Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 252 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Frequency of Miracles, Charted

From the Atheists and Agnostics of Wisconsin, a chart of the frequency of miracles over time:

frequency of miracles

Redefining Sexual Versatility

Young, sexed up human beings might get some useful perspective on their struggles by considering the plight of Cloeon dipterum, a common species of mayfly that lives in the Northern Hemisphere. Mayflies have a period of adult sexuality that only lasts a few weeks. The short sexual life of the mayfly is common knowledge, and is reflected in the scientific name of the group of insects: Ephemeroptera.

Cloeon dipterumWhat’s less well known is that males of Cloeon dipterum are so hyper-focused on finding sexually available females that they have evolved extra parts to their eyes, called turbinate eyes, so that they can locate single females as they swerve through giant mayfly swarms in the air. Going to a bar to pick up sexual partners is predictable and calm compared to the chaos that mayflies have to endure.

What’s more, young Cloeon dipterum don’t just have adolescent angst. They go through periods where they are going through so many changes that they literally cannot breathe. In a paper published in the September issue of the journal Freshwater Science, researchers report on observations that when larval members of the species molt, they lose the lining of the tracheal systems through which they breathe, and have to go through the insect equivalent of holding their breath while the lining reforms. Global warming may increase the respiratory stress of molting for these insects, the researchers speculate.

But, for those who make it to the brief mayfly adulthood, sexual mores are fairly flexible, according to the Journal of the North American Benthological Society. Female mayflies are able to produce young without mating at all, but the females continue to mate with males nonetheless every now and then, in order to add a touch of tangy genetic diversity to the mix.

A War on Whites? Consider the Bogardus Distance Scale

Congressman Mo Brooks, a Republican Representative of Alabama’s 5th District, has taken repeatedly to the airwaves in order to declare that America is plagued by a “War on Whites”:

“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. It’s a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things.”…

“I want the American people to start recognizing what the heck’s going on,” Brooks said. “When the Democrats bring up race time after time after time, what’s the theme? It’s skin color. Who are they saying who dislikes whom? They’re saying the whites dislike the blacks, the whites dislike the Hispanics and the Democrats are the ones who will protect you from those whites. That’s the subliminal and sometimes open message.”

Is Rep. Brooks right? Is there really a “War on Whites” in which white Americans are being singled out for disparagement? Is it unfair to say that nonwhites are the target of discrimination in America? There is an empirical way to answer this question, thanks to Emory Bogardus. In 1926, the sociologist developed a general “social distance” scale in which a respondent indicates how close she would allow members of some group to come to her.

“For each of the groups listed below, please indicate on a scale of 1 to 7 how much closeness you would find to be acceptable between you and members of that group:

1 = as close relatives by marriage
2 = as your close personal friends
3 = as neighbors on the same street
4 = as coworkers in your job
5 = as citizens in your country
6 = as only visitors in your country
7 = you would exclude them from your country”

For many decades, the Bogardus scale has been used to survey Americans’ reports of willingness to tolerate to various racial and ethnic groups, with lower scores indicating greater tolerance and higher scores indicating greater intolerance. With the exception of the initial survey of 1926 (in which the “English” receive a slightly better tolerance score), the social category of “White Americans” has consistently received the highest tolerance score out of dozens of racial and ethnic groups. White Americans’ status as the most-tolerated group in America persists in the most recent study using the scale, a survey of American college students by Vincent Parrillo and Christopher Donoghue. As you review these rankings below, keep in mind that the group Parillo and Donoghue studied in 2012 is actually the least likely to exhibit differences in racial attitudes, since their sample is dominated by young, highly educated people (see here and here on trends in racial attitudes by age and education):

Group Average Bogardus Score Standard Deviation
White Americans 1.15 0.57
Italians 1.32 0.8
Canadians 1.35 0.89
British 1.36 0.91
African Americans 1.42 0.78
Irish 1.46 0.94
French 1.5 1.03
Germans 1.51 1.01
Greeks 1.52 1.01
Indians (American) 1.57 0.94
Africans 1.61 0.93
Dutch 1.62 1.09
Polish 1.64 1.08
Puerto Ricans 1.64 1.09
Filipinos 1.68 1.08
Dominicans 1.71 1.14
Chinese 1.72 1.04
Other Hispanics/Latinos 1.72 1.14
Russians 1.73 1.17
Cubans 1.74 1.2
Jews 1.74 1.11
Jamaicans 1.74 1.08
Japanese 1.8 1.14
Mexicans 1.8 1.29
Vietnamese 1.85 1.11
Koreans 1.87 1.24
Indians (India) 1.89 1.22
Haitians 1.91 1.27
Arabs 2.16 1.55
Muslims 2.23 1.52

Not only do “white Americans” still garner the highest tolerance scores of the 30 groups, but 8 of the 10 most-tolerated groups are either white or European in origin. Only 1 of the 10 least-tolerated groups, “Jews,” is arguably either white or European in origin.

