Deepak beefs again about the skepticism on his Wikipedia page

May 16, 2014 • 12:24 pm

Over at HuffPo, Deepak Chopra is still kvetching about his Wikipedia page. The fact that PuffHo still lets the old quack continue complaining about his “misrepresentation” at great length shows that no matter how low you think PuffHo has fallen, there’s still a ways to the bottom.

In a piece published yesterday, “Wikipedia, a new perspective on an old problem“, Deepakity essentially argues what another website, Skeptical Science, characterizes as “Deepak Chopra complains about his Wikipedia page being factual” (note the final quote in the S.S. piece from Professor Ceiling Cat).

Chopra is a man who hasn’t grown up and come to terms with the internet, for, though he’s famous and rich, he demands that everything written about him conform to his wishes; and when it isn’t, he effectively throws tantrums. The fact that he repeatedly tries to respond to small-time critics like me shows that he is, psychologically, like Maru the cat, who plaintively admits, “When I see a box, I cannot help but enter.” When Chopra sees criticism, he can’t help but engage. And his own Wikipedia article (particularly the section called “Ideas and reception“), simply shows the craziness of many of his claims, and how people have responded. A sample; I’ve left in the original references so you can see that sources are cited.

Quantum healing

 

See also: Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Quantum mysticism and Ayurveda

Chopra has been called America’s most prominent spokesman for Ayurveda.[28] He has described his approach to healing using the metaphor “quantum healing”. This refers both to a discrete jump from one level of functioning to another – a quantum leap – and to the idea of thought as an irreducible building block.[30] Chopra has equated spontaneous remission in cancer to a jump to “a new level of consciousness that prohibits the existence of cancer”.[6][31]

Of the aging process, Chopra has written that it is, to some extent, learned behavior and reversible – accelerated by the accumulation of toxins in the body (including toxic emotions), and slowed down by physical exercise, good nutrition, meditation and love.[32]

Chopra has described the AIDS virus as emitting “a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction”. The condition can be treated, according to Chopra, with “Ayurveda’s primordial sound”.[5] Taking issue with this view, medical professor Lawrence Schneiderman has said that ethical issues are raised when alternative medicine is not based on empirical evidence and that, “to put it mildly, Dr. Chopra proposes a treatment and prevention program for AIDS that has no supporting empirical data”.[5]

Ptolemy Tompkins wrote in Time magazine in 2008 that “Chopra has steadily enlarged his reputation from that of healer to philosopher-at-large”, and for most of his career has been a “magnet for criticism”. According to Tompkins, the medical and scientific communities’ opinion of Chopra ranges from dismissive to “outright damning”, particularly because Chopra’s claims for the effectiveness of alternative medicine could lure sick people away from effective treatments. Tompkins concluded that “Chopra is as rich as he is today not because he has been dishonest with anyone, but because his basic message… is one that he wants to believe in just as sincerely as his readers do.” [33] According to Robert Carroll, Chopra “charges $25,000 per lecture performance, where he spouts a few platitudes and gives spiritual advice while warning against the ill effects of materialism”.[20]

Note that the article accurately represents what Chopra thinks, and then reiterates the criticisms of it. Wikipedia’s policy is not to present quackery unopposed, and it’s absolutely admirable that they allow these caveats.

But Chopra hates it, and wants his Wikpedia page to present his woo without opposition. Here are some excerpts from his new PuffHo piece:

Many of you may already know how vocal I have been in the past year regarding Wikipedia’s bias covering such topic matters as mind body studies, new science, and of course my friend Rupert Sheldrake’s biography page. Since Rupert and I began to speak out about the level of abuse and outright vitriol occurring on these articles, many more individuals and organizations have also stepped forward, highlighting a similar problem, including Nobel prize winning laureate Brian Josephson. Key facts or relevant events in our lives or research are being omitted, efforts to include them in the articles by neutral editors are being met with harassment, defamation and personal attacks. Skeptic activists on Wikipedia are on a campaign to discredit notable biographies that deal with any form of alternative viewpoints and because I am a highly public proponent, my own article has been made into a ‘ground zero’ for these same skeptics who have sought to discredit my name and work for over 15 years.

First of all, Chopra shouldn’t be associating himself with Rupert Sheldrake if he wants any credibility. Further, look at the excerpt on “quantum healing” above and tell me if you think there’s any “abuse and outright vitreol” in it. He also implies that Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia, a group designed to prevent unsubstantiated science from looking respectable, is tampering with his article; and they simply haven’t.

