Despite the absurdity, don’t underestimate the importance of Council Nedd II, or his distorted accounts of Atheists

After having a bit of a look into things, I’m afraid Council Nedd II and his campaign to stir-up sectarian bigotry against Atheists through the use of deceptive propaganda isn’t just a cultural curio. He’s not just some crazy guy looking for a crazy following to hand over their dollars so he can lobby for the GOP and/or related/allied bodies.

I say this despite his substantive ties to conservative Christian lobby groups in the US, or his former, not insubstantial service to the Republican Party. Council Nedd II has international significance. How?

Well apparently he’s been knighted by the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (I’m saying “apparently” as I want further confirmation on this). A modern derivative of the Knights Templar from the days of The Crusades. Why is this globally significant? Well aside from the rather obvious fact that it’s an international organisation we are talking about (or the sheer silliness of a Knight Templar running a modern political campaign against Atheists), there is another reason but I don’t want to get to that quite yet. Please hold (your sides.)

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that Council Nedd II is thoroughly disingenuous about religious freedom or religious bigotry, both of which he projects upon his targets. In addition to a pack of lies used as justification for the wholesale vilification of Atheists via the “Why do Atheists hate America?” campaign, Council Nedd II has some pretty wrongheaded notions about the interaction between Atheists and Christians in a secular Democracy. For example;

“In God We Trust hereby bestows “The Cup of Wrath” on Boulder High School Principal Bud Jenkins … for not only sanctioning but applauding the September 27, 2007 school walkout by members of the Boulder High School “Student Workers Club.” This motley crew of teenagers wanted to protest merely having to listen to the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by their classmates… Principal Jenkins’ complete abrogation of his responsibilities as an educator, his callous disregard for our nation’s religious heritage and his zealous defense of anti-religious bigotry reflect terribly on himself, his school, his town and his profession.”

(In God We Trust – Cup of Wrath – emphasis is mine, 2008)

Sorry, but in a nation that respects religious freedoms (as per both the United States Constitution, a number of UN Treaties and in liberal democratic sentiment) forced observance can not occur. It was not the mere Pledge of Allegiance per se that the students were protesting, it was the two words “Under God” which they chose, as per their right, not to observe. Nobody has a right to a captive, religious audience and to characterise someone refusing to abandon their liberty this way as “bigotry” is ludicrous. You need only substitute religious liberty with sexual liberty through analogy to see what I mean.

If Council Nedd II were to suggest that a woman who refuses to allow herself to “merely” be penetrated, was somehow a sexual-bigot, people would look at Council Nedd II like he was a monster. Well let’s face it, both sexuality and religion are very personal matters where subsequently personal liberty is at a premium; Council Nedd II should be looked at like he was a monster. Perhaps not in degree, but surely in principle there is insufficient difference between the two liberties to do otherwise.

There is of course the hypocrisy to consider as well. Clearly, Nedd is necessarily implying that Atheist students don’t have the same rights as Christian students. That’s what bigotry looks like. Why, oh why do religious would-be hegemons project their own worst attributes upon their targets?

But bigotry, hypocrisy, arguing against rights for groups of people afforded by constitution, convention and treaty, projection and fibbing aren’t the end of this. Sadly no. You see, Nedd is metaphorically handing out the Cup of Wrath, a Old Testament metaphor for the Wrath of God. Jeremiah 25:15-27 gives you the details.

“Thus the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them.”

So I took the cup from the LORD’s hand, and made all the nations to whom the LORD sent me drink it: Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, its kings and officials, to make them a desolation and a waste, a hissing and a curse, as at this day; Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his officials, all his people, and all the mixed tribes among them; all the kings of the land of Uz and all the kings of the land of the Philistines (Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod); Edom, Moab, and the sons of Ammon; all the kings of Tyre, all the kings of Sidon, and the kings of the coastland across the sea; Dedan, Tema, Buz, and all who cut the corners of their hair; all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the mixed tribes who dwell in the desert; all the kings of Zimri, all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of Media; all the kings of the north, far and near, one after another, and all the kingdoms of the world that are on the face of the earth. And after them the king of Babylon[a] shall drink.

“Then you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Drink, be drunk and vomit, fall and rise no more, because of the sword that I am sending among you.’”

(Jeremiah 25:15-27, Standard English Version)

Firstly, I acknowledge that a lot of Christians may want to point out that Nedd II is hardly an exemplar of Christianity in handing out the cup of wrath, even if only metaphorically. I am aware of the belief that Jesus took the cup upon himself and offered up a new covenant in its place, and that under this new covenant the whole notion of someone passing out Old Testament wrath of God in lieu of this new deal is highly inappropriate. It’s not my intention to attribute Nedd II’s theology across the breadth of Christendom.

I’m open to the notion of quite a bit of wiggle room in interpretation as well. Not that I’m going to be credulous to any biblical interpretation, rather I’m open to the idea that what someone is trying to say by citing the cup, isn’t necessarily going to be based on an interpretation entirely in line with my own.