There are many ways to consider and interpret results of Bogardus-scale social distance research. None of them is empirically consistent with the fantasy of a “War on Whites.”

News From Occupy Washington?

I was a little surprised this morning when I saw an announcement on Twitter that Occupy Washington has released its latest online newsletter.

occupy washington 2014

I was even more surprised when I discovered that the Occupy Washington newsletter, “Based on #OccupyTogether – a group that occupies McPherson Square in Washington DC,” showed nothing but photographs of Justin Bieber. I was there when Occupy Washington began, and it didn’t look like this.

But then, the Occupy Movement never began with any goals, or specific grievances, or centralized control. The idea was that people would show up, and then things would just sort of happen.

Well, now Justin Bieber pictures are happening. Who is to say this isn’t an authentic manifestation of the Occupy Movement? I certainly don’t see anyone else trying to do anything with Occupy Washington.

Pouty photographs of teen idols certainly have done a better job of occupying bits of turf in Washington DC than protesters have.

occupy justin bieber

Does It Help The Environment To Live On An Iceberg For A Year?

A professional adventurer named Alex Bellini has decided that he’s going to spend an entire year living on an iceberg off the coast of Greenland. His purpose: To show people that climate change is something they should pay attention to.

alex belliniBellini also says he’ll be performing scientific study: “My objective is reporting and investigating, by means of scientific methods, the entire lifetime of an iceberg. I want to prove how the pace of ice-melting has dramatically accelerated over the last decades.”

An obvious problem with this scientific aspect of Bellini’s project is that it would take decades to prove that the pace of ice-melting has dramatically accelerated over the last decades. Bellini’s observations won’t provide evidence of global ice-melting, either, just evidence of one iceberg melting.

It isn’t news that icebergs melt, nor is the melting of an iceberg necessarily related to climate change. Icebergs have been observed melting for thousands of years. It’s an expected phenomenon, even if climate change isn’t taking place.

People aren’t really concerned about icebergs melting so much as they are concerned about Arctic Sea Ice thinning, and ice melting on Greenland and Antarctica. Why isn’t Bellini going to watch the ice melting there? Because the scale of these melts isn’t as personal? Because the storyline is wrong?

There’s little drama to Alex Bellini’s trip. The iceberg he’s on will melt. Maybe it will melt away. Perhaps it will melt just a little bit.

In the meantime, there are real scientists doing well-designed, useful scientific research to track global patterns in ice melt. Among them are the people at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. They don’t showboat, but day after day they provide data that are then communicated to people around the world.

Maybe that isn’t adventure, but it is, in the long term, the best way to communicate to people that climate change is an issue they ought to pay attention to.

The Cannibalistic Consumption Of Cinderella’s Mother The Cow

Did Cinderella’s mother die? Yes, but not in the way that you think, according to Pepelezka, the Slavic version of the Cinderella story, as retold in Sixty Folk-Tales From Exclusively Slavic Sources by A. H. Wraitslaw. The story starts with a group of girls who were spinning wool together around a deep chasm in a rock.

“Up came a white-bearded old man, who said to them: ‘Girls! as you spin and chatter, be circumspect round this rift; or, if any of you drops her spindle into it, her mother will be turned into a cow.’ Thus saying he departed. The girls were astonished at his words, and crowded round the rift to look into it. Unfortunately, one of them, the most beautiful of all, dropped her spindle into it. Towards evening, when she went home, she espied a cow – her mother – in front of the gate, and drove her out with the other cattle to pasture.”

pepelezkaThe cow has to go and chew cud while her husband gets married to another woman, a stepmother who isn’t very nice. The stepmother gives Pepelezka impossible tasks, but the mother cow talks to her daughter, and helps her accomplish what is asked of her. These involve, as with the spinning around the chasm, household tasks.

