Christian Shocker: God-Based AA Program Harms Alcoholics

Did you know that the Alcoholics Anonymous twelve-step program, which has God as the foundation of its program, doesn't work? Not only doesn't it work, but many scientific studies have shown pretty clearly that it does more harm than good! What's more, it appears that the religious component of the AA program is the culprit.

I was quite frankly shocked when I heard this. While I'm not religious, I have always admired AA members for their dedication and selfless efforts to help one another. I've had close friends and family members who were alcoholics, and wished they could find the strength to acknowledge their disease and go to AA for help.

But no more. After reading this damning article, which refers to dozens of scientific studies including several sponsored by AA board members and advocates, I now see AA for what it is: another faith-based folly that continues because of faith, not reason. In study after study, scientists, sociologists and doctors find that AA is worse that getting no help at all.

And it's pretty clear why. Look at the first three of the famous twelve steps:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

In other words, "I'm not good enough, I'm a failure." That leads to a "victim" mentality where the alcoholic doesn't take responsibility for his/her own actions – they're told that they aren't capable of handling their own problems. So when they "fall off the wagon," they fall hard. They often resort to binge drinking. After all, they're powerless (or so they are told by AA) to control their drinking. It becomes an excuse to continue their alcoholism.

Here is just one of the examples cited by "A. Orange" in Effectiveness of the Twelve Step Program. In San Diego County, 301 people arrested for public drunkenness were randomly assigned by the courts to one of three programs:

1. Control group that got no treatment
2. Sent to a professional alcoholism medical clinic
3. Sent to Alcoholics Anonymous

After a year, guess what?

In every category, the people who got no treatment at all fared better than the people who got A.A. "treatment". Based on the records of re-arrests, only 31% of the A.A.-treated clients were deemed successful, while 44% of the "untreated" clients were successful. Clearly, Alcoholics Anonymous "treatment" had a detrimental effect. That means that A.A. had a success rate of less than zero. Not only was A.A.-based treatment a waste of time and money; A.A. was actually making it harder for people to get sober and stay sober.

That's shocking enough, isn't it? But what's even worse in my eyes is that the people who run AA have known this for years. It's another example where faith trumps reason. AA has turned into a religion, and people keep believing in spite of clear, compelling evidence that AA doesn't work, that it actually harms people and delays their possible recovery.

One of my biggest criticisms of Christianity and religion in general is that it takes away personal responsibility for our accomplishments and takes away blame for our failures. You're not good enough, you're a sinner, you're a bad person. It's a lesson that is drilled into Christians from an early age.

And when someone with the terrible disease of alcoholism comes to AA this message is reinforced: You're a failure. And not surprisingly the alcoholics agree and continue to fail.

But lest anyone think I condemn everything about AA, I don't. The one aspect of their program that I believe is exceptional is that of the "buddy system" where new members are assigned a sponsor to help them in time of need – someone to talk to, someone to be a friend, provide encouragement, share stories, and help them when they have trouble. I believe that whatever successes AA can claim are due the the dedication and tireless efforts of the volunteer sponsors.That is a life-affirming, positive way to help someone in the grips of alcohol or drugs. Many addicts have no social support, no family and no friends. A sponsor can make all the difference in the world. Sponsors, all of whom are former addicts themselves, work selflessly and tirelessly, often for years or decades providing that helping hand and support that helps addicts get and stay on the path to recovery.

Billboard in Sacramento.

Courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter:  

Just in time for the holidays, a non-profit group is planning on erecting dozens of atheist billboards to let fellow non-believers know they're "not alone." 

The Greater Sacramento Chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has paid for 55 different billboards this year to go up in Sacramento, Calif. 

"It's because atheists are starting to speak up and they're beginning to identify each other," chapter president Judy Saint told a local TV station. 

"There are a lot of non-believers and this time of year, they feel like they're alone. This isn't directed to people who enjoy their church, who enjoy their religion." 

"That's fine. But we're talking to people who don't know that atheism is okay." 

The billboards, all featuring area residents, share non-religious messages such as, "I worship nothing and question everything," or "Science. It works." 

Somehow I don't think this is going to convince the Religious Right that there is no war on Christianity.

But should they care? After all there are billboards all over the country that encourage people to find God, accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, and attend church. Actually these are in response to those.

