Sorry the world didn’t end for you….

Christian Science MonitorHoward Camping is one sorry person. Really. This week he apologized – again – for making an incorrect “doomsday” prediction last year that had hundreds, maybe thousands, of his co-religious wingnuts eagerly selling all their belongings in anticipation of the end of the world as we know it (TEOTWAWKI, October 21).

Oops. World didn’t end, but then we knew it wouldn’t, didn’t we? Just like it won’t end this December simply because the Mayans ran out of room on their stone calendar for another long cycle.

I wrote about Camping and his wacky “Rapture” predictions back in May, 2011. Today I read about his apology for miscalculating the end of the world on the Huffington Post and Washington Post.

Camping actually made his first apology in May, 2011, when the “Rapture” he predicted failed to happen. Then he made another apology last October when the world didn’t end. Like I said earlier, he’s a sorry guy.

Well, he said he was wrong, but not everyone thought they were apologies. I agree: they read like excuses to me.

Then Harold apologized (sort of) again, in November, when he retired from “Family” Radio. He wrote: “It seems embarrassing for Family Radio. But God was in charge of everything. We came to that conclusion after quite careful study of the Bible. He allowed everything to happen the way it did without correction. He could have stopped everything if He had wanted to.” So it was God’s fault, not Harold’s that he got the date wrong.

This week Camping posted a new letter of apology on his company’s website. That’s right: his company. Camping is the founder of “Family” Radio, a fundamentalist Christian radio network. Never lose site of the fact like televangelists, Camping’s operation is about business first, and faith second. The network spent millions of dollars in 2011 advertising the alleged “Rapture.” Big bucks: gotta come from somewhere.

“Family” Radio isn’t my personal cup of tea: it offers an unrelenting program of Bible reading and study, with an emphasis on Camping’s own particular (and peculiar) slant on the text (its literal truth as he interprets it). Given his track record on end-of-the-world predictions (he made an earlier one for 1994), his interpretations strike me as pretty screwy and not conducive to anyone’s belief. Some of their stations alleviate the dreary droning with CCM (Contemporary Christian Music). Give me Bluesville any day of the week over CCM. Please.

In his recent letter, posted on the “Family” Radio site, Camping wrote:

The May 21 campaign was an astounding event if you think about its impact upon this world. There is no question that millions, if not billions of people heard for the first time the Bible’s warning that Jesus Christ will return. Huge portions of this world that had never read or seen a Bible heard the message the Christ Jesus is coming to rapture His people and destroy this natural world.

Well, the millennium-bug campaign was equally “astounding” in the same sense that for all the brouhaha, nothing happened with either. Dates came, dates went, computers didn’t crash, Jesus didn’t return. Camping seems to think his failed prediction woke people up to his vision of Rapture and apocalypse. I doubt it: it was grist for many, many comedy routines and much smirking palaver, but aside from the general hilarity, I doubt it convinced anyone. In fact, it probably cost Camping a lot of followers. Especially those who woke up October 22, homeless, jobless, friendless, penniless, rapture-less and still very much on planet earth.

At least he didn’t convince them to drink the Kool-Aid… although there were documented suicides and attempted suicides as a result of his predictions. Some people are that gullible.

Camping’s letter may seem an abjectly humble apology to some, but to me it sounds a trifle hollow; rather defensive or even a bit prideful:

…we humbly acknowledge we were wrong about the timing; yet though we were wrong God is still using the May 21 warning in a very mighty way. In the months following May 21 the Bible has, in some ways, come out from under the shadows and is now being discussed by all kinds of people who never before paid any attention to the Bible. We learn about this, for example, by the recent National Geographic articles concerning the King James Bible and the Apostles. Reading about and even discussing about the Bible can never be a bad thing, even if the Bible’s authenticity is questioned or ridiculed. The world’s attention has been called to the Bible…. Yet this incorrect and sinful statement allowed God to get the attention of a great many people who otherwise would not have paid attention. Even as God used sinful Balaam to accomplish His purposes, so He used our sin to accomplish His purpose of making the whole world acquainted with the Bible. However, even so, that does not excuse us. We tremble before God as we humbly ask Him for forgiveness for making that sinful statement. We are so thankful that God is so loving that He will forgive even this sin.

