Showing newest 23 of 29 posts from December 2009. Show older posts
Showing newest 23 of 29 posts from December 2009. Show older posts
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Back In the Saddle Again
After a short (hiatus/sabbatical/vacation) from posting I found that somehow my account had gotten screwed up and I have had to re-post all of my old posts. I have kept the text of tehse old posts unchanged and re-posted them all today.
White Supremecist Shoots Two People At Holocaust Museum
Today, a white supremacist shot two people at the US Holocaust museum.
When the current administration came out with a report in April that said that right-wing extremist groups were a huge threat in our country, people like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News criticized it. Not one month later we have a dead women's health doctor and now an attack on the Holocaust museum with two people shot by white supremacist.
Are Rush and Fox and company going to change their tune? My guess is that they will continue to "denounce" the violence while still criticizing the apparently accurate and vindicated report. To clarify, the shooter is NOT a Christian and I don't mean to imply that he is. In fact, an online story seems to indicate that he is anti-christian so he may be an Odinist which seems to be, besides Christianity, the other major religion of white supremacists according to Wikipedia.
I only mean to vindicate the report and cast derision on Limbaugh and Fox, etc.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
When the current administration came out with a report in April that said that right-wing extremist groups were a huge threat in our country, people like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News criticized it. Not one month later we have a dead women's health doctor and now an attack on the Holocaust museum with two people shot by white supremacist.
Are Rush and Fox and company going to change their tune? My guess is that they will continue to "denounce" the violence while still criticizing the apparently accurate and vindicated report. To clarify, the shooter is NOT a Christian and I don't mean to imply that he is. In fact, an online story seems to indicate that he is anti-christian so he may be an Odinist which seems to be, besides Christianity, the other major religion of white supremacists according to Wikipedia.
I only mean to vindicate the report and cast derision on Limbaugh and Fox, etc.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Christians React to Murder of Doctor with Love
As everyone has likely heard by now, a doctor who performed abortions was murdered in his church. My first thought was, "Another example of how religion can make people do horrible things." I then realized that I did not have any evidence that the murderer was a religious person. I briefly scolded myself, but then realized that it speaks volumes in and of itself that my first thought turned to a Christian believer as the murderer.
My next thought, however, was "What do teh Christians" think of this? Well, I visited a few online forums for Christians and alot of the reaction was more horrifying than I imagined it would be. I have posted some likes at the bottom of this post, but here are the highlights:
"I do not support this, but I do understand this."
"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
"Is this a false report? Why would an abortionist go to church?"
"Whatever “church” Tiller attends must be worshipping satan."
"jury (of one) nullification"
"This is what happens when the United States Supreme Court, the legal system, and our elected officials, and even some religious institutions, have all been corrupted to the point that a man can profit so much from killing babies."
"Why is the death of a satanic worshipper tragic?"
"The real tragedy is the number lives he has taken. Not to mention the women who have had to live with what they have done to their babies."
"I hate that somebody shot him to death because it makes us all look like whackos. And for those who would tell me that the lives of others are more important that our image, please spare me. I already know that truth."
"Our cause is not helped by acting like a bunch of 3rd world muzzies. " (Emphasis mine)
"May he rot in hell alongside the mothers who aided him in his “business”."
"He reaped what he had sown: violent death."
"Reichstag Fire." (Implying that, like the famous fire that Hitler used to grab power, this was a conspiracy by the left to create a cause with which to grab more power.)
"Tiller has committed outrage after outrage and not only gotten away with it, he has made a fortune! Sooner or later this had to happen."
"The time for civility is quickly running out IMHO. In 10 years, we may wind up looking back at this moment as the first shot in the second American civil war."
"I’m sorry but I feel no sympathy at all. Absolutely none."
"We all need to be armed. I don’t want to think it, but I am worried that things will become so bad, this nation may be facing another revolution. All the signs point to the Kenyan communist, who is surrounded by America haters, being sent here to destroy this nation."
"But thanks for the admonishment to be polite, that's the main thing. Everyone knows their roles, don't rock the boat."
"Tiller Shot & Killed? Thousands of unborn children claim self defense."
"This is wrong if it was done by a pro-lifer. However, I find it very suspicious that one week after polling data shows Americans are more pro-life than ever before, this murder occurs." (wow)
"Was it one of BO’s storm troopers who pulled the trigger?" (I assume BO = Barrack Obama)
"If he had found Christ he would have retired."
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.—Matthew 26:52, King James Version"
"Could this be called ‘a very late term abortion’?"
And this was just within the first 100 posts out of over 1500 posts so far!
Sad.
Source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2261656/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
Another forum:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7371408/
UPDATE: Another forum with similar comments from Christian teens http://www.christianteenforums.com/Dr-George-Tiller-Murdere-t59554.html
ANOTHER UPDATE: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=605434
NOTE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
My next thought, however, was "What do teh Christians" think of this? Well, I visited a few online forums for Christians and alot of the reaction was more horrifying than I imagined it would be. I have posted some likes at the bottom of this post, but here are the highlights:
"I do not support this, but I do understand this."
"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
"Is this a false report? Why would an abortionist go to church?"
"Whatever “church” Tiller attends must be worshipping satan."
"jury (of one) nullification"
"This is what happens when the United States Supreme Court, the legal system, and our elected officials, and even some religious institutions, have all been corrupted to the point that a man can profit so much from killing babies."