And besides if your faith is shaken by something that you read on a billboard, then did you have much faith in the first place? 

As an Atheist I am just glad that we finally feel confident enough to come out of the shadows, show our faces in public, and speak out against the thousands of years of oppression, persecution, and isolation that we have suffered at the hands of those who consider themselves our moral superiors.

That awkward moment when the primitive tribe you have come to convert to Christianity, instead converts you to atheism.

I have started to write about this incredible conversion multiple times but always put it off. But the other day I stumbled across this YouTube video of Everett reading from his book and realized that it was much more powerful coming from him. (Oops it turns out it was read by another. Still better hearing it read aloud though.)



The Pirahãs, he said, “believed that the world was as it had always been, and that there was no supreme deity”. Furthermore they had no creation myths in their culture. In short, here was a people who were more than happy to live their lives “without God, religion or any political authority”. 

Despite Everett translating the Book of Luke into Pirahã and reading it to tribe members, the Pirahãs sensibly resisted all his attempts to convert them. 

According to a report in the New Yorker: 

His zeal soon dissipated … Convinced that the Pirahã assigned no spiritual meaning to the Bible, Everett finally admitted that he did not, either. He declared himself an atheist.

As an Atheist of course I find this story very gratifying. But as an American I am almost saddened to realize that even such a primitive people were able to discover a truth which still eludes so many of my fellow countrymen.

Interview with Bruno and the Baron

Giordano Bruno (1548 – 1600) Monk who defied the church with his vision of an infinite universe almost a 100 years before Isaac Newton.

Baron d'Holbach (1723 – 1789) "Father" of modern atheism. Author of the first book on outright denial of the existence of God, The System of Nature.

Bruno was bombastic, vain, utterly sure of himself.
The Baron was calm, supremely rational, with soft demeanor but intellectually firm.
-------------------
INTERVIEWER: Gentlemen thank for agreeing to this joint interview. It is hardly likely that you’ve met since you lived about 200 years apart. Let me introduce you. This is Giordano Bruno, 16th century poet, philosopher and monk of the Dominican order. And this the Baron d’Holbach, a Prussian by birth but a revolutionary Frenchman by intellect. [they shake hands]

BARON: I do not see how you could have supposed a Dominican monk and I would have something in common to talk about. It is well known that I have expressed a deep aversion to religion and all things religious.

BRUNO:I, also, am bewildered. I have become aware of the Baron’s chief work, something he calls The System of Nature. I too, have written of Nature. But more grandly.

INTERVIEWER: What was your book about?

BRUNO: My book’s title was Of the Infinite Universe and the Many Worlds. It is a celebration of the magnificent work of God! It shows how our Earth cannot be the center of the universe. God’s plan is grander than that!

INTERVIEWER: I think there is something of importance linking your thoughts, one to the other. Perhaps I’m wrong. If I am, I will apologize for troubling you – Friar Bruno, let me start with you.

BRUNO:[interrupting] Don’t call me Friar! I renounced that foolish appellation.

INTERVIEWER: How then shall I address you?

BRUNO: I took the title of ‘Doctor of the More Developed Theology’ or ‘Professor of Pure Wisdom.’ Either one will do.

INTERVIEWER: Well then... Doctor – Why did you leave the monastery and renounce your Dominican vows? Why did you wander all over Europe?

BRUNO: May I be frank? I am a Neapolitan. My blood heated my body too much. I had to throw off the suffocating monk’s robe and its vows of celibacy. Not all the snows of the Alps could quench the carnal fire that burned inside me. But it was not only my body, my mind was on fire too. I could not be silent.

INTERVIEWER: What set your mind on fire?

BRUNO:It was Copernicus. I read his book and I saw the light. I saw infinity. The Earth was not the center of creation. Even the Sun was not the center. I tried to tell everyone that the infinite cosmos was the creation of an infinite God. 

INTERVIEWER: I see, you tried to bring the new science of the time into theology. [turning to the Baron] Isn’t that what you were trying to do Baron?

BARON: No, not at all. We, my French colleagues and I, were bringing the new knowledge of the world to the people of the world not to the clergy. The clergy would have none of us and we certainly wanted nothing of them. They were, and will ever be, the supporters of ignorance. We tried to write a compendium of all knowledge, the first encyclopedia, and would have all people benefit from it.