For all his mea-culpa commentary, Harold doesn’t apologize to all those people who gave up everything to become his camp(ing) followers and ended up with nothing but the ringing laughter of their former friends and co-workers to live on. I suppose we’ll still have to wait for him to apologize fully. Probably until the “Rapture” finally does arrive… or at least until the UFOs land (pick your fantasy scenario)…

It wasn’t Einstein who said it…

Not an Einstein quote!Yet another incorrectly attributed quotation is being passed around the Internet, this time on Facebook. This one is, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

A saccharine, touchy-feely, warm-puppy quote that appeals to some who take comfort in them, but Einstein never said that. According to Wikiquote’s page on Einstein,

This gets almost 500k hits on google, but as far as I can tell, none has a source… Doing a Google book search and restricting the date range to 1900-1990, there are only 10 books and several of them attribute it to “Samples, 1976” which is apparently The Metaphoric Mind by Bob Samples (which also seems to be the earliest published variant)… two sections that attribute it to Einstein, but as a paraphrase rather than a direct quote, with no source given, and the author seems to be adding his own comment when he writes “It is paradoxical that in the context of modern life we have begun to worship the servant and defile the divine” so even if the first part is accurate, this part is probably not Einstein’s.
Einstein had many quotes about the value of intuition and imagination, but the specific word “gift” can be found in a comment remembered by János Plesch in the section Albert_Einstein#Posthumous_publications, “When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.” So, Bob Samples might have been paraphrasing that comment.

Einstein, as far as I know from my reading of several biographies, was unlikely to refer to a natural faculty as a “sacred gift” – Einstein was not openly an atheist (he called himself an agnostic), but neither was he by any means religious. A “sacred gift” suggests humans get their faculties handed down by the gods, rather than developed by evolution and through effort. Einstein would have rejected that for the codswallop it is.

Einstein’s religious views were firmly in the humanist-Descartes-Spinoza model, according to Wikipedia:

He believed in the God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief which he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said “an attitude of humility.”

One actual quote from Einstein is this:

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

But his views on religion and spirituality were amorphous and seem to have changed over the years – although not towards him becoming religious in the traditional or formal sense, but rather in a deeper sense of wonder that can be called spiritual, without any identification with a personal deity.

It’s worth reading the entire entry to see how complex this subject is.

Be that as it may, this quotation is another bad Internet meme, perpetuated by people who are don’t bother to confirm sources and simply spread the silliness. Then the gullibles pick it up and spread it around faster than a chain letter. Damn, I wish people would check first and post later.

Santorum’s ‘faith’ attack incomprehensible

[youtube=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyIZIiY81Ek”]I really don’t understand American politics. Watching the current campaign for the Republican Party’s nomination for presidential candidacy only baffles me further. It’s stunning that so many of the Republican candidates appeal – and do so loudly and consistently – to the lowest common denominator among the population.

Topping my list of Republicans who bemuse me is Rick Santorum. His campaign only proves that you don’t have to be intelligent, open-minded, visionary, well-educated, focused or wise to run for president. He already proved earlier that any fool can become a senator. And now he’s proving that fool can also run for president and apparently get a lot of support.
The more obnoxious, narrow-minded, more critical and more hypocritical you are, it seems the more people will love you and cheer you on. Well, at least the people who share your myopic vision of the world. But there seems to be a lot of them in the Republican camp these days, at least according to the research.

Last week, Santorum turned his rabid attack away from his fellow candidates towards US President Barack Obama. Obama’s agenda, he told a meeting of the Tea Party (the uber-right-religious camp of the Republicans) is,

“…not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phoney ideal, some phoney theology — not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology…”

Despite this claim, Santorum was later unable to actually define what he meant by this outlandish and irrelevant claim, and made some confused statements about Obama “imposing his values on the church.” In a subsequent interview, Santorum clumsily backtracked, and tried to make his comments appear to be about Obama’s “world view,” stating, “I think that is a phony ideal. I don’t believe that is what we’re here to do. We’re not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective.”

At that point, I would not have been surprised had he then criticized Obama for believing the earth orbited the sun, not the other way around. Santorum’s medieval attitude towards the environment shows that some ideas just never go away, no matter how bad or wrong they are.