Eventually, Pepelezka’s stepmother figures out that something strange is going on with that particular cow, and orders her husband to kill it. Pepelezka is terrified, but her cow mother assures her that an Obi-Wan sort of transformation will take place.

“When the girl heard that they were going to kill the cow she began to cry, and told the cow secretly that they were going to kill her. She said to the girl: ‘Be quiet–don’t cry! If they kill me, you must not eat any of my flesh, but must collect the bones and bury them behind the cottage. Then if need come to you, you must go to the grave, and help will come to you thence.’”

The husband kills the cow, and cooks up the bovine body of his first wife for dinner. Everyone in the family eats the meat, except for Pepelezka, who gathers and buries the bones as she has been told to do.

Pepelezka gets an awesome set of clothes, just like the Cinderella that we all know. However, these don’t arrive with the bippity boppity boo of a fairy helper, but appear one day in a magic box on the grave of her mother, accompanied by two white doves. These are not just one fancy gown, but a series of them, a white one, a silver one, and a gold one. The Emperor’s son notices her quickly in these outfits, being enthusiastic for the latest fashions.

When Pepelezka takes the golden gown to show herself to the Emperor’s son for a third time, that’s when her shoe slips off, to be found by the young man. All the land is searched for the girl whose foot fits the shoe, and when the Emperor’s son comes to Pepelezka’s house, her stepmother hides her under a trough of water. The plan is undone by a rooster, however.

“The cock had flown on to the trough, and when she told the emperor’s son that there was no other girl there, he crowed: ‘Cock-a-doodle-doo! pretty girl under trough!’ The stepmother shrieked out: ‘Shoo! eagles have brought you!’ * But the emperor’s son, on hearing the cock say this, went up and took the trough off; and there was, indeed, the girl that he had seen in the church with those beautiful dresses, only on one foot she had no shoe. He tried the shoe on her; it went on, and was exactly the same as that on the other foot. Then the emperor’s son took her by the hand, conducted her to his court, married her, and punished her stepmother for her evil heart.”

We Need Smith = We Need Anglos?

The new political interest group We Need Smith is thick with normative narratives – stories that seek to tell us what’s ordinary for Americans, and reflecting a troubled and confused relationship with this cultural identity.

On the one hand, We Need Smith seems to reject the normative American identity, as reflected through our democratic process. The shadowy group rejects the legitimacy of the leaders that American voters have chosen to represent them at the national level. In this sense, We Need Smith appears to be seeking to promote unusual, even conspicuously unpopular political ideas, writing that it opposes “the usual politics, the usual politicians, and the usual interest groups”.

However, underneath this first blush of defiance of normal politics, We Need Smith proposes to grab political power for a specific group: Normal Americans. We Need Smith promises to support only “leaders from mainstream America”, electing politicians who come from “the real America”.

What is mainstream America? It’s the America of the majority. Apparently, We Need Smith doesn’t intend to incorporate minorities into its political movement. If you are outside of the mainstream, you won’t be welcome in We Need Smith.

What is the real America? The very concept suggests the existence of a phony America – created by groups of people who pretend to be American but aren’t authentically American. They’re pretenders to the American identity, who must be rejected, and not allowed to have a say in the American political system

we need smith anglocentric

We Need Smith, this new political organization insists, and seeks to collect Smiths as supporters. But, what is a Smith, and what if you aren’t a Smith?

The political concept of Smith has a very culturally-specific history in the United States. It’s a history of white political power, and even more particularly, the power of English-speaking Americans of Anglo ancestry. This Anglocentric cultural narrative of has many manifestations, including the legends of Plymouth Rock, placing colonists of English ancestry at the center of American identity, even though the thirteen colonies were culturally diverse, holding people speaking many different languages, carrying names from many nations of origin. It’s carried by the members of the Mayflower Society, who seek to establish their value as Americans by proving ancestral connection to English colonists who came to North America aboard the Mayflower.

Despite the cultural diversity of the American colonies at the time of the Revolution of 1776, the idea that people of English descent are “real Americans” has been pervasive. It was particularly strong in 1939, when Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, the movie that We Need Smith cites as its inspiration, was released. The name of the title character, Mr. Smith, was chosen because Smith was felt to be a normal American name, unlike surnames of Americans whose ancestors came from places other than the British Isles.

