(Article Updated below!)
I’ve advocated boycotting stores that support evangelical right-wing fundamentalist entities,1 and I firmly believe in doing everything possible to remove the taint of religion from the decision-making process of government and its presence in our law, public schools, and courthouses. I’ve also asked the question, how far should we rational thinkers go in countering religion?2
Today, I ask, should we also figure out who the brainless are, and boycott them, even if they’re not politicians or evangelists or school board members?
What if you were fond of a certain actor’s work, and you read an interview where that actor was asked, “When was the earth created?”, and the actor responded, “about 4000 B.C., but possibly 10,000 years ago”? Would you seriously consider not watching movies in which that actor starred? Take, for example, Tom Cruise, who, at least publicly, asserts the belief in the existence of an alien being god-equivalent, and all the other nonsense with which Scientology brainwashes its victims.3 Certainly, he got some heckling and negative reaction to his odd behavior and beliefs, but that didn’t incredibly diminish his standing as a Hollywood A-Star. Where he truly got criticized, though, is when he tried to tell others how to live their lives — don’t take pharmaceuticals; don’t see psychiatrists, etc. That imposition on his part was the equivalent, to many, of an offense.
Something gave me a slight shock today. It was the same shock I endured when I read about Ben Stein (whom I actually enjoyed as the brainiac on Win Ben Stein’s Money) extolling the virtues of his pro-Creationist movie Expelled. I had thought to myself, “This must be a joke.” After I was convinced that it wasn’t, I told myself that I’d do my best to avoid ever sending that man a dime. Today’s shock was similar, and I’m curious as to whether there is or should be a distinction that would discourage me from employing the same reaction.
Q. When was the earth created?
A. Archbishop James Usher, working out a chronology from the Bible, calculated in 1654 that the earth was created on the night of October 23, 4004 B.C. Other timetables reach back as far as 10,000 years.
Who answered this way? A priest? An evangelist? Sarah Palin? It could have been any of those, and more. But what’s shocking is that it was uttered, as it were, by the Pulitzer Prize-winning American film critic and screenwriter Roger Ebert.
“What about oil and coal…?”, he’s asked. “They are evidence of a Great Flood,” he replies. Apparently he firmly believes that a fossil claimed to be 200 million years old shows a shoe print, proving that all layers of sediment were laid down all at once, about 4,400 years ago.
Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man? “Created at the same time as man.”
And 600-year-old Noah had an Ark filled with pairs of 5,400 land-based mammal species, plus eight people (from whom we are all descended). Dinosaurs walked the earth with man, but drowned in the Flood. 4
At first, again, I thought this was a joke. This couldn’t be Roger Ebert’s own website! I opened a new browser window, typed in “rogerebert.com” and clicked my way back to the Commentary. Okay, it could be a hack attack, sure, but this time, there’s no Rickroll, and it coincided with Ebert’s Roman Catholicism. Fine. He’s a young-earther. The question, though, is whether I should ever listen to the man’s suggestions again. It’s not like I was previously an Ebert fan, but I did occasionally catch his show and I listened. Now he has books and other writings about movies.
Should my rejection of his beliefs as being brainless give me reason to reject everything about him? If yes, then is it my responsibility to determine the world view of anyone with whom I interact, in order to accept or reject that person? If no, then where do I draw the line, and why? I know that when I see a Televangelist, I reject that person by changing the channel (and usually by griping). Someone like Sarah Palin, who is oh so objectionable for many other reasons, I initially reject based on her biblical literalism. Even if she appeared experienced and wise in other matters, I probably wouldn’t want her visiting my home or serving as Vice President if she outwardly (and more frighteningly inwardly) believed in and advocated belief in Creationism.
So, is my line a finely drawn one, based exclusively on whether a person is using belief to infringe upon my way of life, or is it a broader, grayer line that also includes rejection based on affiliation as well as infringement? Is the latter sort of line an acceptable one for someone who purports to be a rational thinker? Perhaps I favor the latter because the mere existence of those who believe in such nonsense are a potential threat, whether direct or indirect (I mean, they make lots of babies, and they indoctrinate those babies in “the way,” so the threat of suffocation by superpopulation could warrant some reaction). I think I honestly could use a bit of guidance on this issue.
UPDATE:
Invisible Quotation Marks
This seems to be a Poe’s Law trend. I wonder why.
Apparently, on his online journal, Roger Ebert has written a scathing rebuttal to the criticism and misunderstood responses filling the web full of vitriol over his pro-Creationism FAQ, stating that his purpose in writing the apparently facetious FAQ was to “to discuss the gradual decay of our sense of irony and instinct for satire, and our growing credulity.”5
Bravo?