To an outsider, even bringing religion into a political debate in a democracy is inexplicable. This is America, after all, not a Middle Eastern theocracy. It’s like criticizing someone because his shoe laces are a different colour. What relevance does faith have to someone’s ability to govern, to understand complex issues, to deal with social, cultural and military challenges? Faith is a private, not a public and certainly not a state matter. Dragging it into a political debate only underscores the paucity of Santorum’s platform. He obviously has scraped the bottom of his shallow barrel of ideas and now has to dip into the non-sequitor of religion.

It is equally baffling why anyone would even want to speak to the Tea Party. Everything I read and see about them further convinces me that they have slightly less understanding of political affairs than my cats do. There is more intelligence at conventions of village idiots than at the Tea Party marches I’ve seen online. Why would any political candidate want to appeal to people who are clearly fools (or as one illiterate Tea Party protester wrote on his sign, “morans” – more Tea Party signs here)?
[youtube=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y”]
There is a real chance Rick Santorum could become the republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election. And if he does, all those bright Tea Party supporters will be expecting him to act in their interest. American may not be a theocracy today, but if Santorum or his religious-right ilk get into power, it will be soon.

Let’s get the terms of this debate correct

Aborton cartoonThere’s a recent story in the Winnipeg Free Press with the headlines that, “Liberals fear pro-lifers trying to take over weakened federal party.”

Gawd, I hate such inaccurate, slanted reporting. It’s bad enough when politicians engage in it, but the media should be more objective.

Let’s get the terms straight, shall we? Then we can try for objectivity.

To call one side “pro-life” is to give credibility to the implication that the other side is “anti-life.” That’s spinelessly accepting a one-sided spin on the debate. It appeals to the emotions, not the facts, and certainly not to logic.

Neither side is “anti-life” – unless that life happens to belong to one of your opponents’ abortion doctors. Then it seems to be okay to commit murder. It’s inappropriate to put a ‘pro-life’ label on someone who condones murdering doctors. “Pro-life-except-for-abortion-doctors” is a bit of a mouthful, but it’s honest.

The abortion issue is better described as “pro-choice” versus “anti-choice” – a debate over who has the right to choose: the pregnant woman or some third party, a person usually not associated with the woman by marriage or family ties, and usually whose religious beliefs are not shared by the woman in question.

I doubt that the religious people on the anti-choice side would take well to the notion of someone from a different faith making them follow their different rules. Would they, for example, accept a Taliban decree that all Christian women must wear the hijab? Unlikely. Yet they are quite comfortable making more important and life-altering decisions for people who do not share their particular brand of faith. That’s hypocrisy in my books. But I digress.

Pro-choice versus anti-choice is at least a more accurate label. But it’s also a bit hazy as a description, because some of the anti-abortion side would agree that abortion might be allowable under some conditions (such as the mother’s life being in danger, incest or rape). They may not be entirely anti-choice (although from what I’ve read, they still want an outsider with specific religious views to have the final say, not the woman). Calling them anti-pregnant-woman’s-choice-except-when-we-permit-it, however, is also a bit clumsy for a headline.

You can argue that it’s really “late-life” versus “early-life” supporters, because one of the key issues is when individual life actually takes effect – at conception, at some point in the womb, or at birth. That begins to sound a bit too intellectual and distant from the issue. You also learn when trying to pinpoint a time that there are not two clearly-defined sides on that question, but rather several shades of grey.

In the strictest terms, it is a pro-abortion versus anti-abortion debate, and should not be categorized by any of the emotionally-laden terms each group prefers to see itself as cloaked in. Let’s call it what it is, and not indulge anyone in their propaganda efforts to position their side on the moral high ground.

Bad Lao Tzu meme adds to growing list of mis-identified quotes online

This bad meme is going the Internet rounds:

“If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself, if you want to eliminate the suffering in the world, then eliminate all that is dark and negative in yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation.” Lao Tzu

Well, although deep – if a bit saccharine – it’s not from the Tao Teh Ching, the only work that the Old Master (the literal translation of his name) ever produced.