INTERVIEWER: I understand you were the major contributor to the Encyclopedia, both with money and by writing articles. Didn’t you write over four hundred articles mostly in the natural sciences? Voltaire called you the most learned of the all philosophers.

BARON: [modestly] I tried to do my part.

INTERVIEWER: You also wrote many other books. One of them was called Christianity Unveiled in which you vehemently attacked religion.

BARON: Yes

INTERVIEWER: Did you really say that all children are born atheists?

BARON: Yes, I did write that. Children know nothing of a deity until their parents teach them to fear a supernatural power.

INTERVIEWER: On what did you base your disbelief in the existence of God?

BARON: I based it on rational thinking. If God wishes to be known, why not manifest himself to the whole earth in an unequivocal manner? In place of so-called miracles could not the All-powerful not write his name, his will, in a manner not subject to dispute? No one then would have been able to doubt his existence.

INTERVIEWER: Didn’t you fear retribution? 

BARON: From god? If he is infinitely good, what reason would we have to fear him? If he knows everything, why inform him of our needs and weary him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why build temples to him? If he is inconceivable, why concern ourselves about him?

INTERVIEWER: [Short pause] You were critical of the clergy also. Why were you so hostile toward them?

BARON: For many reasons... but foremost because their control of education barred the way to the increase in scientific knowledge. They looked on the freedom of men to think as a threat to their power. They hang superstition like a blanket over the mind of man and ally themselves with political power to maintain control. The fundamental evil for the common man is the alliance of the priests and the political rulers.

BRUNO:[annoyed because he is overlooked] Excuse me but I too suffered because of the arrogance of those in power.

INTERVIEWER: But didn’t you find a haven within the courts of Europe? Didn’t Henry III appoint you a professor at the College de France? Didn’t you live at the French ambassador’s home in London for two years and didn’t he often take you to the English court? Queen Elizabeth admired you and you had several private conversations with her. You even lectured at Oxford.

BRUNO:Bah! To hell with royalty and the colleges ! They treated my message as a exciting new idea that amused them for a time. They then turned away.

INTERVIEWER: Why?

BRUNO:The thought of an infinite God as the spirit of an infinite universe made them uncomfortable. The arrogant clergy would not understand. They revered the writings of Aristotle more than they acknowledged the thoughts that their own minds were capable of.

INTERVIEWER: You doubted the teachings of Aristotle?

BRUNO: Yes, I dared to question Aristotle. I declared there is no Prime Mover. There is motion in every part of the universe. God is not an external intelligence. It is more worthy for him to be the internal principle of motion of the universe.

INTERVIEWER: That is a very strange idea.

BRUNO:They found other ideas of mine even stranger. My studies showed me that the stars appear small because they are distant. I declared that the stars, each one of them, are suns much like our own. And around each one of them are planets like the Earth. And on them are men and women, loving and hating, laughing and crying just as we.

INTERVIEWER: Isn’t it that the idea that got you in trouble with the Inquisition? If there were an infinite number of Earths there would have to be an infinite series of revelations and divine visitations. Clearly church doctrine proclaimed the one and only son of God was of this Earth. Therefore your ideas were heretical.

BRUNO:They could not see my vision. An infinite universe requires an infinite God.

BARON: My dear sir, why should that be true? If there is no evidence for a divine power why postulate that it exists? If one accepts nature as that which simply is – then the notion of supernaturalism falls away. We have no need of that hypothesis. I agree with you that everything in the universe is in motion. The universe consists of only particles of matter and their motions. Nothing more.

INTERVIEWER: That is a very materialistic view of existence. But I notice that you both agree on that point.

BARON: That is true. It is obvious that if all motion were to stop then time itself would stand still.

BRUNO:[grandly] I repeat, it is the spirit of God that moves all – the planets, the stars, the universe itself. I see God in the unchangeable laws of nature, in the light of the sun, in the beauty of all that springs from the bosom of mother earth.

BARON: Particles make up everything that is. They act according to unchangeable laws of nature -- but it is their own laws of being. No God is necessary. The more our knowledge grows, the more overwhelming is the evidence that the universe acts only through natural causes without the spirit of any deity.

INTERVIEWER: Were there others that shared your views Baron?

BARON: It was around our dinner table that these ideas were discussed.

INTERVIEWER: Who were your guests?