It seems Ebert was more than disappointed with evolutionists, who took him at his word (how dare we!), when he concluded, “The adventure with the Creationism article has been enlightening, and a little depressing. I expected better from evolutionists.”
To his credit, however, he did admit not being aware of that little nugget of emoticonology that would have made the distinction between what’s commonly accepted as blind faith and extremely subtle satire, described by Poe’s Law. Ebert wrote, “A postscript and confession. As I said, everyone has blind spots. Many of my supporters cited Poe’s Law, which I was completely unfamiliar with.”
So, the scoreboard for Roger Ebert looks a bit confusing. +10 for decent movie reviews, -10 for wacky Creationist rhetoric (without even a hint of invisible quotation marks visible to anyone but six of his loyal readers?), -10 for insulting the rest of us for not “getting it”, +10 for admitting that maybe we had a pretty good reason for not “getting it” (via our dutiful nod to Poe’s Law), and perhaps +5 for taking the time to explain his reasoning in a lengthy and descriptive journal entry. So, Mr. Ebert, I leave you with +5. And I probably won’t boycott you, since I think your intentions were ultimately good.
One thumb up, one thumb kinda sideways, unsure of where to point.
What’s even more enlightening is the variety of responses to Ebert’s journal entry, ranging from “Oh, I knew what you were doing,” to “I honestly thought you might be telling the truth.” I’ll quote a few excerpts (all from the same page):
As you mention in your article, I did see the quotation marks in your article. But it was based on a ridiculously thorough reading of your previous writings (I haven’t taken the time to search your reviews for the term ‘Creationism’ but I am positive you’ve slighted the concept previously). I knew enough to think “This is so inherently ridiculous that Roger does not need to add any text stating so.” But I will confess that if I stumbled upon the article without a diploma in Ebertology, I’d have been duped. The old adage “Consider the source” made me look smart.
Oh, and in later the same thread, I bemoaned your use of an emoticon as the fall of the last bastion of grammatical holdout. Now I see that it may have been a concession to the above. -Mike S.
Mr. Ebert:
Point taken.
You actually had me going for a while.
However, the problem as I see it is that your satire was indistinguishable from the real thing. Creationists actually believe this nonsense, and they repeat it constantly.
As such, there was reason to believe that you actually believed what you wrote. Especially for someone like me, who had no idea about your actual position on the matter.
You could of course counter with “why didn’t you research it, then?”, to which I reply: Because, again, what you wrote was what a creationist would have written. -Wapper
The problem with the article is that it mimics claims made by Creationists perfectly. That’s not satire. Satire contains an element of the absurd; Creationism is already absurd, recited with a straight face.
By your own standards, we should regard Ben Stein’s EXPELLED as satire. After all, we have a preconceived notion of Stein from his Comedy Central game show. Shouldn’t we expect him to be reasonable? I did. I think my preconceived notion of Stein was valid, which explained the almost universal surprise when his movie came out. Nobody expected Stein to take up such an insane stance. My reaction to your own article was the same: I can’t believe it, but I’ve seen smart people say the same dumb things before. -John W.
I’ll admit, Mr. Ebert, I was so busy worrying about the thought that one of my favorite intellectuals had gone over to the academic dark side that I missed the quotation-marks. I think Poe’s Law is a very apt observation (second in importance to all-wise Godwin’s Law). When such an emotionally charged issue as fundamentalism vs. empiricism arises we tend find ourselves blinded by our gut reaction, forgetting there’s probably a “wink wink, nudge nudge” in there somewhere. In retrospect, I can look over the article and crack a grin at the absurdity of believing that you had jumped the fence. Comments like Noah’s age, and your “steadfast” belief in the story of the Ark, combined with your assertion that man and dinosaur had roamed the Earth at the same time should have slapped me into awareness given your past articles. -Gene D.
Do you really believe that any of what you have written is outlandish enough to pass as satire in an age when 67% of Americans believe in the existence of angels and you have a woman running for vice president who’s a member of a cult that speaks in tongues ?
I say you are entirely out of touch with the reality of relgious thinking in this country. -Issitoq
One need only look at the reaction to the recent New Yorker cover featuring the painting of the Obamas to see that we’re living in a world where irony, sarcasm, and satire are no longer appreciated. As an Obama supporter, I thought it was a brilliant counterattack against the types of people who believe and perpetuate the crazy rumors about the Obamas, and I was sure the readers of the New Yorker would feel the same. But, I quickly realized that many didn’t get the joke, and many of those who did were still incensed because they felt that the Obama detractors wouldn’t—and would just use the cover to further their own cause. I just sighed with disappointment as I wrote this. -Jason
so basically you were trolling. How “clever” of you. And yes, i meant you to see the quotation marks there. -Ian Rennie
Roger, I’ve been a devoted and regular reader of your site since I was 13 years old. I know full well what you think of creationism and your love of all things Darwin since you’ve mentioned it many times- and your article confused and shocked ME!