The Tao Teh Ching is a notoriously difficult book to translate. Although it consists of a mere 5,000 Chinese characters, translations can vary wildly. Compare this one with the one linked above for example. One site compares three versions (Legge, Suzuki and Goddard). This site has 175 translations of the first verse alone, dating from the late 19th to early 21st centuries, which indicates the numerous, complex ways translators have approached this work and how many ways there are at trying to wrestle the meaning from it.

Hua Hu ChingThe quote actually comes from a translation of another Taoist work called the Hua Hu Ching (Huahujing), which although attributed to Lao Tzu, is actually a forgery. According to scholars, the Huahujing was actually written some 500 years after Lao Tzu lived, by Taoist Wang Fou, ca. 300 CE. Apparently he wrote it as an anti-Buddhist polemic after he was defeated in debate by the Chinese Buddhist monk Bo Yuan. The earliest text was only one section, but by the beginning of the eighth century it had been expanded into ten or eleven.

Historical Chinese records suggest it was first produced in the late third century CE. Some scholars give it a later date because the earliest reference to to the work is from the period of 420–477 CE. The oldest extant version is from a slightly later period. The content suggests it is much later than Lao Tzu because it contains references to all sorts of later Taoist practices such as herbal medicine, feng shui, tai chi and sex:

A person’s approach to sexuality is a sign of his level of evolution. Unevolved persons practice ordinary sexual intercourse. Placing all emphasis upon the sexual organs, they neglect the body’s other organs and systems. Whatever physical energy is accumulated is summarily discharged, and the subtle energies are similarly dissipated and disordered. It is a great backward leap. For those who aspire to the higher realms of living, there is angelic dual cultivation. Because every portion of the body, mind, and spirit yearns for the integration of yin and yang, angelic intercourse is led by the spirit rather than the sexual organs. Where ordinary intercourse is effortful, angelic cultivation is calm, relaxed, quiet, and natural. Where ordinary intercourse unites sex organs with sex organs, angelic cultivation unites spirit with spirit, mind with mind, and every cell of one body with every cell of the other body. Culminating not in dissolution but in integration, it is an opportunity for a man and woman to mutually transform and uplift each other into the realm of bliss and wholeness. The sacred ways of angelic intercourse are taught only by one who has himself achieved total energy integration, and taught only to students who follow the Integral Way with profound devotion, seeking to purify and pacify the entire world along with their own being. However, if your virtue is especially radiant, it can be possible to open a pathway to the subtle realm and receive these celestial teachings directly from the immortals.

The Tao Teh Ching has none of this material: it was added later to his teachings.

Hua Hu ChingThe Hua Hu Ching is a work of Taoist philosophy and practice also known as “the scripture of transforming the barbarians.” That’s because it’s recounts a fictional journey by Lao Tzu out to the “Western Regions” and into India, where, the legend goes, his teachings formed the basis of Buddhism. The work seeks to position Taoism as the supreme philosophy over other beliefs, especially Buddhism which at the time it was written was challenging Taoism for popularity among the Chinese populace:

The world is full of half-enlightened masters. Overly clever, too “sensitive” to live in the real world, they surround themselves with selfish pleasures and bestow their grandiose teachings upon the unwary. Prematurely publicizing themselves, intent upon reaching some spiritual climax, they constantly sacrifice the truth and deviate from the Tao.

Hardly objective: it’s a strong, often angry, political stance about the superiority of Taoist beliefs. The message is clear: there’s a fight over the hearts and minds of the populace here. To prove their superiority, Taoists had to portray Buddhism as a weakened, distorted version of Taoism.

The fault of attribution lies both with the people who repeat this quote online without checking its source, and the translator. This verse is from a translation by Brian Walker. The full verse (no. 75) reads:

Would you like to liberate yourself from the lower realms of life? Would you like to save the world from the degradation and destruction it seems destined for? Then step away from shallow mass movements and quietly go to work on your own self-awareness. If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself. If you want to eliminate the suffering in the world, then eliminate all that is dark and negative in yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation. So find a teacher who is an integral being, a beacon who extends his light and virtue with equal ease to those who appreciate him and those who don’t. Shape yourself in his mold, bathe in his nourishing radiance, and reflect it out to the rest of the world. You will come to understand an eternal truth: there is always a peaceful home for a virtuous being.