BARON: My wife chose our guests. It pleased her to sometimes include men who would be in opposition to my views. On one occasion a guest, I believe it was the philosopher David Hume. He avowed that all men must have some deep sense of the divine and he did not believe that any real atheists could exist. I advised him to look around the table and he would see 18 of them.

INTERVIEWER: I have heard the ideas discussed around your table formed the ideological basis of the French revolution?

BARON: Perhaps. We did discuss how the collusion between the priests and the aristocracy produced the fiction of the divine right of kings. We arrived at the conclusion that a good government derived its powers from the consent of the governed. I believe that idea spread in France and to the British colonies in America.

INTERVIEWER: Your salons held every Thursday and Sunday were famous all over Paris and intellectuals vied for invitations. Wasn’t Benjamin Franklin one of your guests?

BARON: Yes. He was an interesting man. We discussed his experiments with electricity.

BRUNO:(Interrupting) It seems that the Baron had all that is necessary to live a life of happiness. He had money, intellect, a beautiful intelligent wife, friends – not all of us are so lucky.

INTERVIEWER:: You are referring, of course, to the poverty and chaos of your own life.

BRUNO: Yes

INTERVIEWER: But didn’t you bring that on yourself? You seem to have enjoyed enraging people with your diatribes. And why, when you knew the Inquisition had burned your book did you return to Italy? To Venice.

BRUNO:For the love of true wisdom and zeal for contemplation, for these I exerted myself. I left Frankfort to go to Venice where I thought there was enough freedom for me to pass unnoticed. And I went out necessity. I had to earn some money. I went as a tutor in one of its illustrious families. I thought them friendly to my thought but they were leading me on. They reported me to the Inquisition.

INTERVIEWER: What were the charges brought against you?

BRUNO: Strangely, no mention was made of my vision of an infinite God in an infinite universe. They accused me of rejecting the idea of the Trinity and denying that the church wine cup held the blood of Christ. They said I had called all priests asses who defiled the Earth with their hypocrisy and avarice. They accused me of maintaining that carnal pleasures was natural to men and women and not a sin.

INTERVIEWER: Did you do all of those things?

BRUNO:Yes – Yes I did! But I didn’t confess it outright. I had hopes I could convince the inquisitors in Venice that I was repentant. I was in their hands from May to September when the authorities in Rome asked that I be sent to them.

INTERVIEWER: What happened in Rome?

BRUNO:Nothing happened. I sat in a dark cell without books or writing materials for a year before they even examined me. For 7 more years there were periodic questionings and long periods of starvation but I grew obdurate. I would not retract.

INTERVIEWER: Why did they keep you so long under those conditions?

BRUNO: I do not know. But in 1600 the Pope declared me guilty. When the verdict was read I said “You who pronounce my sentence are in greater fear than I who receive it.” It was the last thing I was able to say. They tied my tongue so that I could not speak. Later, they bound me to a stake and burnt me.

INTERVIEWER: It is said that when the fires were lit and the crucifix was offered to you on a long pole for you to kiss you turned your head away.

BRUNO: [softly] That is true.

[pause]

BARON: I am truly sorry, sir, for your pain. I admire you for your steadfastness and your vision. The happiness of the human race requires that religious superstition be overcome so that reason can elevate the mind to thoughts far greater than a vengeful God and his cruel clergy.

INTERVIEWER: I understand now where I got the sense that there was a link between you two. There is a line of thought that begins with the Greek philosopher Democritus in 370 B.C. that everything is made up of small particles in motion.
It was Bruno’s thought that there was within the universe a principle of motion and called it God. d’Holbach thought that motion was intrinsic to the particles themselves.
Both agreed that this universe is governed by natural laws.
Both challenged the religious authorities of their time.
I want to thank you both for being here and for doing what you did. Your names will be gratefully remembered. [They shake hands all around.]

The Problem with Fundamentalist Religion

As I define it, fundamentalist religion is the strict adherence to traditional beliefs and practices of a religion including, but not limited to, the literal interpretation of holy texts. The problem with fundamentalist religion is that it leads people to not only be immune to reason, but also to behave in ways which are harmful to themselves and others.