You really had me worried for a few minutes and I knew what you thought of evolution vs. creationism and figured it *had* to be satire- so you can’t blame other readers.
Now, I knew that you must have been being ironic since I knew you couldn’t possibly be serious but I didn’t see the joke, try as I could. It sounded like you were being serious.
Except for the moose line, that is.
It’s not a good joke if even people who know you have to be kidding don’t understand it. -Agatha
- Don’t Buy Their BS, and Don’t Buy Their Stuff, http://www.stateofprotest.com/2007/12/07/dont-buy-their-bs-and-dont-buy-their-stuff/ [<]
- How Much is Too Much? http://www.stateofprotest.com/2008/08/15/how-much-is-too-much/ [<]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise#Scientology [<]
- Roger Ebert quotes from RogerEbert.com, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/COMMENTARY/809219997 [<]
- http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/this_is_the_dawning_of_the_age.html?swift [<]
Related posts:
- Real Anti-Rationalism That Should be Parody My last po
- Lies, Damn Lies, and Creationism – Redux Book Revie
- Why Stop at Creationism? According
- How Much Is Too Much? Haven
- The Trend of Obama Doubt Is he mere
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
It’s always surprising to find out that someone who seems reasonably intelligent in some matters can come to believe something so foolish. I suppose it should not be that surprising about Roger Ebert, since he has built his career in the land of make-believe.
I have often wondered the same thing about this myself. As much as I dislike religion, the idea of rejecting some of my closest friends due to their belief system clashes a bit with my personal value system. I don’t know that I care that much if others choose to take that route, but for me personally, I know that at least for the people that I am already close to, I will most likely continue to engage in their friendship despite their delusions.
As for Roger Ebert, I’ve never cared much what he has to say anyways.
I’m fond of Spike Lee’s movies but I don’t like Spike Lee. Why? Because he once said in an interview that white Directors have no business directing Black films and yet he’s directed White films; so it’s okay for Black directors to direct White films but not okay for white Directors to direct Black films — I found it not only to be racist but a double-standard. But I still like his movies, I will still watch his movies, and I have a few of his movies on DVD; I just don’t like him, personally.
Same with Michael Jackson; don’t like him. I don’t like him for various reasons; and pedophilia doesn’t top that list (but it’s on the list) but I like his music; I don’t own any of his music but I’d buy it; I have no problem with that; I liked him the black version of Wizard of Oz (you know, when he was actually black).
I think Tom Cruise is a nutjob; and an idiot. But I still think he’s an okay to good actor; and I will watch his films, I have several of his films on DVD; and though I think he’s a nutjob that doesn’t take away from his ability of acting, or films he has helped create (producing etc.,).
I agree with 90% of Roger Ebert’s reviews; about 10% we disagree on (usually dealing with foreign films and downright degrading films) but I don’t read his reviews because I want to know what kind of religious person he is, I read his reviews to know what he thought of a movie, which he is very specific at times, and since we both mainly agree on what movie would or is good, I highly respect his opinion.
As I used to state to people when I critiqued their work on http://allpoetry.com — “One needs to notice that what a person writes in regards to fiction or their job, or what not, is sometimes separate from who they are outside of that. Meaning, when I critique your work, or I read your work and I point out errors, or praise it or do not praise it, I’m focusing my attention on what you wrote, and not you specifically. I’m able to separate the two, even if you conclude that I’m speaking about you, when I’m not.”
I do this with people, as well. I separate their life outside of their “job”. They are two separate things to me. Roger Ebert has a job, his job is reviewing movies. Tom Cruise has a job, he’s an actor/producer, so when I watch one of his films, I don’t watch it because of his religious beliefs, I watch it because it’s a movie, and it’s fictional, and I may not like it, or I may like it but I don’t judge the film, or his acting ability based on what he believes in religiously or some other attribution outside of his “job”; the same with Spike Lee, and Michael Jackson.
And frankly to these people, and other people who this article is targetted to: “we’re” the brainless.
-Nam
We can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, even if the baby is ugly.
I like to read Roger Ebert’s movie reviews because I think they are often unique and well-written, even if I don’t always agree with his conclusions. I know Roger is a “good Catholic”, so even though he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve, I am certain he keeps a statue of Mary somewhere in his home. Roger’s religious beliefs, if accurately recorded, certainly run parallel to his professional work. If his religious beliefs colored his professional work so that his writings were tainted, then it would be reasonable to disregard anything he writes. That doesn’t seem to be the case.
