Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Author:
Michelle Goldberg
Publisher:
W.W. Norton & Company
Date of Publication:
2006
ISBN:
9780393329766
Rating:
8
Summary:
I heard about this book as a regular listener to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s weekly podcast (which I recommend) and thought it might be worth picking up. The author, Michelle Goldberg, is a journalist and describes herself as a secular Jew and ardent urbanite. She wrote this book because she felt America was becoming increasingly hostile toward the cosmopolitan values she cherishes (p. 21).

Goldberg attributes that hostility to the movement she describes in this book, which she calls “Christian nationalism.” Christian nationalism espouses dominion theology, “…the ultimate goal of Christian nationalist leaders isn’t fairness. It’s dominion. The movement is built on a theology that asserts the Christian right to rule. That doesn’t mean that nonbelievers will be forced to convert. They’ll just have to learn their place.” (p. 7). Advocates of Christian nationalism have a different worldview, a Christian worldview. In that worldview, America was founded as a Christian nation (it was not), Puritans were kind to Native Americans (they were not), evolution is discredited (it has not been), men and dinosaurs lived together in the Garden of Eden (please!), the Earth is six thousand years old (try 4.6 billion years), and Christians should rule the world (p. 5). This worldview is totalistic: it influences every aspect of its adherents’ lives.

Christian nationalists make up a small percentage of the US population (maybe 10%; pp. 8-9), which means not all evangelical Christians are Christian nationalists. When you think about the “religious right,” it is probably the Christian nationalists you are thinking of: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ralph Reed are/were all leaders of this movement. Despite their relatively small size, they are disproportionately influential in American politics and culture, “In 2004, the Christian Coalition gave 42 out of 100 senators ratings of 100 percent, meaning they took the group’s position on every significant issue.” (p. 10).

Goldberg describes several aspects of the Christian nationalist movement, including: the political uses of homophobia (chapter 2), the intelligent design vs. evolution debate (chapter 3), the faith-based initiative of the Bush Administration (chapter 4), abstinence sex education (which is an oxymoron; chapter 5), and the war on the courts (chapter 6).

One of the more interesting topics Goldberg discusses is the penetration of Christian nationalists in the Bush Administration. Seven percent of White House interns are graduates of Patrick Henry College, a Christian nationalist college for home-schooled evangelical Christians (pp. 2-3). While a small school (with fewer than 100 new students a year), the students are trained in Christian nationalism but schooled in how to convert their message into secular terms so they do not appear to be pushing Christianity on the public (pp. 3-4), which is their actual goal.

Goldberg also describes some of the heroes of the Christian nationalist movement, including Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who is most famous for placing a 10 commandments monument in the state courthouse and refusing to remove it. He’s less well-known for his opposition to removing segregationist language from the state constitution (he’s a racist) and for his 2002 court decision awarding custody of three children to an abusive father over their lesbian mother (p. 25). While Moore isn’t someone I would consider much of a role model, he isn’t alone among Christian nationalists in his bigotry, “A 2004 survey… found that 48.3 percent of white conservative Christians said they would disapprove if their child wanted to marry a black person, compared with 21.8 percent of white Americans as a whole.” (p. 70).

Another interesting “achievement” of Christian nationalists is their reframing of evolution as a “debated” scientific idea. This is intriguing because of how they have gone about doing this: Christian nationalists turned to quasi-postmodernistic ideas to subvert the authority of science and rationality, claiming scientific findings are just opinions. While an absurd argument, it is apparently attractive to some. The irony, of course, is that Christian nationalists then want to turn around and claim that they have The Truth, even though they argue against the possibility of truth to undermine evolution (p. 87). I see this as symptomatic of the disingenuousness of Christian nationalists – they have been found lying and distorting in their efforts to turn the US into a theocracy.

Goldberg also highlights the hypocrisy and negligence that is the Bush Administration’s Faith-Based Initiatives. The money given to religious groups under this program is not tracked and many religious charities and therapeutic centers are not regulated (leading to terrible abuses of people). What evaluation of these programs exists indicates they are not at all effective (p. 127). The mismanagement of the faith-based initiatives has even turned off early advocates who now recognize the initiative for what it really was: political pandering and bribery (pp. 113-114). The faith-based initiatives of the Bush Administration were basically huge bribes to Christian nationalists in exchange for their political support. The billions spent on this program have done little to nothing to actually help non-Christian nationalist Americans.

The author points out some additional irony in the Christian nationalist movement, arguing that the leaders of the Christian nationalist movement are actually pulling a “bait and switch” on their Christian foot soldiers, “The leaders of the backlash may talk Christ, but they walk corporate. Values may matter most to voters, but they always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won… Abortion is never halted. Affirmative action is never abolished. The culture industry is never forced to clean up its act.” (pp. 29-30). What many followers of the Christian nationalist movement fail to see is the enormous fortunes of their leaders. Pat Robertson and James Dobson are the leaders of enormous corporate empires; both men are extremely wealthy and powerful (see note at end of review). There are, no doubt, some authentic, genuinely devoted religious leaders; but many of them are in it just for the money, including the leaders of the Christian nationalist movement.