People have cherry-picked from the work, taking lines out of context. It’s actually an interesting, deep and complex work, well worth reading for its historical and political context. You can’t simply remove lines without losing some of the meaning. In this case the verse exhorts the reader to find a suitable teacher and submit to his/her discipline in order to achieve self-transformation. It also assumes the reader’s beliefs are in concert with Taoist and Chinese beliefs about “lower realms.” Similarly other verses refer to the “immortals.”

Walker attributes the work to Lao Tzu, which is a surprising statement given the easily available research on its origins. A lot of material is available in English to explain when and why the book was written. In his 1993 introduction, Walker wrote,

The Tao te Ching of Lao Tzu is … believed among Westerners to be Lao Tzu’s only book. Few are aware that a collection of his oral teachings on the subject of attaining enlightenment and mastery were also recorded in a book called the Hua Hu Ching (pronounced “wha hoo jing”). The teachings of the Hua Hu Ching are of enormous power and consequence, a literal road map to the divine realm for ordinary human beings. Perhaps predictably, the book was banned during a period of political discord in China, and all copies were ordered to be burned. Were it not for the Taoist tradition of oral transmission of sacred scriptures from master to student, they would have been lost forever. I am permanently indebted to Taoist Master Ni Hua-Ching for sharing his version of these teachings with the Western world after his emigration from China in 1976. My work here is largely based upon his teaching.

Walker’s work is skillful, poignant and poetic, but scholarly writing I’ve found contradicts his attribution to Lao Tzu. He suggests it only exists in oral form, however, a copy was found in 1997 in the Mogao Caves near Dunhuang, China, dating from around the late 4th or early 5th century CE. Walker seems to ignore the inconsistencies in the text or its evident political stance.

One of the problems that oral traditions face is that transmission from one generation to the next is seldom if ever entirely accurate. Memories fail, ideologies intrude to change the message, people can mishear a word. verses handed down orally for 1,500 or more years is bound to be corrupt when compared with a written version. Walker’s work has to be read with that in mind.

An alternate translation of the book, by Hua-Ching Ni, is much longer than Walker’s version, and retains the debate format so it reads as a series of question-and-answer dialogues between a young prince and a learned Taoist master. It, too, incorrectly attributes the authorship to Lao Tzu despite the very obvious references to later practices and beliefs that post-dated Lao Tzu.

Here’s another bad quote mis-attributed to Lao Tzu, this one from Facebook, mis-identified as coming from Lao Tzu:

“Love knows no limit to its endurance, no end to its trust, no fading of its hope; it can outlast anything. Love still stands when all else has fallen.”

This is actually from the New Testament (Corinthians), not Lao Tzu. Once again the problem is that lazy people don’t check sources to confirm the author, and simply attribute it to whomever they decide seems like a likely source. Never assume that what is posted online – especially anything posted on Facebook – is accurate. Always research the content before you spread another bad meme or urban myth.

Jesus and Grilled Cheese

The Huff Post has a story on the most bizarre religious sightings from 2011, which I read on New Year’s Day. The Post story has people finding images of Jesus on everything from sandwiches to rock faces to dirty laundry and pizzas last year. No Photoshopping, honest…

Ashton KutcherAmazingly, most of the images look more to me like Ashton Kutcher than the radical Jewish rabbi of biblical description. Maybe we won’t know the truth until images of Demi Moore start appearing on toast.

One of the sighting includes the word “God” spelled out in veins on a woman’s leg (see here). She noticed it while shopping at a local mall. Some folks may find it comforting to know their supreme being has chosen a Wichita, Kansas, woman to spread his/her word – on her skin. Looking at the pictures, I wonder if the supreme being might be dyslexic, or simply really bad at handwriting, because to me at the best it looks like “Ooq” or “goo”on her leg.

I would have thought something more impressive, like “Mene, mene tekel upharsin” would have been better proof of a divine message than “Ooq.” Unless, of course, the message is meant for chimps and gorillas, not humans. And why the supreme being would write in English, rather than a biblical language, is unclear. Would Yod-He-Vav-He have been too much to write? Would a mid-western American shopper have even recognized Hebrew?