I do wonder about the validity of the comments made by Roger because he has commented or written other criticisms of religion and/or religious leaders at previous times that made me think that his own version of religion was some vague form of deism rather than a creationist definition of reality. Still, I can read his movie reviews and not care one whit about his earth-creation stance.
Has anyone checked to see if Roger really is annoying?
http://www.amiannoying.com/view.aspx?ID=1120
I do think it is important to recognize that if theists ignored everything that atheists produced just because we don’t believe in their religion, the gaps between us would become ever wider and deeper. Instead of ignoring Roger Ebert, shouldn’t we engage him on this topic and expect intelligent replies? Sarah Palin doesn’t offer sufficient reasons for us to expect an intelligent reply.
David,
Although I think your point is well taken, in light of your response, I’m not sure using “amiannoying.com” is a particularly effective device to decide whether or not to consider boycotting someone, considering that Roger Ebert rated as high as 60% annoying (in 2002), and currently rates 49% annoying, whereas Sarah Palin currently rates a mere 51.78% Annoying. It is interesting, however, that Palin’s daughter, Bristol, rates 65.62% Annoying.
Also, consider who that site considers most annoying: the top five are Muslim extremists. Seven of the top ten are Muslim extremists. The other three include Sean (Diddy) Combs, NAMBLA, and a mass murderer. Eleventh place falls to Nathan Lane, who is apparently annoying because, well, he acts gay. Just for the fun of it, I looked up Pope Benedict XVI. He’s currently 38.06% Annoying. Last year, he was 53.86% Annoying, but perhaps we should use the year with the most votes, 2005, in which he was merely 42.08% Annoying. I guess he wasn’t gay enough to match Nathan Lane’s impressive 82.94%.
Reasons, according to the site, that Nathan Lane (82.94%) might be annoying:
He is overly dramatic.
He is flamboyant.
He is typecast as a gay guy.
His show ‘Encore, Encore’ was cancelled rather quickly.
Reasons, according to the site, that Pope Benedict (38.06%) might be annoying:
He was a member of the Hitler Youth, a stark contrast from the previous Pope, who was part of the resistance.
He shot down planes for Nazi Germany in the anti-aircraft corps.
He was elected pope at the old age of 78 (only two years short of the 80-year age limit on popes).
He is against birth control of all kinds.
He is against female priests.
He is against Turkey’s membership in the European Union because it is a Muslim country.
He disappointed those who were pushing for a third world pope.
He whines constantly about how the Catholic Church has collapsed in Europe but refuses to change it to fit the modern era.
He had unflattering nicknames, such as the ‘Panzerkardinal,’ ‘Cardinal No’ and ‘God’s rottweiler.’
He bears a strong resemblance to Ian McDiarmid’s character Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars movies.
Heh, that’s fair and balanced.
The main purpose of the link, which I failed to express, was to give anyone an opportunity to vote on just how annoying they find Roger Ebert. The AmIAnnoying database is insufficient in size and needs more targets, and it is unscientific and perhaps at times inaccurate, but it is interesting that someone added Roger Ebert a long time ago.
Religion has been the foundation for government since wayyyy back in the day. How can you really shun it out? It provided the very BASIC things like “No murder” “No stealing” basically the 10 commandments. So without that influence in government wouldn’t that mean that it would be fine to murder? Mabye even viewed as a popularity aspect. Sorry but i fail to see the logic in this arguement. Nice try bringing up celebrity opinions though.
“Religion has been the foundation for government since wayyyy back in the day” Which religion and which government?
Murder has long been taboo or illegal or immoral in civilised societies. Your god was not required for that. All that was necessary is that murder destabilises society. Note that murder is wrongful killing. Killing isn’t completely prohibited, because for the purposes of a society, execution and war may be necessary (at least from a leadership view). So if it was truly a divine moral mandate above the petty interests of this world, one would think it would be an absolute prohibition on killing, not a provisional law against a particular kind of killing that happens to be antithetical to the purposes of the earthly government and the society it governs.
By the way, if you compare the first commandment to the first amendment of the US constitution, do you think these two are really compatible? How is that a foundation? No, common ethical ideas are the foundation of both some religious morals and some secular laws. That doesn’t mean that religion is necessary for ordered, fair or reasonable government, and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that religion in government produces quite the opposite. Google “Saudi Arabia” if you don’t believe me.
Then what caused it to be illegal? What was the whole inspiration for it? And, when did I compare the first commandment to the first ammendment? You made that comparision by yourself, most likely to make it sound like you did some research.
David, don’t mind me, I was just being obtuse.
I wont ever be purcsing or renting any of SPIKE LEES crappy movies no matter what the liberal gush heads say