Mr. Rossi Goes To Washington would not have sent this message of normalcy. Mr. Rodriguez Goes To Washington would not have been perceived as a tale of an ordinary American. Mr. Suzuki Goes To Washington would have seemed like the tale of a foreigner. Mr. Kabbah Goes To Washington would have been considered downright exotic.

When the political insiders at We Need Smith decided to use the surname Smith as a synonym for a “real American” who comes from “mainstream America”, they chose to evoke the longstanding belief that people with English ancestry are at the core of the American identity, the normal people who are entitled to political power, while everyone else is an outsider who threatens “the American Dream”. This Anglocentric ethnic idea is present even in the scanty political agenda of We Need Smith, which seeks to require that congressional legislation to be written “in clear English”.

For the people at We Need Smith clarity and English identity seem to be one and the same. This attitude is antidemocratic, and not just because it excludes ethnic minorities. The focus from We Need Smith on adherence to mainstream normality closes off the critical thinking that is vital to effective democracy. The vague populism of the group rewards conformity, and seeks to exclude leaders who are willing to stand apart from the crowd.

The claims by We Need Smith that there is a secret cabal of mysterious elites who are culturally estranged from the authentic folk of the United States ought to be alarming to anyone who is familiar with right wing conspiracy theorists who assert the existence of an Illuminati elite that controls the machinery of political and economic power. The overlap of these new conspiracy theories with contemporary antisemitism should also serve as an additional caution: The Nazi Party of Germany in the time of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington shared the belief of We Need Smith that cultural minorities wield unjust power over the majority.

It’s quite possible that the individuals behind We Need Smith have no specific intention of relying upon the creepy political appeal of xenophobic paranoia. It’s possible it merely picked up references to these racist ideologies from standard American political platitudes that just so happen to be derived from unjust presumptions embedded within our nation’s history. But then, even if that’s the case, it’s not a valid excuse.

Any new political organization ought to be leading us away from the prejudices that have dominated American politics in the past, rather than exploiting them for its own political purposes. We Need Smith fails this test.

Barack Obama Uses Occasion Of Religiously-Inspired Killing To Deny That Violence Has Anything To Do With Religion

barack obama religious militantsThis week, President Barack Obama reacted to the murder of journalist James Foley by announcing that American involvement in the religious civil war in Iraq will escalate. The execution of Foley by the removal of his head was of course an inexcusable act.

What isn’t clear is how increasing American military involvement in Iraq can make up for the atrocity, given that the US military just got done spending almost an entire decade clearing Iraq of Muslim extremists. We got rid of Al Quaida in Iraq. Now ISIS/ISIL has popped up. Get rid of ISIS/ISIL this time, and another group of violent Muslim extremists will probably pop up and commit atrocities again. Barack Obama has failed to explain what he intends to do done differently this time, to avoid the failures of the last Iraq War.

Obama doesn’t seem to have a plan for his new Iraq War at all, only reacting to political pressure to do something. The politics of religion in particular seems to distort his analysis of the situation in Iraq in dangerous ways. Obama only decided that the US should return to war in Iraq after he received political pressure from American Christians to protect Christians and Yazidis in Iraq. Before those religious groups were targeted in the Iraqi civil war, Obama seemed content to stay out of the mess.

The twisted religious motivations of the Iraq War were in evidence again in Obama’s statement condemning the decapitation of James Foley, when, even as he condemned the religiously-inspired warriors of ISIS/ISIL, he sought to claim that religion has nothing at all to do with the Iraqi civil war. He said, “They have murdered Muslims – both Sunni and Shia – by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day.”

ISIL speaks for no religion?

The inclination to avoid blaming all Muslims for the actions of some is admirable. However, it is naive of Barack Obama to pretend that Islam is a religion of peace, from which the actions of ISIL are a bizarre departure.

In the very same paragraph where he claims that ISIL is irreligious, he acknowledges that their motivations are religious, that they kill people “for no other reason than they practice a different religion”. ISIL certainly does speak for a religion – not an entire religion, but they do speak for a religion nonetheless. The old saying that actions speak louder than words comes to mind.

That ISIL’s victims are overwhelmingly Muslim has no bearing on the fact that ISIL’s violence is speaking for a branch of Islam. When Mary Tudor engaged in her vicious burning of Protestants at the stake, all of her victims were Christians, but that didn’t change the fact that she was speaking for her branch of Christianity when she committed her own atrocities.