Another bit of irony is also adroitly pointed out by Ms. Goldberg, “What about the heartland’s much-vaunted moral qualities? … Here again the image of small-town piety bears little relation to reality in rural America. The states that Mr. Bush won in 2000 boast slightly higher rates for murder, illegitimacy and teenage childbirth than the supposedly degenerate states that voted for Mr. Gore. The contrast is especially stark when it comes to marriage… The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage. In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas.” (p. 67). The hot-beds of Christian nationalism aren’t practicing what they preach (not that I’m advocating it, I just find it ironic).
Review:
For some reason I was under the impression that this book was going to be more academically oriented. It’s not. It’s more like a really long journalistic article you might find in the New York Times Magazine. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that; in fact, it was somewhat refreshing to me to read a book that simply reported what the author found without developing a complex theoretical framework to explain it (which is what you would find in an academic book). So, I guess my point here is, don’t expect a theoretical explanation for what is happening or how it is happening.

Another problem with the book is that it insinuates in several places that Christian nationalists are, if not outrightly, awfully close to being fascists (e.g., p. 34). I find this insinuation a bit tenuous. Fascism is basically ultra-nationalism or super-patriotism; allegiance to the state is placed above all else. It is often characterized by violent suppression of opposition, which probably would happen under a Christian theocratic government in the US, but I’m not quite sure the author makes a compelling case that Christian nationalists are fascists. As I understand this movement, they speak less about patriotism than they do about religion. Of course, Goldberg may be implying that once Christianity takes over the state, religion becomes the equivalent of patriotism, but that certainly isn’t clear.

The author also seems to give more credence than necessary to some of the claims of the abstinence-only advocates. She claims abstinence only education delays the onset of sexual activity, which most of the recent studies finds is not accurate. She also claims that condoms are not particularly effective in preventing the transmission of Human papillomavirus (HPV; p. 148). While genital warts can certainly transmit HPV and condoms don’t protect against that type of transmission, good sexual education encourages people to inspect their partners prior to sex – ergo, you’ll find the warts. But HPV can also be transmitted via seminal and vaginal fluids, and condoms do protect against that type of transmission. Why the author gives the abstinence-only advocates any credit isn’t clear to me.

There is also no clear progression or logical order to the book. It jumps from one topic to the next without any clear rationale for why things should be ordered the way they are. Perhaps with this particular movement it would have been too complicated to try to document its development chronologically, which is why the author used a thematic approach, but it still isn’t perfectly clear why the order of the book is the way it is.

Criticisms aside, the book does have some really prescient insights. For instance, the authors argues that, “If there is a hard landing-due to an oil shock, a burst housing bubble, a sharp decline in the value of the dollar, or some other crisis-interest rates would shoot up, leaving many people unable to pay their floating-rate mortgages and credit card bills. Repossessions and bankruptcies would follow. Many Americans would lose everything they have, including their houses. The resulting anger could fuel radical populist movements of either the left or the right-more likely the right, since it has a far stronger ideological infrastructure in place in most of America.” (p. 186). While I don’t think it was too difficult to predict any of the above in 2006, it is still impressive that most of the things mentioned above did happen in 2007 and 2008.

The author also argues that, “The religious divide in America isn’t so much between the faithless and faithful-it’s between those who want to maintain a secular, pluralistic society and those who do not. But the growing presence of non-Christians will exacerbate the frightened anger of those desperate to drag the country back to its mythical Christian roots… fundamentalism works in symbiosis with secularization; the more it is thwarted, the more extreme it becomes.” (p. 182). The end result will be an increasing polarization as secularists become more vocal in opposing the Christian nationalists, and this appears to be happening. But there is one more bit of irony in all of this, “The things so many Islamic fundamentalists hate about the West-its sexual openness, its art, the possibilities it offers for escaping the bonds of family and religion, for inventing one’s own life-are what the Christian nationalists hate as well. And so, in a final grotesque irony, we come full circle and see defenders of American chauvinism speaking the language of anti-American radicals.” (p. 208). Christian nationalists may not see it, but they are a lot closer to Islamic Fundamentalists than they realize, even though they claim to vehemently oppose them.

Overall, the book is well-written, though, keep in mind, it is less academic than journalistic. As a result, it isn’t as weighty as an academic book might be. This book is relatively light reading, even if disturbing. However, readers shouldn’t be too worried by this book. In my opinion, the conclusion to this book should read, “Be a little afraid of Christian nationalists, because they do want to subvert the secular history of the U.S. and, if they win, you will lose your rights to think how, believe, and act how you want. But don’t be too afraid because people like you, people who value pluralism and the freedoms that come with secular democracies, make up the majority of Americans. We’ll stop them from turning the U.S. into a theocracy, but you should do what you can to help.” This book does a good job making people aware of a movement in the US that should make people uneasy. I recommend it.

(Note: On the issue of personal wealth of the leaders of the Christian nationalist movement, I looked up some information on James Dobson. Two pieces of property are registered to a James Dobson Trust in El Paso County Colorado. The first one is located at 1453 Smoochers Circle (hilarious name for James Dobson) and is worth an estimated $673,224. The second property is located at 7 Pourtales Road and is worth an estimated $649,785. James Dobson appears to be doing quite well for himself.)