And then Chopra’s Big Kvetch: he has to actually deal with this skepticism, which takes valuable time away from his mission of pushing woo and selling his products and courses:

I have to deal with this bias and misinformation every time a journalist interviews me and references my Wikipedia article. I need to spend the first 30 minutes of interviews to correct all the misleading information from my Wikipedia article. It doesn’t matter how many reliable sources are submitted, nor how well supported certain facts about my life are — if it doesn’t not fit within the narrative of extreme skepticism of the band of editors controlling my Wikipedia page it is quickly removed. And the editors who complain of this censorship are harassed or banned.

But Deepak wants to control the narrative about him, and so he’s got a new group to bring “neutrality” (i.e., adulation of Chopra) onto his page:

Recently I have obtained a new perspective. A group of researchers and archivists approached me awhile back to explain how Wikipedia works and offered to mediate. They informed me that the problems that are occurring are not because of Wikipedia’s rules and policies, but despite them. Wikipedia’s purpose is to overcome these prejudices and misrepresentations, though the path there is tedious and long. They informed me that the best way to handle this issue was not by exposing the bias of Wikipedia editors (which they are already aware of) — but to be patient and continuing to contribute information faithfully and genuinely, seeking to represent knowledge and nothing more. And that in time the article will become a fairer and more accurate representation.

This team of researchers and historians has now formed the ‘Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository.’ The Chopra Foundation along with a few others are going to be helping them build and expand this database. Their concept is simple. Let’s protect and preserve this knowledge objectively through citations and sources. Let’s make this archive a donation to Wikipedia. Let’s make sure this knowledge is represented without bias to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia’s guidelines for all researchers and journalists. Let’s solve this problem by contributing, not quarreling.

They are now representing my work and biography on Wikipedia and it has been interesting to see the reception that the representative from the archive is getting on my article talk page.

Chopra then winds up with a faux plea for reasonableness:

Most of the skeptic editors on my article believe me to be a very dangerous man — and believe that it is Wikipedia’s responsibility to warn the world of how dangerous my ideas are. They are giving my representative a hard time and are harassing other Wikipedia editors who jump in and try to help. Although this is sad to see, I have hope that in time this can be resolved with integrity through this approach. I believe that by working together and encouraging cooperative behaviors on Wikipedia — that all of this bitterness online can grow a little more productive. Wikipedia, let’s work it out together. See you on the page!

Is anybody fooled by this? Chopra doesn’t want cooperation, and he doesn’t want objective evaluation of his “scientific” claims. He wants to be in charge of his public image.

Now I’m not sure if Chopra is a “very dangerous man”, but he is dangerous in some ways, insofar as his lucubrations and products prevent people from getting sound medical attention. And to me he’s dangerous to the integrity of the scientific enterprise, for he not only makes unsubstantiated claims, like saying we can change our genes by changing our behaviors, but also confuses people by making spouting obfuscating babble that sounds like science but isn’t.

So, Dr. Chopra (and I know you’re reading this), you’re not going to succeed in controlling your public image. Read about the Streisand Effect: the more you beef about the critics, the more critics you’ll get. For there are smart people out there who aren’t going to be taken in by your “quantum consciousness” psychobabble. And there are scientists like me who know that your claim about epigenetically modifying our genes via changing our thoughts and behaviors is bunk—pure, unadulterated hokum.  There are scientist/physicians like Orac who will continue to examine your claims from a medical perspective. And we’ll all continue to hold your feet to the fire so long as you pretend that your unsubstantiated woo is real science.

You aren’t going to win this one, Chopra. You will continue to gull many Americans and enrich yourself, but, if you continue on your present course—and you surely will—you will never gain respectability in the scientific community. It’s your choice: your money or good science.

Sudanese woman sentenced to death for “apostasy”: marrying a Christian

May 16, 2014 • 9:28 am

UPDATE: The Freedom From Religion Foundation has emailed a “call for action” on this issue, part of which I reproduce below. It gives a link to a petition and contact information for the Sudanese embassy:

TAKE ACTION

Sign this petition here.

Spread the word via social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter!

You can copy and paste the following message (or write your own) to the contacts listed below:

Please do everything in your power to halt the execution of Meriam Yehya Ibrahim and grant her clemency. She should not be hanged to death for the victimless crime of apostasy. Please immediately intervene to save this mother and prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.

The post of U.S. ambassador to Sudan is currently vacant. The embassy is headed by Chargé d’Affaires Joseph Stafford. The American, Canadian, British and Dutch embassies in Khartoum have issued a statement of “deep concern” over the sentence.