When ISIS/ISIL spokesmman Abu Mosa pledged to “raise the flag of Allah” over the White House, he was speaking for his religion. Many Muslims disagree with him, but that’s how religions are. Multiple people speak for every religion, with multiple messages, each reflecting some aspect of their religion, often disagreeing with each other. To deny the violent strain within Islam is absurd, just as it is absurd to deny the violent strain within Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism – yes, Buddhism.

religion massacre innocents barack obamaNo faith teaches people to massacre innocents?

This claim is obviously false to anyone who knows just a bit of religious history. Most religions have, at some time, implored their followers to massacre innocents.

Of course, it isn’t just Islam that has a history of teaching people to massacre innocents. Christians’ holy book contains many passages in which their god commands his followers to kill entire villages of people, even the babies. Christians can’t honestly claim that these biblical genocides are something that their religion was absolved of when Jesus came along and declared that God had changed his mind about the old laws. The New Testament contains passages clearly approving of the old religious genocide, and promising new terrors to come for unbelievers. Christians also have been happy to use the Bible’s genocides as justification of their own, as in the slaughter of Native Americans by American colonists.

No just God would stand for what they did… and for what the do every single day?

Here, Barack Obama gets to the height of his religious absurdity. If no just god would stand for the violence of ISIS/ISIL, then how come Barack Obama’s god allows ISIL/ISIS to go on doing it, as Obama says, “every single day”? The god of Obama’s religion is supposed to be all-powerful, so that he could stop the violence at any time, if he wanted to.

Either Obama’s god is not really all powerful, or is not really just, or does not exist at all.

The motivation behind this part of Obama’s speech seems to be to discourage anti-Islamic hatred in the United States. That motivation is laudable, but the execution in sloppy, and thus undermines itself. There’s no need to assert historical and theological absurdities in order to urge a mood of toleration among members of different religions here in the United States.

All President Obama needed to say is that, although religious differences have led people in Iraq to hate each other violently, we don’t need to do the same, because here in the United States, all people are equal under the law, regardless of religion. We don’t have to promote ridiculous fantasies about the purity of religion in order to promote the idea that people should be free to practice it.

How To Protect Atheists And Christians Alike

What do you get when church and state are mixed?

You get things like the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Who could object to that?

Atheists could object, of course, but then, you know how atheists are, complaining all the time…

…when they get locked up behind bars.

This week, Saudi Arabia’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, a government body that seeks out religious heretics so that they may be punished, referred a list of atheist bloggers from Saudi Arabia to the Interior Ministry, so that the atheists could be hunted down by the police and thrown into prison. Human Rights Watch notes that the government of Saudi Arabia categorizes the promotion of atheist ideas as a form of terrorism.

We don’t arrest people for being atheist here in the United States, but there are many who wish to make Christianity an official state-sponsored religion. In Florida, the Brevard County Commission voted unanimously this week to exclude members of the Central Florida Freethought Community from ever giving an invocation before the Commission.

The Commission told the freethinkers that the purpose of invocation is “guidance for the County Commission from the highest spiritual authority”. Given that freethinkers are often atheists, and don’t acknowledge spiritual authority, they aren’t eligible to give an invocation. One of the commissioners, Andy Anderson, explained that only Christian prayers should be allowed before the Brevard County Commission, because Christianity is under attack… in Iraq.

Christians are under attack in Iraq, but not because of separation of church and state. Rather, attacks against Christians come from groups that seek to strengthen the incorporation of religion into government at all levels. The best way to protect Christians from attack is also the best way to protect atheists from attack – to honor the approach of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, ensuring that government neither sponsors religion nor opposes its free practice.

Despite the New York Times Column, Not Too Many People Actually Need Smith

Following the strategy of Americans Elect and Unity08, the mysterious media-fueled political enterprise called We Need Smith has started to cite well-placed columns by acquaintances as evidence that the nation is ready for an outside campaign for President and seats in Congress in 2016.

Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a column for the New York Times this week noting how poorly Republican politicians are evaluated on the basis of empathy and suggesting that to increase their empathy ratings they begin to depict themselves as non-partisan. We Need Smith quickly cited the column as a justification for its still-nebulous plans.