Skinny Bitch
Author:
Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin
Publisher:
Running Press
Date of Publication:
2005
ISBN:
0762424931
Rating:
0
Summary:
A friend of ours mentioned this book over dinner one night after she learned Debi and I are vegetarians. She had read it and thought we might find it interesting. When we first became vegetarians (almost 9 years ago) we were kind of evangelistic about it, but, over time, became much less so; now, we don’t really even talk about it unless someone brings it up (see note on vegetarianism at the end of this review). So, given the chance to read a popular book – popular enough to warrant a piss-poor NYTimes review – that advocates vegetarianism, I thought it might be worthwhile.

This is only the second book I’ve ever decided to not finish reading because it was so wildly inaccurate. Mind you, the book advocates eating healthy (mostly vegetables and fruits), exercising (moderate, not over the top), and not drinking excessively, smoking, or doing drugs. I’m for all of that. So, what’s the problem? The problem is in the arguments for why you should do what the authors say. I read the first 45 pages and found so many inaccuracies that I decided it wouldn’t be worth my time to continue reading this terrible, terrible book. Inaccuracies? How could advocating the above be in any way inaccurate? I found only 1 semi-accurate claim in the first 45 pages. This book is nothing but inaccuracies…

Take this quote from page 12 for instance, “Beer is for frat boys, not skinny bitches. It makes you fat, bloated, and farty. Why do you think when kids go away to college they gain the “freshman fifteen”? Beer, duh.” Now, those who know me know I’m no fan of beer. I don’t like the taste. But the argument against beer here is fallacious. Why? Because the “freshman fifteen” is a myth. Sure, beer has calories. And sure, drinking too much beer is bad for you. But if you watch your caloric intake and include some beer in that, there is no reason you will gain weight from drinking beer. Are there better sources of calories than beer? Absolutely. But why use myths to make your point?

Um, I think I have the answer to that… It may have something to do with the fact that the authors have no idea what they are talking about. According to the back cover: Rory Freedman is “a former agent for Ford Models,” and “is a self-taught know-it-all.” And Kim Barnouin “is a former model who holds a Masters of Science degree in Holistic Nutrition.” FYI, a Masters of Science in Holistic Nutrition is about the equivalent of saying, “I have a PhD from Never Never Land in fighting pirates.” The authors are not remotely qualified to write this book. The lack of qualifications is glaring as they make error after error. Let me point out a few more I found in those first 45 pages…

Here’s a claim from page 14, “Aspartame (an ingredient commonly found in diet sodas and other sugar-free foods) has been blamed for a slew of scary maladies, like arthritis, birth defects, fibromyalgia, Alzheimer’s, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and diabetes.” Thirty seconds on Pub Med resulted in this article (thanks Debi) that concludes, based on all of the existing literature, that aspartame “is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.” The authors are also misleading in their presentation of aspartame. They claim, “So many people have been sickened from this shit that there are aspartame victim support groups. Some of the ninety-two aspartame side effects listed by the FDA include memory loss, nerve cell damage, migraines, reproductive disorders, mental confusion, brain lesions, blindness, joint pain, Alzheimer’s, bloating, nervous system disorders, hair loss, food cravings, and weight gain” (p. 34). If you actually look up the reference they gave for this claim, the above list of “side effects” are actually “claimed side effects” from people who have complained to the FDA. None of these side effects are supported by the scientific evidence, and the very reference they give says as much. This is either a tell-tale sign of idiotic authors (we’re too stupid to tell the difference between “claimed side effects” and “actual side effects”) or a bias that translates into deception and mischaracterization. Either way, the authors are giving out erroneous information and doing a public disservice.

Here’s another claim based on a myth, “Unless you’re from Mars, you’ve heard about the “eight glasses of water a day” thing” (p. 14; note, that’s two from the same page!). Unless you’re from planet “ignoramus” you would realize that a quick Google search results in dozens of articles debunking that myth. You don’t need to drink 8 glasses of water a day. You should drink as many as you want or feel you need (advice from actual scientists, not holistic crackpots).

And why, you might ask, do they reference the “eight glasses of water a day” myth? Because they believe the water is necessary to cleanse all of the “toxins” from your body, “Water is vital for keeping your body clean and detoxified. It literally flushes out all the shit and toxins your body stores from your horrendous diet” (p. 14; that’s 3 mistakes on one page). The second I read “toxins” I knew I was reading a book of complete and utter nonsense. Toxins are a legitimate concern – things like arsenic, lead, mold spores, or rayon can all harm you. But what are the alleged “toxins” the authors believe need to be flushed out of the body? Maybe it has to do with this absurd claim from page 37, “When food is digested, it leaves an acid or alkaline “ash” in the body, depending on the food’s mineral content.” Another PubMed search returned one search result for “alkaline base ash” from the mid 1980s that was inconclusive concerning the effects of foods on urine acidity. Apparently the whole “ash” idea is popular in holistic medicine. Oh, and nobody working in nutrition fields today think this is remotely important enough to study. So, the “toxins” you are flushing from your system are actually the foods you are eating. Huh, who knew that apple is going to kill you?