You can contact the Sudanese embassy online here. [JAC: the direct email link is here, send a message if you are so inclined]

MEDIA
Pregnant Christian Woman in Sudan Sentenced to Death for Apostasy

Sudan woman faces death for apostasy

_____________

Meriam Yehya isn’t dead yet, but, according to the BBC, she’s received a sentence of lashing and then hanging from a Sudanese court. Her crime: apostasy. You know by now what that means. She’s supposedly a Muslim who has left the faith, and for that sharia law prescribes death. (The penalty is also approved by a substantial fraction of the world’s Muslims). But, at least according to the article, her crime was not as simple as abandoning Islam. She isn’t really a Muslim. And she married a Christian man, which is illegal in Sudan.

Amnesty International said the woman, Meriam Yehya Ibrahim Ishag, was raised as an Orthodox Christian, her mother’s religion, because her father, a Muslim, was reportedly absent during her childhood. In court, the judge addressed her by her Muslim name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed Abdullah.

But that didn’t even matter:

She was convicted of adultery on the grounds that her marriage to a Christian man from South Sudan was void under Sudan’s version of Islamic law, which says Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslims.

(She was given three days to “recant” but refused.) Nor did it matter that she was married, for marrying a Christian is “adultery.” Here’s the unhappy couple: _74885885_74885447 Oh, and did I mention that she is eight months pregnant? On this end the Muslim judge showed infinite mercy:

The judge also sentenced the woman to 100 lashes after convicting her of adultery – because her marriage to a Christian man was not valid under Islamic law. This will reportedly be carried out when she has recovered from giving birth.

Praise Allah that they won’t lash a pregnant woman! That’s truly a religion of peace.

And there’s even more mercy:

Local media report the [hanging] sentence on the woman, who is pregnant, would not be carried out for two years after she had given birth.

The Independent in Ireland adds that she is a physician, and that her 20-month old son is in jail with her. The article has the absolutely accurate headline: Screen shot 2014-05-16 at 8.23.22 AM Amnesty International has objected, while there were a few supporters of the sentence (and some supporters of Dr. Yehya) outside the courtroom. The Independent notes other countries’ objections:

In a joint statement, the embassies of the US, UK, the Netherlands and Canada expressed “deep concern”.

“We call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, including one’s right to change one’s faith or beliefs,” it said.

Okay, so where are the objections from other Western countries, and, especially, from Islamic-majority countries? Don’t expect them. Where are the “moderate” Muslims crying out en masse against this kind of barbarism? Don’t expect it.  The Islamic moderates, by and large, simply keep silent when something like this happens. Would Catholics keep silent if a woman were sentenced to be burned at the stake for leaving Catholicism?

This is precisely the kind of idiotic, medieval mentality that Ayaan Hirsi Ali spent her career decrying—especially the complete disenfranchising of women in many Islamic countries. I’m now reading her book Infidel, and if you haven’t read it, I recommend doing so, especially if you think Brandeis had any good reason to withdraw her honorary degree. (BTW, do read Timothy Egan’s great criticism of the “commencement police” —which doesn’t mention Hirsi Ali—in yesterday’s New York Times.) Infidel is a terrific and eye-opening read, and makes it shockingly clear how women are treated as property, not as people, in places like Sudan, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia. I’ll add to that Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.

This behavior is incompatible with Englightenment values, humanism, and simple human decency. I consider Brandeis, by rescinding Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree, as complicit in this behavior, tacitly punishing her “Islamophobia” instead of rightfully lauding her fight for women’s rights under Islam—a fight that has forever cost her a normal life. She will be under armed guard until she dies (no thanks to Reza Aslan, the Islamic “moderate”).

Women like Meriam Yehya will continue to be lashed, stoned, and hanged until Islam becomes genuinely moderate, something that I don’t see happening in the near future.

And how can we even countenance any society in which half its members—those with two X chromosomes—aren’t allowed to follow their aspirations? In many places they’re forbidden from even getting an education. What a waste of human potential!

h/t: Barry

I have landed—and an anecdote about Canadian airport security

May 16, 2014 • 7:28 am

I am now in Kamloops, and the Imagine No Religion 4 conference begins today with a buffet dinner at 5 and then a panel at 7 pm on free will, where Professor Ceiling Cat will expound his controversial views on incompatibilism.