The Problem with Faith

In its 2012 platform on education, the Republican Party of Texas made a statement that it opposes the teaching of critical thinking skills because it “challeng[es] the student’s fixed beliefs and undermin[es] parental authority.”[1] Why would this be? It is because religious fundamentalists, such as those who hold political sway over the Texas Republicans, believe that unquestioning faith is a supreme virtue. This is also why many fundamentalist Christians fear sending their children to non-religious universities. As Republican Rick Santorum stated “62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it,” which as it turns out is not a true statistic.[2]

Recall that faith is a belief in something which is not supported by evidence. Thus, to unquestioningly adhere to beliefs based on no evidence means that no amount of reason or evidence should be able to change a true believer’s mind. As I explained in my post regarding blind faith, humans naturally rationalize their beliefs and ignore evidence which contradicts them. However, this stubbornness is outright encouraged in fundamentalist religions, which makes them far more immune to reason than other ideologues.

Beyond being unreasonable, fundamentalists are also far more likely to be taken advantage of by politicians and religious authorities. Regarding politics, people often vote for Republican candidates even when they stand for policies that go against their best interest. Why? Because the Republicans use far more religious rhetoric and promote far more socially conservative causes than do the Democrats.[3] As for religious authorities, consider televangelists and faith healers who scam their followers out of millions of dollars, and clergy who successfully molest children for years without ever being held accountable. Trusting those who put up a façade of religious purity leaves many strict theists vulnerable to being hurt and supporting those who do not have humanity’s best interests at heart.

The Problem with Fundamentalist Beliefs

Religious fundamentalists hold onto beliefs and ideas which were devised back when humanity knew much less about science, human psychology, and ethics than we do today. Consider this quote from Abraham Lincoln, the American President who was so progressive that he freed the slaves “I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people… while [negroes and whites] do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”[4] Despite being far more enlightened than most men of his day, Abraham Lincoln was still a racist by our standards. Religious fundamentalists often adhere to beliefs which were formed far earlier than Lincoln, yet are just as backward as his historically moderate racism.

Intolerance

Fundamentalists have very concrete ideas about how people ought to live, and how society should be run. Those who do not fit their mold are despised as unrepentant sinners and/or agents of evil. Given their conviction, religious fundamentalists do not keep their disdain to themselves. Often, they lash out at those who they dislike, leading to much unnecessary suffering. Consider these examples provided by the ACLU:[5]

• Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married.
• Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees.
• Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people.
• Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions.
• Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.

Misogyny

The vast majority of successful societies throughout human history have utilized a patriarchal social structure.[6]As such, the traditional view of women is that they are inferior to men, and are often treated poorly as a result. This perspective is reinforced by the world’s major religions, and stridently kept alive by their fundamentalist adherents. For example:

Christianity:

• In 1 Peter 3:1, wives are told explicitly to “be in subjection to your own husbands.”
• In both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, women are not allowed to be ordained as priests.[7]
• Fundamentalist Christians fervently oppose abortions even in cases of rape and incest.[8]

Islam:

• Women are encouraged to cover their bodies lest they tempt men to sin by thinking lustful thoughts, but studies have shown that sexual harassment among conservatively dressed women is commonplace in many Islamic countries.[9] 
• Domestic violence is also very common in Islamic countries, as it is fully endorsed in the Quran.[10][11]

Hinduism:

• In Hindu India, it is common to blame victims of rape, and allow rapists to go unpunished.[12]
• In the Vedanta, it is said that only males are allowed to study the Vedas, which is necessary for achieving full realization of one’s soul.[13]

Psychologically Damaging

A recent study including over 8,000 people in 7 countries has found that religious individuals are more likely to be depressed than those who are non-religious. On top of that, the most religious tended to be twice as likely to be depressed.[14] While it is probable that depressed people may be more likely to seek emotional benefits from religion, I would argue that for some, religion can do more harm than good. For example, gay teens are 3.4 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts.[15] The homosexual teen suicide hotline “Trevor Lifeline” reported that nearly twice as many calls come from Southern US states than from Northeastern ones.[16] For those who are not familiar, the Southern states are known for their religious conservatism, and the Northeastern for their secularism. Thus, it is likely that at least a portion of these gay teens committed suicide because they felt shame for their innate sexual preference.