The authors are also anti-modern medicine. (What do you expect from a “holistic nutritionist”?) They actually say, “taking medicine will make you feel better for the moment, but will fuck up something else in your body” and “Do you think putting chemicals in your body is good for you?” (p. 19). They rail against the Food and Drug Administration, considering it a rubber stamp for the pharmaceutical and food industries but a gatekeeper that prevents holistic and – the most holy of buzzwords today – “organic” alternatives from getting into the market. Until one of the authors of this book can provide me a solution for my seasonal allergies that doesn’t include fluticasone propionate (a.k.a. Flonase), I think they should be forced to recall every copy of this book.

Oh, and they don’t just think medicine is bad. I said they recommend exercise, but not too much, because that is bad for you, too. Here’s what they say, “In fact, you shouldn’t, because too much exercise is bad for you. It can lead to dehydration, arthritis, osteoporosis, and injuries like strains, sprains, and fractures” (p. 20). Dehydration is easily prevented with proper hydration. So, too much exercise doesn’t lead to this unless you are an idiot. Perhaps highly repetitive exercises could lead to arthritis, but it would have to be highly repetitive. But the big faux pas here is osteoporosis. There are a few million medical doctors (and a fair number of scientists) who just fell off their chairs laughing as a result of reading this. Any guess what the recommended treatment is for osteoporosis? Exercise and chemicals a.k.a. medication (to increase bone density)! I’m going to be generous to the authors of this book and say that they aren’t killing you willfully, just negligently. They aren’t saying, “Let’s kill our readers.” What they are saying is, “We’re too fracking ignorant to know that our advice will kill our readers.”

I have another 10 or so examples I’d like to debunk here, but I’ll only give one more. I can’t help but include this one because it is just so telling of how ignorant the authors of this book are. They try to attack eating meat by attacking evolution, “Before you start spouting off information you’ve been brainwashed with about evolution and the food chain, read on. Yes, humans have a high level of intelligence. Yes, we created weapons for hunting and fire for cooking. Yes, we found a way to mass-produce animals for consumption. However, if you study animals in the wild, you will note that they do not rely on anything other than their natural hunting ability, speed, strength, claws, teeth, and jaws. They have no tools or weapons. Now look at yourself. Look at your flimsy fingernails in comparison to an eagle’s talons. Look at your flat, blunt teeth compared to a lion’s fangs. Compare your speed and agility to that of a tiger. Compare the strength of your jaw to a wolf’s. Imagine yourself trying to run after an animal, catch it, and kill it using your bare hands, fingernails, teeth, and jaws. Not only would you look ridiculous, but you’d probably get your ass kicked, too. And even if you were successful, envision yourself eating the kill without the aid of an oven and silverware. Yes, the human brain allows us to stay removed from the process of hunting. But does this mean we are “evolved” and “intelligent” and should be eating animal flesh just because we can? Man’s “intelligence” also created alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. Should we drink, smoke, and use just because we can?” (pp. 41-42). In case you don’t see the problems here, let me spell them out. First, our large brains provide an evolutionary advantage over other animals that allows us to kill them, both to avoid being killed by them and to eat them. Many evolutionary biologists today also believe that the high energy requirements of our brain required a turn to a higher energy diet that is loaded with animal protein. Additionally, our closest living primate relatives, chimpanzees, do hunt and kill other animals and eat them – and they do so without huge fangs or claws. In no sense is their characterization of evolution accurate or informed. What’s more, they are committing a logical fallacy by comparing the consumption of meat to the consumption of cigarettes. Cigarettes are, quite literally, toxic. Meat is not. Cigarettes can’t keep you alive. Meat can. This is a false comparison.

After about the second erroneous claim, I checked the list of references in the back of the book. The book does, amazingly, have references. But, here’s the catch, not a single one of the references is to a peer-reviewed academic/scientific publication. There are a couple references that are to news articles that discuss peer-reviewed publications, but that’s as close as they get. Most of the references are to conspiracy theory type, pro-vegan publications. So what, you say? Well, the peer-reviewed publications are the currency of factual information. If the authors of this book can’t bother themselves to dig through any of that literature, can they be trusted to tell you anything accurate? Should you trust them?

In case you didn’t notice in the quotes, the authors are also keen to swear and make rude, disparaging comments. They insult their readers and speak down to them. If Nobel Laureates are humble enough not to speak down to other scientists, the authors certainly have no justification for doing so. I don’t want to harp on this point as I really don’t care that much about it, but it’s just one more reason why you shouldn’t read this book. In summary: If you like being insulted, misled, and lied to by people who are less informed than you are, then, by all means, buy this book. If, however, you are like me and prefer to LEARN when you read something, this is not the book for you.

(Note on Vegetarianism: Humans really have evolved to be omnivores. Reputable nutritionists and doctors recommend a diet that is mostly grains, vegetables, and fruits, with small amounts of lean meats, dairy, and sweets. We are less evangelistic of vegetarianism precisely because we can no longer argue health benefits from eating this way. There are, however, a few studies that indicate vegetarians tend to be more intelligent than non-vegetarians; probably a correlation, and not causation. There are also studies indicating vegetarians are less likely to be obese; again, probably correlation and not causation, though there is more evidence for cause on this one. The single best argument for vegetarianism today is really environmental: meat production adds more CO2 to the atmosphere every year in the US than does driving cars. Plus, you can feed more people on a vegetarian diet than a protein rich, meat-based diet, which is a concern if you are a neo-Malthusian. So, we are vegetarians primarily for environmental reasons. References available on request.)