I’m told that last year the host of this year’s free will panel, philosopher Chris DiCarlo, gave his own argument about free will (I believe that he’s a hard determinist like me), and Dan Dennett got up during the question session and spent the whole 20 minutes attacking DiCarlo’s views. (Dennett, of course, is a compatibilist who has confected a view of human free will that is, to me, unconvincing.) I believe we’ll have a libertarian free-willer on this year’s panel. Tomorrow I talk on theology and science.

The schedule of talks for the conference looks great and refreshingly drama-less.

The weather is lovely, as is this small town. I flew from Chicago to Calgary (3.5 hours), and the following 1.25-hour hop on a propeller plane from Calgary to Kamloops took us right over the Canadian Rockies and several other mountain ranges. It was lovely and clear; here is one of many pictures I took from my window seat:

P1050797

But I must relate something that happened to me at the Calgary airport.

Our plane was late from Chicago because of storm delays, and when I got to Calgary I found that I had to not only clear Canadian customs, but also go through another security check before getting on the plane to Kamloops. Because of that, and the confusing directions I got to security, I was late. By the time I got to security, there was a line of about fifty people waiting to have their bags x-rayed and bodies checked, and the checking was SLOW. They let in about one person every two minutes, and, at the end of the line, I realized that at that rate I would miss my plane.

For the first time in my life, I decided to try to jump the queue. I went to its head and asked the woman in charge (a member of what I guess is the Canadian equivalent of the TSA) if I could go ahead, as I was due at the gate in five minutes. I also showed her my boarding pass on which, at check-in, they’d written: “Be at gate at 2:00.” It was about 1:56.

She fixed me with a peremptory gaze and said, “Sorry, sir, there’s nothing I can do for you. You’ll have to get back in line.”

I slinked to the rear of the line again, finding my place, and fretted. But, watching the line’s slow progress, I wasn’t happy, and decided to try again. In five minutes I went back to the head of the line and literally begged the woman to let me through.

She gave me the same response, “Sorry, sir, there’s nothing I can do.” In other words, she’d rather make me miss my plane than allow me the courtesy of going ahead.

Determined not to give up, I turned around, addressed the first guy in line and asked him, “Excuse me, sir, but I’m about to miss my plane. Do you mind if I go ahead of you?”  He said, “Sure!”

Happy that I had succeeded, I stood at the head of the line and waited my turn. But the Canadian official told me this: “Not so fast. You have to ask permission from everybody who was in line ahead of you.”

I was stunned. Really? For a second I sort of understood, for if you jump a queue you’re really going ahead of everyone, not just the first person in line, and Canadians are famous for their politeness in queues:

canadian-lemmings

But at this point I wasn’t about to admit defeat. I walked all the way down the line, waving my boarding pass and shouting repeatedly, “I’m going to be late; does anybody mind if I go ahead of them?”  No passenger objected.

At that point the Candian-TSA woman let me through. But screening was still slow, and I barely made my plane.

For a while I was just amused at what I thought was a vivid demonstration of the famous Canadian politeness (see cartoon above). But the more I think about it, the more I’m peeved that an official would rather have me miss my plane than go to the head of the line (something that is regularly allowed in the U.S. for late passengers). And it was a bit humiliating to have to walk that line asking everyone to let me pass.

I’m asking Canadian readers: is this normal behavior? Or was I simply the victim of an officious official who didn’t like what she saw as an obnoxious and pushy American?

Friday, Hili dialogue

May 16, 2014 • 6:34 am

Big trouble in Dobrzyn! My informants tell me that Cyrus the D*g and Hili are not getting along, with the result that they have to be locked in separate rooms. Further, Hili’s human staff must sleep in separate rooms, one with the d*g and the other with Hili. I am also informed that it may take months to get these animals used to each other, and Hili is forced to repair to high places, while the d*g knocks her bowl on the ground and noms her food.

Such is the perfidy of the d*g kind. My suggestion was to replace it with a donkey. Today’s dialogue describes the ongoing troubles:

Hili: We will become friends cautiously. For the moment I prefer to look at him from a safe height.
A: And when will you decide that life has returned to normal?
Hili: When he understands that he is allowed to lie on his bed when I’m not sleeping there.

10300779_10203373142796607_4522113198285022145_n

In Polish:
Hili: Zaprzyjaźniamy się ostrożnie, chwilowo wolę na niego patrzeć z bezpiecznej wysokości.
Ja: A kiedy uznasz, że życie wróciło do normy?
Hili: Jak zrozumie, że może leżeć na swoim materacu, kiedy ja na nim nie śpię.
By the way, people have asked for a photo of Cyrus the D*g. Here, courtesy of Andrzej’s Facebook page, is a photo of Cyrus by the Vistula:
1901275_10203375469974785_1791814998375884899_n

 

Two lynx have a chinwag

May 15, 2014 • 12:36 pm

Reader Barry called my attention to this video, which appeared on Robert Krulwich’s National Public Radio website. The conversation begins 33 seconds in, and I believe these are Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis).

