Global warming and religion - an attempt to define post-secular

I was watching the Oscar nominated documentary Jesus Camp, in which, the radio talk show host Mike Papantonio gives some remarks about creationism and its view on global warming:
"Why our kids thought that global warming doesn't exist?
Ok, why?
Look, rape this world,take everything you want from her, because, you know what?
It doesn't matter.We are not here for very long. Christ is coming to take us away from Earth so cut down our trees,use all of our oil take advantage of everything that the Earth has to offer..."

Due to the fact, that Vatican Bishop Gianfranco Girotti issued a new list of "social" capital sins, in which environmental pollution is amongst, the question is, what is the relation of belief and environmental change.

The End of the Times have become a pop culture icon in the last few decades, maybe due to the fact that we are in fact capable to inflict these dire conditions to ourselves in the form of a sudden nuclear conflict or by process of living up our environment and resources.

So, the question is, if we perceive the process from the point of view of an eschatological narrative, and "let it go", or remain to a secular position, and start to deal with the problem by recognizing it as "ours".

And this leads exactly to the point of define the notion of secular: an issue becomes secular, as soon as it effects "us" rather then "them", "I", and "we" have to deal with them. By the same logic, post-secular comes when the "we" can no longer cover a consensual body of the society, which regulates our common ground by its laws and agreements.

As soon as a party of citizens can withdraw from a public debate by telling that they are not willing to take part of the debate, as it is not "their's" as citizens of the secular state, since there is a law above the state constitution they have to obey for, in this case, the laws of the religion they have to obey to.

Which in fact is a question of technology and its usage. From fuel consuming automobiles to websites many "inventions" of the enlightened, modern, secular society are being used as tools of "separation" from it. People use them, and in most cases also taking the legal, moral, technical, environmental responsibilities with the process.
Terrorism, for example is working exactly to the logic of this separation in the usage and appropriation of technology, as it is using elements of our "technology" to implement as much "terror" as possible.
So do global warming. We producing global warming, by the simple fact we are living in a post-industrial, high-standard, energy consumer society, and not "they" are producing over there, just next door. If we are producing it, and either does not admit it or do, we also have to face the consequences, like if we were signing a legal document after our birth to be the member of a given state.
And here is the point - we are becoming members of a state - an organization which is meant to deal with the major issues of our life, like pollution, rights, preserving of freedom, press, etc in a more or less inherent way. All matters which is considered to be regulated by the state are done so, and all which is not, kept out, free to be practiced until violates the before. Of course, the personal belief is one of these, as it is kept to
The conflict emerges from the point when we can't relate to the consensual system of the state, because the "other" does not recognizes our right to do it - by questioning the scientific, moral, social standards we are built our system on.
Therefore in this case creationism which, in junction with traditional religious belief questions a scientific standard - in this case, the fact of global warming and its effect biological, social on us and the environment.
And the secular can no longer step up and announce these views "obsolete", "un-enlightened", "anit-modern", since the very essence of secular idea, the secular notion of science, which is working for "humaity", is no longer a firm background behind him/her.
You might argue it, or not, make a documentary on it or not, it is a situation we must face.
Read more!

Invisible pink unicorn - an agnostic anti religion

Invisible pink unicorn: (IPU) is the goddess of a satiric parody religion aimed at theistic beliefs, which takes the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink. These attributes serve to satirize the apparent contradictions in properties which some attribute to a theistic God, specifically omniscience, omnipotence and omni benevolence. Read more!

Why Satire?

Why satire? - why does people employ satire when dealing issues like religion? Why not to stand up and say out loud what we think about the subject? Why rather joke on it in a satirical way?
Can't a secular just step up and make a proclamation to all religious bodies to stop functioning in the name of reason and enlightenment? Sounds silly isn't it?
It is hard to define what is secularism defense mechanism against religion, other then the liberal idea, that religious belief should be only a personal concern in all level of biopolitics, not a public one. Still, in the case of a truce between religions and secular state the two has to say something about each other. And the seculars, atheist, non-believers seems to do this on a rather indirect, satirical way. Why?


Being satirical means that you are in a higher position then the one who is the subject of satire - in any terms. Higher in some term, but much more cautious on the other, as satire in never a direct statement: "stealthy critique" - Mark Twains definition on the genre. People employ satire if they have something to tell, but can't to it in a direct way, (just think in the rich heritage of political satire of the last few centuries), or when the direct way is too risk to take, mainly because of the possible retribution of the ones portrayed.
In the case of religious satire, the later might be not as relevant in a secular state, which has its own legal system to protect its citizens and the freedom of expression, so the previous one should be more relevant in this case.

Being critical - not against something, but rather give a critique on it in order to improve is something we can clearly associate with modern society, as being not against something, but rather analyze and understand it a highly secular position, in the really basic sense of the word secular. Being critical and being completely against something could be side by side each other, and this those not have to involve being satirical. Satire is employed in the case when being critical against something is not among the tools of what is opposed by the producers of the satire. In this case, the one who makes the satire also takes the superior position in moral terms by leaving multiple choices, by literally being secular... . Being satirical is a way to remain critical all the time, and do not go into the same discourse as the ones, who, by any notion, does not employ criticism.

To understand what I mean by being critical, satirical and not get involved into direct, legal action, (which is the responsibility of the secular state, not the particular individual) I would like to compare two very important work made in the last few weeks about the Church of the Scientology and its harsh opponent, the hacker group Anonymous.

Anonymous, the 'hacker group' have appeared just recently in public by launching a large internet campaign against the Church of Scientology in all possible platforms from live protest to the hacking the Churches databases and leaking important classified materials to the web or to make the web representation of the Scientology unavailable.
In this youtube video, Anonymous made a quite direct statement against the group, in a style which I would not describe to being critical, but rather offensive towards a certain organization.



Altrough this first message provoked a landslide of other messages, legal or illegal moves form both sides, what interests me, is rather a comment given by the pastafarian Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), a secular mock religion intended to make satirical spoofs on non-secular parties.

In their response to Anonymous, (whose point on view on Scientology are share much in common with the FSM) - the FSM copies the very same aesthetics as the previous movie piece, in terms of sound, visuals and basic tone, even most parts of the text is similar, but there is a huge difference between the two. Satire.



FSM even discredits the enemies of a non-secular organization, for being non-secular/and or postsecular- and employing the same level of satire as the FSM successfully employs against any other group they are making joke of.
Read more!