(Second Note: If you’re a credentialed nutritionist and would like to write a book debunking the claims of this book, please email me or comment below. My wife and I have worked out an outline for such a book and would be willing to contribute a substantial amount, but lack the credentials to write such a book.)

—————-
Now playing: Tchaikovsky – Nutcracker: Toy Flutes
via FoxyTunes

The Outstretched Shadow: The Obsidian Trilogy, Book 1
Author:
Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory
Publisher:
Tor
Date of Publication:
2003
ISBN:
978-0765341419
Rating:
9
Summary:
(Warning: Spoilers) Kellen Tavadon is the son of the most powerful mage in the mage-controlled city of Armatheliah, Lycaelon Tavadon. Kellen is training to be a mage, but isn’t sure if that is the future he wants for himself. What’s more, he isn’t sure he wants to be the son and successor of his father, Archmage Tavadon. Kellen doesn’t like his father nor the near-perfect city of Armatheliah at all. Armatheliah just feels too restricting; Kellen doesn’t feel like he has any personal freedom and no choice in what he is to become. Ironically, he’s privileged, he knows it, and doesn’t like it.

When the magical winds of fate finally intervene, Kellen reluctantly accepts the call. The winds carry a call to embrace wild magery, an alternative to the high magery practiced by his father and the ruling mages of Armatheliah. High magery follows strict forms, but also draws the power for the spells from the people of Armatheliah (without their knowledge) whereas wild magery requires the person casting the spell to negotiate a price with the gods that control the wild magic (though that price can be shared with others) and how the magic is carried out isn’t always certain. High magery is not subject to the dictates of anyone but the mage casting the spell, which means it can readily be used for ill, unlike wild magery which requires practitioners to pay the price subject to the dictates of the gods that provide the magic and, if one decides not to pay the price they have to do so willfully, rejecting the wildmage gods in the process.

The ruling mages of Armatheliah have outlawed wild magery in their great, all-human city and will banish or kill anyone caught practicing it. Thus it comes as a great surprise to Lycaelon when he discovers his son in possession of the books of wild magery and realizes his son has turned away from his path. Kellen is banished from Armatheliah, but quickly realizes that banishment really means death, as he has 24 hours to leave the land claimed by Armatheliah or die at the stone paws of a magically animated pack of scouring hounds (stone sculptures in the shape of dogs that can be magically animated to do the bidding of a mage). Kellen calls on the powers of wildmagery to save him and they send him a unicorn named Shalkan to help him. His mage price: remain a virgin for one year (if a non-virgin touches a unicorn they die). Shalkan tries his best to carry Kellen out of the lands claimed by Armatheliah, but they don’t quite make it within the allotted 24 hours and are forced to make a stand. Together they are able to destroy the scouring hunt, though they nearly die in the process.

Shalkan carries the battered, semi-conscious Kellen to the Wildwood and delivers him to a wild mage, Idalia, who heals Kellen and puts him up in her home while he recuperates. It doesn’t take long for Idalia and Kellen to realize that they are in fact sister and brother: both are the offspring of Lycaelon Tavadon. And, both were banished from the city for embracing wild magery. Kellen, however, had the memories of his sister erased (by the magic of his father), so it is a shock to him to learn that he has a sibling. Idalia was also banished from the city and used the wild magic to evade the scouring hunt.

Idalia quickly draws Kellen under her metaphorical wing and begins teaching him how to live in the Wildwood, surviving mostly on their own and trading their magical abilities for goods and money as needed with people in nearby villages and the surrounding area. She also teaches him more about the wild magic they both have embraced. They are outlaws to Armatheliah and their father, but Idalia has built a decent life for herself and seems happy… Until they find out, via magical scrying, that their father has convinced the other mages of Armatheliah to expand the city’s borders to include the Wildwood so they can hunt down Kellen and kill him once and for all. With forewarning, they tell all of the inhabitants of the Wildwood (including all of the non-human creatures – nymphs, fairies, centaurs, etc.) what is coming and pack up shop themselves, deciding they will go live with the elves in Sentarshadeen as they figure out what to do with their future.

They pack up and head out uneventfully enough, but upon arriving in Sentarshadeen they find their services as wild mages are desperately needed: Something has changed the weather patterns in Sentarshadeen, and the elves are experiencing a severe drought, severe enough that their farms, orchards, and even forests are beginning to die. Idalia, the much more experienced and much better wild mage, is enlisted in trying to figure out the cause. She eventually does, and it indicates serious trouble: The ancient enemy of the elves and all creatures that love the light has reawakened and is preparing for battle – the Endarkened Demons of Shadow Mountain have returned and are preparing for war. They have used their powerful magic to block the rain from the elven lands, and only a costly wild mage counter spell can break their spell. Idalia weaves the spell, drawing on the energy of all the elves of Sentarshadeen in the process. The power of the spell is channeled into a keystone, which is then entrusted to Kellen to take to the source to enact the counter spell and return the weather patterns to normal. Idalia would go, but the resulting torrential weather would cause too much damage if it isn’t controlled after the demonic spell is broken, so she must remain in Sentarshadeen to guide the weather back to normal.