Look at the size of those paws!

Krulwich adds:

I looked up “lynx vocalizations” to find out why they sound like this. Apparently, explaining weird cat sounds is not yet a major scholarly pursuit. Mel and Fiona Sunquist, in their book Wild Cats of the World, say lynxes can “mew, spit, hiss and growl; they also yowl, chatter, wah-wah, gurgle, and purr.” But the Sunquists don’t say why. Another scholar, Gustav Peters, says lynx mating calls (Is that what we heard? Or was that just two lynxes yakking?) are “a series of intense mews.” Intense, for sure. Mews? Those lynxes weren’t mewing.

The lynx seem unperturbed by the light, which I find surprising.

~

Leaping lizards!

May 15, 2014 • 11:53 am

Before someone corrects me, yes, I know that crocodiles aren’t lizards (they’re in different orders of reptiles), but the title of the post will resonate with you if you’re “of a certain age,” as they say.

TheYouTube notes give the location, and I’m not sure how I feel about keeping crocs in captivity and having them do tricks for people. I suspect, though, that, being sedentary, they don’t suffer from this as much as do beluga whales, porpoises, or orcas:

Thanks to http://www.crocosauruscove.com in Darwin, Australia. You can feed crocodiles, swim with crocodiles, and get really up close to them. Feeding them using a fishing rod is a really unique experience, as you can see they can jump completely out of the water.

The behavior is surprising, though. Given that they probably never do this in nature, it must be something of a spandrel (a byproduct of another evolved behavior), supported by the observation that they seem to leap by making swimming motions.

Further notes by Greg Mayer

These are saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) at Crocosaurus Cove, a reptile zoo in Darwin, Northern Territory. “Salties” are known for their ability to jump vertically, but this is the only film in which I’ve seen them completely clear the water. (There’s a possibility that the crocodile whose tail left the water may have been hanging on to a “fishing” line, and thus been partially pulled up, but although no segment shows both the head and the tail out of water simultaneously, I think they are actually leaving the water on their own.) The usual context for seeing these vertical leaps by salties are by wild crocodiles which have become habituated to the presence of tour boats and the food proffered from them.

"Brutus", the one-armed saltwater crocodile, jumping for tourists on the Adelaide River, Northern Territory. Photo from Courier Mail, Brisbane.
“Brutus”, the one-armed saltwater crocodile, jumping for tourists on the Adelaide River, Northern Territory. Photo from Courier Mail, Brisbane.

“Brutus”, said to be 5.5 m long,  is much larger than the crocs in the film, and I don’t think he would be able to leave the water completely. (You can judge the size of a saltie by the shape of the head– they start out narrow, and get relatively broader and more massive as they get bigger.)

The way the crocs jump is by using their standard swimming motion: lateral undulation, legs tucked in, with the tail providing most of the propulsion. In jumping, they swim straight up (instead of more horizontally), and develop enough head of steam to partially or entirely break the water surface. Jerry supposes that they never do this in nature, but I’m not so sure. A number of crocodilians are known to skulk around waterbird rookeries, eating the birds that may fall out of the trees into the water, and there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t jump up to grab a bird as well. Here’s a photo of a Nile crocodile going after a grey heron from the National Geographic photo contest. (But note: the water that this Nile croc is in is much shallower, and it may be pushing off with its feet rather than its tail.)

Nile crocodile jumping for grey heron. Photo from Adelaide Advertiser.
Nile crocodile jumping for grey heron. Photo from Adelaide Advertiser.

h/t: Matthew Cobb

Readers’ weekly attacks on evolution and atheism, and Scalia on the devil

May 15, 2014 • 11:03 am

Here are a few of the comments (not approved) that creationist readers have tried to post this week. Again, this is just to keep your finger on the pulse of America. And believe me, there are a lot more comments, similar to these, that I didn’t put up.

Reader “Rasputin” comments on my post “Surprise: Pope Francis believes in Satan and demons“:

We only know the world as far back as our modern science has been able to reach into. What took place aeons before that? Is the current human race the first to appear on this planet? If not, who or what was here before us? Did we just “evolve” or were we “created”? Has science answered all the questions that perplex the mind of man? What really proves that satan does not exist, or God, for that matter? Let’s try to discover the very moment we fall asleep. That is an easier endeavor than proving the non-existence of satan. Cynicism or skepticism is not the answer.