Beyond gay teens, religion can also incite shame and guilt for doing or thinking things which are perfectly healthy (e.g. premarital sex, masturbation, doubting beliefs, etc.) This shame may also be coupled with the petrifying fear of spending eternity in hellfire for displeasing God. On top of that, fundamentalist religions prescribe many unnecessary rules of conduct, dress, cuisine, ritual, etc. that can be burdensome to the practitioners. Consider the plight of Islamic women, for example. Living in fear of sexual and physical abuse certainly isn’t conducive to psychological health.

How Fundamentalist Religion is Ruining the World

Radical Islam

Radical Islam poses one of the greatest threats to the stability and safety of our society. In 2011, Sunni Muslim terrorists accounted for 70% of the all terrorist murders, and over 95% of suicide bombings are conducted by Muslim extremists.[17] In addition to the violence perpetrated by Muslim terrorists, one of the major tenets of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine is that democracy is in contradiction with the sovereignty of Allah's law.[18] The Hizb ut-Tahrir Movement in particular has gained significant momentum in much of Europe.[19] This sect publicly eschews violence, but regularly holds rallies and protests accompanied by statements such as “Britain will be an Islamic state by the year 2020!” to promote its goal of overthrowing democratic governments in favor of a global caliphate.[20]

Degenerating Public Trust in Science

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution hasn’t set well with religious fundamentalists since its inception. Today in the United States, 35% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form around 10,000 years ago, and 26% believe God guided our evolution.[21] This has led to many battles in religiously conservative states to include curricula regarding intelligent design and creationism as well as anti-evolution messaging in public school science classes.[22][23] This isn’t a uniquely American problem either, as South Korea nearly passed a law to drop references to evolution in their public school textbooks.[24] This isn’t only a Christian problem either, as only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agree with Darwin’s theory.[25]

So why does this lack of acceptance in the theory of evolution matter? For starters, it is how humans came to exist in our present form, and misleading our children about it robs them of a full understanding of their own humanity. Beyond this, I personally know a person who went to a Christian college that teaches creationism in its biology classes, yet has both an accredited nursing and PA program. This has the potential to endanger public health, as evolution is central to the study of biology and thus medicine.

In addition to these issues, denying evolution undermines trust in science. This is why religious individuals are far more likely to deny global warming than those who are unaffiliated with any religion (Total U.S. population 47%; Unaffiliated with any church 58%; White mainline Protestants 48%; White, non-Hispanic Catholics 44%; Black Protestants 39%; White evangelical Protestants 34%).[26] This matters not only because the vast majority of climate scientists believe it is a real threat, but also because it has the potential to severely diminish humanity’s ability to thrive on this planet.[27]

Ruining our Political Systems

In the United States, the Republican Party has recently been taken over by religious fundamentalists.[28] This means that half of the world’s richest and most powerful country’s government is being influenced by people who are both immune to reason and firm believers in harmful nonsense. This is why in 2011, 1,100 reproductive rights laws were introduced by state lawmakers during a time when the unemployment rate was 8.2% and over 400,000 children remained in the US foster care system.[29] This is also why in 2013, the federal government was shut down in part due to provisions in the Affordable Care Act, which provided free access to contraceptives to women.[30] Finally, it is also why in recent years, we have had one of the least productive Congresses in US history.[31] In short, fundamentalist religion is ruining my country, and in effect, making the entire world much worse off.

Conclusion

Among all topics I’ve covered in my blog, the problem with fundamentalist religion is one of the most difficult to explain succinctly. There are simply too many examples, too many angles of approach, and too little room to fully detail the degree to which fundamentalism is awful for humanity. Ultimately, the problem is that fundamentalists stubbornly believe in harmful ideas and feel compelled by their religious fervor to make life miserable for the rest of us. Given their large numbers and political influence, their negative impact on humanity will likely be felt long after society fully moves away from such belief systems.

"The Tokyo Rose Case"

The University Press of Kansas has added a new volume to its Landmark Law Cases & American Society series: Yasuhide Kawashima, The Tokyo Rose Case: Treason on Trial (2013). Here's a description:

Iva Ikuku Toguri (1916–2006) was an American citizen, born on the 4th of July. Her parents, first-generation Japanese Americans, embraced their new nation and raised Iva to think, talk, and act like a patriotic American. But, despite her allegiance to the United States, she was forced to spend most of her adult life denying that she was a traitor or that she was World War II’s infamous Tokyo Rose.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Iva was nursing an ailing aunt in Japan. Prevented from returning to home, she was viewed with suspicion by the Japanese authorities. They hounded her to renounce her American citizenship, which she adamantly refused to do. Pressured to find employment, she joined Radio Tokyo. Known as Orphan Ann, she did nothing more than emcee brief music segments on “The Zero Hour” during the war’s last two years. She was never called “Tokyo Rose” by anyone and was but one of only a dozen or so English-speaking females heard on Japanese airwaves.