But take heart, ye desperate-for-a-miracle believers, because the bottom of the page of that story includes the sighting of Jesus in a crumpled sock in England. On seeing the visage in her drying laundry, Sarah Crane realized she had “the most holy pair of socks in Britain” and built a shrine to the sock. A shrine to a sock. In the land of Monty Python, it’s a place pilgrims will flock, I’m sure. Sorry I missed it on my recent trip to Old Blighty.

Jesus on a fish stickOn this side of the Atlantic, right here in Ontario, you can line up to see Jesus on a fish stick. Imagine people flocking to the fish freezer at Loblaws to light candles over a box of frozen Highliner fillets…

HuffPost isn’t alone in listing bizarre religious sights from 2011. Back last March, The Shark Guys ran a story on ten strange “Virgin Mary” sightings. These include variously imagined images of Mary in such unlikely media as potatoes, bird droppings and restaurant griddles.

Mary in a potatoBuzzfeed picks up on stories from around the Net and adds more weird sightings of Jesus and Mary, that includes dried mangos, tie-dyed T-shirts, melted chocolate and that all time favourite, rock faces.

Some believers will take almost anything as an image that bolsters their faith (called pareidolia). In a separate HuffPost story, a Virginia artist has had to fend off the pious because they’ve come to worship at his 30-foot sculpture of a pregnant woman, claiming it resembles the Virgin Mary (to me it looks more like Stevie Nicks did about 20 years ago…). Apparently his statue to motherhood has become a stop on bus tours of religious pilgrims, who never seem to find it curious that their Mary is heavy with child, not the usually svelte portrayal. Or that she lacks hands and feet and her gold-covered head seems disproportionately large for her body.

Naan bread, tortillas, bathroom tiles, irons, frying pans, Marmite jars, perogis – Jesus and Mary seem to pick pretty mundane places to appear. Why a divine image would appear on a consumable item like a sandwich baffles me. But it doesn’t baffle believers, who proudly show them off. And then sell them.

A grilled cheese sandwich with an alleged face of the Virgin Mary in it – with a couple of bites eaten – went for $28,000 on eBay. Other such items have appeared on eBay (a pancake and pierogi for example), making me suspect there’s a growth market for religious food icons.

Twenty-eleven wasn’t the only year with bizarre religious sightings: they happen all the time (see The Wondrous for a few from previous years). But thanks to the growing power of the Internet, more of them are shared than ever before. And more are on eBay, of course.

For the believers who feel slighted by not finding a holy image in their own morning cereal, this company offers a toaster that will burn the face of Jesus into your cooked bread every morning. Or the Virgin Mary. Or a peace sign, a cannabis leaf or a dog pawprint. Apparently the toaster is very popular. That begs the question if one is supposed to eat the toast or worship it. Is there some transubstantiation taking place? Too deep for me to ponder. (An alternative is the Jesus Pan, especially goof for making grilled cheese sandwiches…)

So far I haven’t run across any reports of Buddha images appearing on food, let alone walls or rock faces. Nor any images of Allah, Muhammed, Ganesh, Lao Tzu, Avalokiteshvara, Joseph Smith, Shiva, Manitou or any other religious figure or leader. I haven’t found Om-Mani-Padme-Hum inscribed on any veins or arteries, either. However, Mother Theresa did appear on the “Nunbun” at a coffee shop in Nashville, 1996, and in the same story, the name of Allah was found spelled out in eggplant seeds (in Urdu, not Arabic) in Mendhasalis, India, in 2003. It seems Jesus and Mary have cornered the franchise on images on fast foods, though.

Darwin on ToastHowever, I did find this remarkable image of Charles Darwin on toast. Now if someone was looking to build a shrine that would attract the likes of me, finding Darwin on a dirty tea-towel or unwashed sock, or even in a half-eaten grilled-cheese sandwich, that would be the ticket. According to The Onion, Darwin’s visage has graced at least one wall stain. Unfortunately that stain looks remarkably similar to one on a Chicago underpass wall that believers claimed showed the Virgin Mary, so I suspect my presence there lighting a candle to Charlie and his contribution to reason and science would be misconstrued.

I would think for the believers, finding a piece toast with an image of the late atheist, Christoper Hitchens, on it would really cinch their faith. After all, if Hitchens was still around in spirit, even on a pizza or a waffle, it would vindicate their belief in an afterlife.