalism

* sense of entitlement

* misogyny

* support for "traditional family values"

* anti-choice and anti-contraception

* constant reinforcement of unexamined privilege or bias

* consistent viewership of Fox News

* outright rejection of others' rights to privacy and personal autonomy

* self-righteousness while judgmental, hypercritical, scornful and disdainful of out-groups

* delusions of persecution and martyrdom

* sadism and vindictiveness

* amoral

* rigid

* poor facility with native language

* limited dimensionality of thought

* little critical thinking ability

* stunted self-awareness

* compulsive political behavior in the service of extreme right-wing views

These are indeed frightful symptoms. There seems little hope for those so afflicted? These behaviors are "counterproductive and dysfunctional in the personal, interpersonal, and societal dimensions." Sufferers destroy "relationships, communities, entire nations and vast swaths of the planet." She terms the toll from unchecked, untreated CPD as "truly staggering." I don't doubt it for an instant.

Ms. Pluym acknowledges that while we all display some of these symptoms some of the time, few other than sufferers of the disorder display most all the symptoms nearly all the time. She is a tender-hearted and compassionate observer, it seems to me, for she goes so far as to grant that many of the behaviors are "appropriate and quite healthy in certain contexts." If only all commentators left and right were so gracious. The criteria for the presence of CPD are two-fold: persistence of noted symptoms over many years, and pervasiveness. All aspects of personality are affected.

So, what is the new research that seems to offer hope of a treatment for CPD? It's all about our evolving understanding of the brain. Learning more about how the brain works, where certain functions reside and what triggers one thing or another. Even CPD sufferers carrying around a wondrous organic supercomputer more powerful than anything IBM or other engineering wizards of the most futuristic technology can managed to design. Unfortunately, all kinds of wires and synapses and other factors can lead to serious malfunctions, as we see in the CPD-afflicted leaders serving in the U.S. Congress, legislatures and state-houses across the land.

The research, which was focused on the effects of meditation, show the following:

* Learning and memory. Meditation helps boost both. Perhaps meditating would mitigate one of the worst symptoms of CPD - forgetting the values the sufferers claim to cherish while improving consistency between their arguments and their actual practices.

* Emotional control. Meditation calms, which anyone who has witnessed CPD sufferers on Fox News and other conservative, wingnut outlets knows is an obvious sign of the affliction.

* Empathy. Meditation has an effect on the brain that seems to induce more feelings for and identification with the experiences of others. Certain regions of the brains of CPD victims where this quality is headquartered clearly not functioning but meditation seems to turn it on, a bit.

Other problems areas are improved because of benefits that meditation brings to selected brain regions. These include perspective and anxiety reduction, accordingly to Ms. Pluym's critique of brain research with meditation as a treatment of CPD.

However, until such time as more studies are done which prove supportive of these early hopeful findings, exercise great care around CPD sufferers. Compassion and concern are in order, but so is caution and even trepidation.

Until this awful malaise can be brought under control, do not approach sufferers without caution. And, for the love of god (s) and country and all that is good, sacred and/or secular, please don't vote for them under any circumstances. The disorder is disastrous, dangerous and to those not heavily armed with predispositions of skepticism, reason, science and secular values, possibly lethal. Support further research on meditation and other promising treatments and hope for the best.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (566 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com