It is, therefore, up to Kellen to travel to the base of Shadow Mountain, into hostile lands, to deliver the counter spell and save the elves. He is given one elven companion, an elven knight named Jermayan, who also happens to be the scorned lover of his sister. Kellen rides Shalkan, his unicorn companion (who speaks, as all good unicorns do) and heads out toward the source of evil. Along the way, Jermayan begins training Kellen in the fighting arts, only to find during their first training session that Kellen, who has never trained with a sword before, is not an ordinary fighter. Kellen, who has been struggling with his magical abilities from day one, has never felt like he fit into any world: He wasn’t a particularly good wild mage and he wasn’t very good at much of anything else. But once he starts fighting, Jermayan realizes what he actually is: a knight-mage. Kellen’s magical ability is channeled into his fighting ability. Yes, he can cast the spells of wild mages, but his real gift lies in fighting, and he learns quickly to use it under the very capable training of Jermayan.

His training quickly comes into play as they fend off several attacks on their journey to enact the counter spell. Along the way they end up finding a strange human/demon hybrid, Vestakia, who leads them to the exact source of the demonic spell, a giant obelisk emanating evil energy and holding back the much needed moisture from elven lands. Vestakia’s mixed “heritage” gives her the ability to detect the presence of demons or even their taint, which helps guide them to the obelisk. Kellen then has to face the arduous task of climbing the obelisk and placing the keystone on it to break the spell. But the obelisk is protected with various enchantments. One triggers an army of goblins that attack his companions. Jermayan, Vestakia, and Shalkan are able to hold them off while Kellen deals with his own challenges, including facing down the queen of the demons, Zavilla, who tempts him to join the demons. Kellen eventually succeeds in triggering the keystone and enacting the counter spell, breaking the demon magic. Idalia senses the success of the spell and guides the weather safely back to normal, saving Sentarshadeen.

Kellen eventually returns to Sentarshadeen with Jermayan, Vestakia, and Shalkan, where they are greeted as heroes and reunited with Idalia. The book ends at this point, foreshadowing a coming war with both the mages of Armatheliah and the Endarkened of Shadow Mountain.
Review:
TOR books is currently giving away a digital book per week if you sign up for their emails. They send them in mobipocket format, which works great on my PDA/cellphone. Since I do occasionally find myself with a few minutes waiting for this or that, I put the book on my cellphone and pulled it out every so often over the last 4 months or so to read this book. If it wasn’t for the digital format and the convenience of always having it with me on my cellphone, I never would have found the time to read this.

As far as fantasy books go, this was a fun one. It’s very well-written and engaging. It certainly kept my attention and drew me into the story. There are a couple of minor issues I noticed. There isn’t much down time between major events. It’s only about 3 or 4 months between when Kellen leaves Armatheliah (at age 17 mind you) and when he releases Idalia’s counter spell at the base of Shadow Mountain. Without magical healing this would be absurd, of course, but even with all of the magic, it makes for a rather frantic pace.

Additionally, some aspects of the world deviated from the magical/fantasy worlds I’m familiar with. Not having read any fantasy books for fun for, well, years, I could be out of touch with changes in the fantasy realm, but it seemed odd to divide the magic up into three forms: high magic, wild magic, and dark magic. Traditionally there are only two types: light and dark. Additionally, in most of the fantasy I’ve read, elves can have as much magical ability as humans, but that isn’t the case in this book (they do offer an intriguing explanation for why that is the case, though, which is nice).

Finally, the similarity to and comments on religion are kind of intriguing. I could be missing some of the symbolism and similarities here, but it seems pretty obvious to me that Kellen is representative of Gautama Siddhartha (a.k.a. the Buddha). Kellen lives a life of luxury and is kept from the travails of the ordinary person by his noble father. He eventually escapes and finds a better path than the rigid religious caste system of his father. What’s more, the mages of Armatheliah have developed a religion akin to Roman Catholicism (and Hinduism) in which all of the people are, by default, members and required to make monthly pilgrimages to the main chapel to exchange the symbols of their allegiance (which also steal their power so it can be used by the mages of Armatheliah). I saw that as a criticism of what is often called “high religion,” or highly organized state churches with overly-developed bureaucracies and extensive rituals. Some other aspects of Buddhism come out as the story plays out as well, like the balancing of nature through the wild magic (similar to Shinto as well) and Kellen becoming “one” with his sword and allowing his magic to course through him. I’m not sure just what the religious agenda is here, but it’s kind of fun to guess at it.

Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find a digital copy of the second and third books in the trilogy for the mobipocket reader. Amazon.com has a digital copy of the 3rd book for the Kindle, but I can’t find anything about putting that on my PDA and I’m not interested in forking out $400 for a Kindle just so I can read one book. If I want to finish the series I’ll probably have to borrow the books from the library. Maybe I’ll take them to Lake Powell with me over the summer and read them while I’m on vacation. I don’t have time for that, but why not?

Overall, good book. It’s entertaining and engrossing and gets your mind off work, which is what any good fantasy novel should do. Recommended.

Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers

Author:

Bruce E. Hunsberger, Bob Altemeyer

Publisher:

Prometheus Books

Date of Publication:

2006

ISBN:

978-1591024132

Rating:

9

Summary:

Scholars of religion in the U.S. know the percentage of Americans who have no religious affiliation is growing (7% in 1990; 16% in 2008), but we also know relatively little about those with no religious affiliation (though this is changing). This book is an attempt to address this lacunae by looking at one small portion of the unaffiliated – atheists. To get a better picture of American atheists, the authors sent questionnaires to members of several atheist groups (in the San Francisco area and in Idaho) and compared the results of those questionnaires to data they have on religious fundamentalists and average parents in Canada (who are so-so religious). While they recognize that members of atheist groups in the U.S. are not representative of atheists in the U.S. generally (they are substantially older for one), it is possible to generalize from this data about activist atheists in the U.S.
So, what do active atheists in the U.S. look like? Since the book is short, so is my summary:

• Most of the active atheists were raised religious and left because of the beliefs of the religion – they didn’t find them compelling. More than anything, reading the Bible led them to start questioning, which ultimately led them to leave religion and become atheists.
  • This is surprising because many religious people believe that the only people who leave religious activity leave because they have sinned or want to sin (e.g., lots of sex and booze). That’s simply not true.
• Men are more likely to be atheists than women.
• Active atheists have more education (almost 17 years) than the average person in the U.S. (between 12 and 13 years).
• Most active atheists were married (57 percent).
• Most active atheists are Democrats (about 60%); only 3% were Republicans (the rest were something else.
• Active atheists don’t believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God (the fundamentalists in the comparison group the authors use definitely do). You’d think this is a “well, of course” question, but not all members of non-religious groups are actually atheists.
• The authors also looked at some specific characteristics, in particular dogmatism, zealousness, and authoritarianism. Just so we’re clear, dogmatism is an unwillingness to change one’s position, regardless of evidence. Zealousness is one’s determination to spread one’s ideas. And authoritarianism is one’s allegiance to authority.
  • Active atheists are more dogmatic than the average Canadian, but substantially less dogmatic than religious fundamentalists. (I like how the authors summarize this finding, “All of which implies that if the traditional God does exist, an awful lot of atheists are going to miss out on the fact no matter what happens.” p. 66)
  • Active atheists are moderately zealous, more so than the average Canadian. But they “all hold a farthing candle to the sun compared to the intense zeal of the fundamentalists” (p. 71). Religious fundamentalists try to convert everyone, everywhere, regardless of their current beliefs. Active atheists, on the other hand, might make a suggestion or two encouraging critical thinking or non-belief, but they don’t push atheism.
  • Active atheists are extremely anti-authoritarian. They don’t believe religion or atheism should be taught in schools. Religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, want their beliefs taught to everyone, even when they are religious minorities (though they insist that no other beliefs be taught). Again, the authors say this quite succinctly, “Our high fundamentalists, on the other hand, would certainly think it unfair and wrong to have atheism imposed on their children in such schools, but they would approve the forced teaching of their own views to everybody else’s children. That hardly seems in keeping with the Golden Rule.” p. 74.
• The authors also look at ethnocentrism and prejudice. It turns out active atheists are generally not very prejudiced – they have substantially less hostility toward homosexuals and racial/ethnic minorities. But they have higher ratings toward fellow atheists and they basically despise all religious fundamentalists (i.e., Christian, Jewish, or Muslim fundamentalists).
• Finally, active atheists don’t tell everyone they are an atheist, in large part because atheism is still stigmatized. Most of the active atheists in their sample felt like they had been avoided, excluded, or harassed for not believing in god.

Keep in mind the picture painted above of is of active atheists who are members of atheist groups. As I noted at the beginning, and the authors periodically remind the reader, active atheists are not representative of atheists generally. That said, they probably aren’t that far removed from non-active atheists.
The final chapter is actually quite interesting – it’s a collection of reflections by individuals who participated in the study on the findings of the authors. Most of the comments are effusive with praise, but a few take the authors to task for some of their methodology and questions (and some of the criticism are valid). It’s an intriguing way to wrap up the book, but generally the commentary is worth reading.

Review:

So, what do I think of the book? Frankly, I loved it. It’s short, to the point, and actually very humorously written. The authors seem to have thrown out academic propriety in writing this and really said what they were thinking. Take this quote for example, “Since we have nothing to lose (one of us is now deceased and the other is so near the end he has forgotten proper grammar)…” (p. 109). As a result, the book is full of subtle jokes and pithy statements. Here’s my favorite example from the book, and it’s definitely not something you would ever find in a book written by a scholar at the beginning of his/her career:

“Aren’t you colossally impressed at how well the authors of this book have predicted the results of this study? We were sure the American atheists would score low on dogmatism, but they came in rather high. Given their high marks in dogmatism, we figured they would be rather zealous, but we were proved wrong. Then we believed these atheists would score low in religious ethnocentrism, and instead the data blew us away. You might well wonder why you are reading this book, given what dunderheads its authors have turned out to be. But we are beholding here the great advantage of scientific investigation: it tells you when you are wrong. And Mother Nature has been particularly forthcoming in this regard in the last three chapters. So read on. We may not have a clue about what the heck’s going on, but we shall find out.” (p. 89)