In need of money to return home after the war, she made the mistake of allowing herself to be interviewed by two ambitious journalists who were certain that she was the Tokyo Rose, even though she denied it. The published story brought Iva to the attention of American authorities who tried and convicted Iva for treason, despite the lack of evidence and a reluctant jury. She was then stripped of her citizenship and sent to prison. 

Yasuhide Kawashima’s account of Toguri’s trials are deeply rooted in Japanese language sources, American legal archives, and the cultures of both nations. He identifies heroes and villains in both the United States and Japan and also highlights broader concerns: the internment of thousands of loyal Japanese Americans, the meaning of citizenship, the nation’s commitment to the idea of fair trial, the impact of tabloid journalism, and the very concept of treason.

Iva was eventually pardoned in 1977 by President Gerald Ford—she was the first person in U.S. history to be pardoned for treason—and had her citizenship restored. Yet when she died in 2006, obituaries continued to identify her as Tokyo Rose. Kafkaesque in its telling, Kawashima’s tale provides a harsh reminder that the law does not always render justice.

Genghis Khan

The entire Mongol Empire, at its peak, covered some 12.7 million square miles, which is 22% of all the land area on Earth. The tactics that enabled such conquests can be traced primarily to Genghis, the empire’s founder and first Khan. His birth name was Borjigin Temujin, and he devised a versatile attacking style, that of missile cavalries: his best archers were not trained merely to shoot, but to shoot accurately while riding horses at full gallop. They could even shoot accurately directly behind the horse at full gallop. No infantry force in the world at that time could have withstood such soldiers, and all the nations the Mongols invaded were overwhelmed very quickly.

Genghis’s legacy has been cemented by his conquest of Khwarezmia, which is most of modern Iran, along with parts of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. Genghis originally respected the leader, Ala ad-Din Muhammad II, as another conqueror, but when Genghis sent emissaries to strike up commerce with Ala ad-Din, the latter killed the diplomats and sent the rest back with shaved heads as an insult. First rule of Genghis Khan: don’t insult Genghis Khan.

He invaded Khwarezmia with 200,000 men, as many as half of these mounted archers, and split his army into smaller forces designed to conquer more territory faster. In military schools, this is always advised against, but Genghis’s scouts indicated that Ala ad-din was waiting with stronghold defenses, which suited Genghis’s desire for maneuvering room. His armies surrounded the walled cities of Samarkand, Urgench and Bukhara, and utterly destroyed them, one after another. On the third day of siege at Burkhara, the Turkish generals inside decided that they did not have the food and water to outlast Genghis, and so sallied a force of 20,000 cavalrymen and infantrymen, who attacked in the open steppe outside the city. Genghis’s army slaughtered them, to the last man.

Then he finished the siege within another 2 weeks, killed the Turkish soldiers who survived, sent the rest of the population’s youth into slavery, and executed everyone else, men and women deemed inefficient for labor. Seeing that the Turkish attempt to free itself from siege failed so well, Genghis next besieged Samarkand, whose garrison sent 50,000 veteran troops against Genghis’s army when it pretended to withdraw piecemeal. This was a simple plot that worked magnificently. His men retaliated, flanked on both sides, enveloped, and shot the Turks down in a massive pile of human and horse carcasses. He saw no need to preserve their horses since his did not seem to be at risk. Ala ad-Din arrived with a relief force of several tens of thousands, but could not approach because of Genghis’s mounted archers. The other 50,000 or so defenders of the city were executed to the last man, as was every single civilian, whose heads were arranged into a giant pyramid outside the walls.

Urgench was not so easy to attack, since it was built on swamp land around Amu Darya River. Genghis sent his men in without fear, and they lost significantly more men than usual due to the urban street fighting. The high end estimate of Turkish deaths, both civilian and military, in Urgench is 1,200,000, but much more plausible is 250,000 to 500,000. The rest were enslaved. This was one of the bloodiest genocides in history.