I believe the onus is on those who posit the existence of Satan to provide the evidence! And, of course, “modern science” has reached back to the Big Bang, about 13.8 billion years ago.  Ergo we have a pretty good view, from the fossil record, of what life evolved on Earth over the last 3.5 billion years.  (Remember, though that we probably know of less than 1% of the species that ever lived, for fossilization, and the uncovering of fossils, is rare.) And that evidence shows that yes, Mr. Rasputin, we evolved.  As for science answering every question that perplex the mind of man (what about the mind of woman?), the answer is of course no, but we’ve answered many. Religion, on the other hand, hasn’t answered a single question.  Can you tell me, with the same degree of confidence that we know that evolution occurred, whether there are any gods, and if so one or (as polytheists believe) many?

***

Reader “john st laurent” comments on the same post:

You are entitled to believe anything you want, whether it be the devil, God, or the insane notion that we magically came from monkeys when you haven’t a shred of evidence outside of assumptions to prove it. Point being that evolution is a religious belief based on faith in something you cannot see, just like any other religious belief. Isn’t it time for you evolutionists to be honest and admit it?

Where is the science? (by science I mean proof, not your silly theories)

My “theory” is that john is a 13 year old writing this stuff from his parents’ basement. That’s the only way I can explain such stupendous ignorance.  And as for “something you cannot see,” well, he can go to a lot of museums and see casts of Australopithecus afarensis or Homo erectus.

Besides, if we magically came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? QED

***

Reader “ozdawn” comments on the same post:

IF “belief in Satan and Hell is as, “about as retrograde a belief you can have in our modern world””, THEN why has there been such a growing number of Devil-worshipers since the Church of Satan was “officially” founded in 1966?

WHY does most of society today especially the entertainment business mirror and embrace the morals of Satan while rejecting those of Jesus and the Holy Bible?

I’ll leave this one to the readers (the sane ones).

***

We have two comments on the post “Ask and ye shall receive: Oklahoma’s stupidity brings a monument to Satan to its capitol grounds“, about the plan to put a statue of Old Nick on the Oklahoma capitol grounds. (All misspellings are from posters.)

From reader “Alex L”:

For anyone who supported this satanic staue shame on you supporting this evil and teaching to children that’s it’s ok to allow such evil into America . Any human alive knows that satan is evil and that staue should not be allowed plus putting the future of our children at stake people should really be ashamed of themselves for not evening thinking of the negative things that should happen this staue should have a petition to ban it forever.

and from reader “Kayla”:

Nobodys wants your satan monumement in Texas! Lmao get out of here with all that nonsene.

Lest you think this is some metaphorical Satan people are believing, remember that a 2007 Gallup Poll showed that 70% of Americans believe in the existence of “the devil”.

I could go on, but among the people who believe in the devil is one of our Supreme Court justices. Guess which one? Of course it’s Antonin Scalia, who had this interchange last October with an interviewer from New York Magazine. Questions are in bold, Scalia’s answers in plain type:

Oh. So you don’t know where I’m going. Thank God.
I don’t know where you’re going. I don’t even know whether Judas Iscariot is in hell. I mean, that’s what the pope meant when he said, “Who am I to judge?” He may have recanted and had severe penance just before he died. Who knows?

Can we talk about your drafting process—
[Leans in, stage-whispers.] I even believe in the Devil.

You do?
Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that.

Every Catholic believes this? There’s a wide variety of Catholics out there …
If you are faithful to Catholic dogma, that is certainly a large part of it.

Have you seen evidence of the Devil lately?
You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore.

No.
It’s because he’s smart.

So what’s he doing now?
What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.

That has really painful implications for atheists. Are you sure that’s the ­Devil’s work?
I didn’t say atheists are the Devil’s work.

Well, you’re saying the Devil is ­persuading people to not believe in God. Couldn’t there be other reasons to not believe?
Well, there certainly can be other reasons. But it certainly favors the Devil’s desires. I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament.

Right.
What happened to him?

He just got wilier.

He got wilier.

Isn’t it terribly frightening to believe in the Devil?
You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.

“He got wilier” is one of the funniest statements I’ve read all year, but remember that Scalia isn’t joking here. The saddest part is that his last statement is absolutely true.

And remember, this is one of the nine people responsible for enforcing the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state in the U.S. Is it any wonder that wall is crumbling?

~