The reaction by actual people is muted to say the least. We Need Smith keeps a running tally of Americans who have signed up to receive its e-mail blasts. Despite national promotion, over the last week We Need Smith has added just 14 people to its listserv. 5 more people have followed its Facebook account. Over the same period, We Need Smith’s follower base on Twitter has fallen by 14. At this rate, We Need Smith won’t even have the population of a small town standing behind it before the 2016 elections wind down. To succeed, We Need Smith will either need to change its message or stop pretending to have a popular base.

Ancient Skepticism And The Snake God Glycon

Present-day skeptics are fond of presenting their kind of thinking as the latest thing, a relatively new invention that was developed only with the struggle and sacrifice of freethinkers and scientists during the Enlightenment. However, the writings of Lucian of Samosata, who lived in present-day Syria nearly two thousand years ago, show that the skill skeptical inquiry is quite ancient.

Lucian writes of the popular god Glycon, a god who was said to have descended from the heavens to take on the earthly form of a snake. That snake was held in the arms of Alexander of Abonoteichus, who was said to have discovered him. Upon hearing of the wonders of Glycon, who was said to have been able to heal the sick and raise the dead, Lucian went himself to see what it was all about.

glyconLucian claims to have uncovered proof that Glycon’s prophet Alexander created the whole religion out of thin air. According to Lucian, Alexander planted false evidence of a prophecy of Glycon, by, in a foreshadowing of the Mormon’s Joseph Smith, burying bronze tablets with cryptic writing, and then discovering them later.

The next step, according to Lucian, was to perform a similar false discovery with the incarnation of the god itself. Lucian writes that Alexander, “went one night to the temple foundations, still in the process of digging, and with standing water in them which had collected from the rainfall or otherwise; here he deposited a goose egg, into which, after blowing it, he had inserted some newborn reptile. He made a resting-place deep down in the mud for this, and departed. Early next morning he rushed into the marketplace, naked expect for a gold-spangled loincloth; with nothing but this and his scimitar, and shaking his long loose hair, like the fanatics who collect money in the name of Cybele, he climbed on to a lofty altar and delivered a harangue, felicitating the city upon the advent of the god now to bless them with his presence. In a few minutes nearly the whole population was on the spot, women, old men, and children included; all was awe, prayer, and adoration. He uttered some unintelligible sounds, which might have been Hebrew or Phoenician, but completed his victory over his audience, who could make nothing of what he said, beyond the constant repetition of the names Apollo and Asclepius.

He then set off at a run for the future temple. Arrived at the excavation and the already completed sacred fount, he got down into the water, chanted in a loud voice hymns to Asclepius and Apollo, and invited the god to come, a welcome guest, to the city. He next demanded a bowl, and when this was handed to him, had no difficulty in putting it down a the right place and scooping up, besides water and mud, the egg in which the god had been enclosed; the edges of the aperture had been joined with wax and white lead. He took the egg in his hand and announced that here he held Asclepius. The people, who had been sufficiently astonished by the discovery of the egg in the water, were now all eyes for what was to come. He broke it, and received in his hollowed palm the hardly developed reptile; the crowd could see it stirring and winding about his fingers; they raised a shout, hailed the god, blessed the city, and every mouth was full of prayers—for treasure and wealth and health and all the other good things that he might give.”

Quickly, devotees of the new religion, worshipping Glycon, gathered in the province of Bithynia-Pontus, on the south shore of the Black Sea. In time, however, Lucian says that people began to see through the flim flam of the snake god. So, the prophet Alexander resorted to a tactic well-known to many present day preachers: Focus believers on the danger of infidels in their midst. Lucian writes, “A time came when a number of sensible people began to shake off their intoxication and combine against him, chief among them the numerous Epicureans; in the cities, the imposture with all its theatrical accessories began to be seen through. It was now that he resorted to a measure of intimidation; he proclaimed that Pontus was overrun with atheists and Christians, who presumed to spread the most scandalous reports concerning him; he exhorted Pontus, as it valued the god’s favor, to stone these men.”

We can’t know whether Lucian’s depictions of the religion of Glycon’s many frauds are honest and accurate, because we don’t have any corroborating evidence. It’s possible that Lucian had an axe to grind with the growing power of Glycon’s followers, and made up his story much as he accuses Alexander of doing. What Lucian’s writings about Alexander and Glycon do prove, however, is that the ability to think critically about religious claims of fantastic events has been around for a very long time.