That being said, I may be open but I’m not going to be gulled either. You would be hard pressed enough to convince me that the notion of the Cup of Wrath didn’t imply both the use of force and the deprivation of liberty (especially given the talk of people being put to the sword later on in Jeremiah). Perhaps, just perhaps, you may convince me that the force implied isn’t lethal, but as for the deprivation of liberty? Forget it.

Now in addition to what Jeremiah tells us, consider that Nedd II clearly has a deep, deep problem with the idea of people not engaging in the observation of his religion and indeed that the state (with the unavoidable implicit threat of the use of force) has a role in enforcing this.

Nedd II is making a threat. At least the threat of a call for liberty to be denied through non-lethal force, and perhaps, albeit with the power of plausible deniability, a veiled threat of potential, conditional lethal force.

At any rate, with all this talk of Cups of Wrath and Knights Templar (am I alone in thinking this is all just a tad too crazy?), I suspect that Deleuze would have had a field day. I’ll let people ask about one of Arthur’s favorite Deleuze quotes if they are curious about what I’m alluding to.

Now without going into too much detail, there are UN conventions and treaties that the US has signed (and some that it has refused to ratify) that are in stark and unavoidable contradiction to these notions. The Convention on the Rights of the Child would prohibit what Nedd calls for at Boulder High School (see Article 14), and notably the religious right in the US have given strong political opposition to the ratification of the bill (in stark contrast to the position of a number of Christian Evangelicals elsewhere in the world) which you can read about in David Smolin’s contribution to the 2006 Spring Symposium of the Emery International Law Review.

Chapter 5 of the United Nations Millennium Declaration runs against the grain of Nedd’s position, The wording Article 18 (amongst others) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights forbids forced religious observation as a part of “Freedom of thought” (which the US ratified albeit with qualifications with regards to its binding nature in domestic cases) and the list runs on.

Now why am I prattling on about UN treaties, conventions, resolutions and the like? Given his opposition to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (which has a core mission of protecting freedom of thought), opposition to various groups having the same rights, his overt sectarian bigotry and possibly due to the American religious right’s opposition to the UN when it comes to human rights, one would expect Council Nedd II to buck the spirit of these (variably binding) pieces of international law / convention.

Remember when I asked you to be patient about that other reason that Council Nedd’s antics have international significance? Significance by way of his membership in a modern day order of the Knights Templar?

Try this on for size…

“OSMTH: Knights Templar International – is recognised as a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. This is on account of its activities in providing humanitarian relief and promoting inter-faith dialogue. This is achieved both by raising much needed funds and also by putting the volunteer efforts and expertise of its member as the disposal of good causes around the world.”

(Knights Templar – Emphasis is mine, 2008)

Now either Chevalier Council Nedd II is an exemplar of his order or he isn’t.

If he is an exemplar, then quite frankly, the knights who say “Ni” aren’t what they pretend to be, and have a deep resentment for certain human rights and a sectarian motivation that makes non-sense of their dedication to inter-faith dialogue. Indeed, if Knight Nedd is an exemplar, then the motives of this order of knights are in conflict with several of the aims of the United Nations.

If Sir Nedd II is an exemplar, if he really speaks what they think, and engages in actions they endorse, the these Knights Templar are warring against Atheists.

If Nedd II isn’t an exemplar of his order, then the order should discipline him and seek to make reparations, most appropriately though both a motivated reconciliation with The Freedom From Religion Foundation and through a public condemnation of the “Why do Atheists hate America?” campaign.

Failure to do this, either if Nedd II is representative or not, should result in the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations repealing recognition of OSMTH.

Now, if you recall, I wrote that I wanted further confirmation of Nedd II’s knighthood and the following is dependent upon that (while I think the former is littered with sufficient Boolean caveats to protect OSMTH if he is not in fact a knight, although it would still raise an interesting hypothetical).

I think that given confirmation of Nedd II’s status as a knight of the order, that Atheists should approach the order with their grievances. Perhaps by way of an on-line petition and an email campaign. If Atheists get no satisfaction out of this, I suggest two things;

1) That lobbying focus upon the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations…

and…

2) That in a similar vein to The Flying Spaghetti Monster, a satirical order of Atheist knights is established (suitably Monty Pythonesque of course) to do culture war with the hostiles though the deft application of comedy. Highlighting the types of group that the UN is happy to do business with on matters of human rights. Someone would have to dub Richard Dawkins of course.

What do you think?

~ Bruce

Update: Confirmation. Game on.

“Chaplain
The Rt. Rev. Chev. Council Nedd II, KTJ”

(Priory of St. James Officers, 2008)

Update II: Seems that Council Nedd II is rather more the exemplar that I previously thought. Watch Jim Carey (not the actor) spew venom and rhetoric, based on misrepresentations of Church-State conflict court cases, and vapid whining about lawyers with political agendas and TEH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (Ironic considering how he argued against the criticism of Iraq in the media under the unconvincing veil of protecting the troops)! Nary a fact-based argument to be found, nor self-consistency! Mr Carey is otherwise known as the Grand Master of OSMTH.