The authors’ honesty also comes out at the beginning when they reveal where they stand religiously, “A solid majority of North Americans believe in God, according to the polls. A few folks, like the authors of this book, say they honestly do not know and are called agnostics” (p. 11). But this also leads to my only criticism of the book, the authors slightly mischaracterize what it means to be an atheist, “In conclusion, the atheist samples appear to be deep-down, hard-core, all the way to their socks, “I mean it when I say it” atheists. They deny the existence of any sort of divine being” (p. 37). I’m a little surprised by this statement given the authors’ keen understanding of so many other aspects of atheism. But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that being an atheist simply means you lack belief in a deity, not that you deny the existence of any sort of divine being. Admittedly some of the respondents in this book said they denied the existence of deity, but most atheists (and we are all atheists toward one god or another) don’t deny the existence of a deity, they simply lack belief. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one philosophically.

The book also includes a few other important and noteworthy insights. The authors point out early on that Canada actually used to be more religious than the U.S., but is now substantially less so (p. 14). And, in line with an earlier book by the same authors (Amazing Converts), they attribute the lack of religiosity and religious belief of the atheists to socialization, “Highly intelligent children, the sort likely to attend university later, are rewarded over and over again for getting “the right answer” as they grow up. And they may come to value getting the right answer so much that they will pay a significant price rather than settle for something that does not make sense to them” (p. 56). In other words, atheists leave religions seeking truth and understanding; being right is more important to them than feeling comfortable.

Overall, this is a great little study of activist atheists. Still missing is a comprehensive study of average atheists in the U.S. (and if you’re planning such a study, do let me know as I’d love to be involved). It’s a quick, easy, enjoyable read for anyone who wants to pick it up. I highly recommend it. And, as a bonus, here’s a final quote from one of the commentators that gave me a good laugh toward the end of the book, “I am reminded of an atheist friend of mine who told me once that she spends about 50% of her time trying to get other atheists to understand that not all Christians are “hateful fundamentalists” and the other 50% of her time dealing with “hateful fundamentalists” (p. 133)… So true!

Title:
First Fruits: From Promise to Provision

Author:
Paula White

Publisher:
Paula White Ministries

Date of Publication:
2006

ISBN:
978-0-9792092-0-8

Rating:
0/10

Summary:
The book is a drawn out justification for you why you should give, in addition to your tithing (a full 10%), your first month’s salary to Without Walls International Church (or whichever prosperity gospel church or megachurch you belong to).

Review:
I attended a meeting at Without Walls just to see what all the fuss was about. On my way out someone handed me a copy of this book. It was free. I took it. I didn’t want it, but they gave it to me anyway. I took the 20 minutes it requires to skim the book and realize what it says (see my summary above). It probably wasn’t worth my 20 minutes (and my additional 20 minutes to write this review) but hey, why not?

Just so people know I’m not making up what the book’s message is, I have a few quotes for you. From page 85, “People ask me why my husband and I set January aside as a season of private and corporate fasting, giving, and prayer. God set the Feast of First Fruits as the beginning of things for Israel… We are offering up that first month unto the Lord to establish what happens in the rest of the year… By presenting God the firstfruits: the first part of your day, the first month of the year, the first of your increase, you are saying “I present this as holy, consecrated to the Lord… and I cannot touch it.” It governs everything else that operates in your life.”

So, technically, what Ms. White (not Mrs. anymore) is saying is that you can determine what your “firstfruits” are going to be: one day’s salary, one week’s, one month’s, etc., but you have to give it in order to be in favor with god. If you don’t, well, that’s when she introduces the guilt complex (just 7 pages later), from p. 92, “I never want to experience the Lord’s absence. I cannot imagine trying to do anything without the Lord being with me.” And from page 93, “When we obey, we are blessed; when we do not, we open ourselves to demonic activity…” If you don’t give us your fucking “firstfruits,” god will curse you. Give us more, more, more!!!!!

Oh, and in case there is any question as to who actually gets what you donate, here’s her subtle clarification, “But – what happened to all those baskets of fruit afterwards? [the ones donated by the Israelites as firstfruits] They were not consumed by fire. God didn’t come down and eat them. So who did? The priests did.” (p. 113) In other words, Give us more, more, more!!!!!

But don’t think Paula doesn’t give, too, “At the beginning of every year, in the month of January, Randy and I, along with our entire congregation, dedicate ourselves to a holy consecrated fast and the offering of first fruits… We also present our first fruits of the year to the Lord in the form of one day’s salary, one week’s salary, or even one whole month’s salary as each person has the faith and ability to give.” Of course, for Paula, she gives herself her salary, so that’s kind of convenient. I wonder how much she sucks out of unwitting victims in a single day?

At the end of the book Ms. White gives examples of people offering their first fruits. Some give tons, others give a little, but not to worry, “God says that all first fruits belong to Him, great or small.” And by “God” Paula means “Paula. She’ll take your money if your rich or poor. Doesn’t matter to Paula, ’cause it’s all about the money.

Usually when I read a book I use a pencil to make very small marks around the paragraphs of interest then indicate where they are with removable post-its. In her book, I used pen and dog-eared the pages. Then I threw it away. You should do the same.