"Why is the death of a satanic worshipper tragic?"
"The real tragedy is the number lives he has taken. Not to mention the women who have had to live with what they have done to their babies."
"I hate that somebody shot him to death because it makes us all look like whackos. And for those who would tell me that the lives of others are more important that our image, please spare me. I already know that truth."
"bush2 failed miserably with his "friendly tone" and I'm beginning to think we MUST bring a gun to a gun fight if we have any chance to win this battle against satan and his minions. ""Two thoughts beyond the ‘what right-wing nut thought that this was a good idea?’
1. Consider a leftwing assassin, along the lines of the black college student who defaces her own dorm or car with nooses so she can cry ‘racism.’
2. The theme of today’s Psalm was
R. Alleluia.
If you take away their breath, they perish
and return to their dust.
When you send forth your spirit, they are created,
and you renew the face of the earth.
R. Lord, send out your Spirit, and renew the face of the earth.Was this just some form of house/earth-cleaning?"
"Our cause is not helped by acting like a bunch of 3rd world muzzies. " (Emphasis mine)
"May he rot in hell alongside the mothers who aided him in his “business”."
"He reaped what he had sown: violent death."
"Reichstag Fire." (Implying that, like the famous fire that Hitler used to grab power, this was a conspiracy by the left to create a cause with which to grab more power.)
"Tiller has committed outrage after outrage and not only gotten away with it, he has made a fortune! Sooner or later this had to happen."
"The time for civility is quickly running out IMHO. In 10 years, we may wind up looking back at this moment as the first shot in the second American civil war."
"I’m sorry but I feel no sympathy at all. Absolutely none."
"We all need to be armed. I don’t want to think it, but I am worried that things will become so bad, this nation may be facing another revolution. All the signs point to the Kenyan communist, who is surrounded by America haters, being sent here to destroy this nation."
"But thanks for the admonishment to be polite, that's the main thing. Everyone knows their roles, don't rock the boat."
"Tiller Shot & Killed? Thousands of unborn children claim self defense."
"This is wrong if it was done by a pro-lifer. However, I find it very suspicious that one week after polling data shows Americans are more pro-life than ever before, this murder occurs." (wow)
"Was it one of BO’s storm troopers who pulled the trigger?" (I assume BO = Barrack Obama)
"If he had found Christ he would have retired."
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.—Matthew 26:52, King James Version"
"Could this be called ‘a very late term abortion’?"
And this was just within the first 100 posts out of over 1500 posts so far!
Sad.
Source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2261656/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
Another forum:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7371408/
UPDATE: Another forum with similar comments from Christian teens http://www.christianteenforums.com/Dr-George-Tiller-Murdere-t59554.html
ANOTHER UPDATE: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=605434
NOTE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Child Abuse, Torture, and Rape: All part of Faith-Based Initiatives
In a story reported widely today, the conclusions of Ireland's Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse were released. As could be expected, the level of child abuse, torture, and rape in Christian schools in Ireland was found to be astronomically high. The 2,600 page report found that,
As is typical, the religious institutions are in damage control mode. They are denying the reports and, at the same time, saying that the people who were responsible are long dead:
It is time that the concept of "faith-based initiatives" are attached to the negative connotation that they so obviously deserve.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
The report found that molestation and rape were "endemic" in boys' facilities, chiefly run by the Christian Brothers order, and supervisors pursued policies that increased the danger. Girls supervised by orders of nuns, chiefly the Sisters of Mercy, suffered much less sexual abuse but frequent assaults and humiliation designed to make them feel worthless.
"In some schools a high level of ritualized beating was routine. ... Girls were struck with implements designed to maximize pain and were struck on all parts of the body," the report said. "Personal and family denigration was widespread."
As is typical, the religious institutions are in damage control mode. They are denying the reports and, at the same time, saying that the people who were responsible are long dead:
"But most leaders of religious orders have rejected the allegations as exaggerations and lies, and testified to the commission that any abuses were the responsibility of often long-dead individuals."However, the 2,600 pages hits like a professional boxer. The conclusion is a firm rebuke of the Christians claims:
"A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys. Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from," the report concluded.I have said it before and I will say it again now. Religious institutions are continually given undeserved benefit of the doubt. From deference to religious schools to the concept of "faith-based initiatives" that politicians push upon us, they use their hypnotic spell that they have oh so many people under to grab power and money.
It is time that the concept of "faith-based initiatives" are attached to the negative connotation that they so obviously deserve.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
U.S, Military Infiltrated by Fundamentalists: Part II
In my previous story about Jeff Sharlet's piece for Harper's, I discussed how the fundies have stepped up their infiltration of the U.S. Military. Today, I saw a story on Gawker that showed the cover pages from Donald Rumsfeld's defense briefing presentations. You MUST take a look at these. Notice a pattern? Every one of them has a Bible quote on the cover. Samples include:
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
- Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps faith. Isaiah 26:2
- For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 1 Peter 2:15
- Their arrows are sharp, all their bows are strung; their horses' hoofs seem like flint, their chariot wheels like a whirlwind. Isaiah 5:28
- Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed. Proverbs 16:3
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
All Praise God's Plan and Free Will
WARNING: This story is about very disturbing events. Anyone who does not handle stories about children being abused by their parents well should avoid this! Scroll down for story.
In a story today, a local Bakersfield news station is reporting on a father who got high on PCP and ate the eyeballs out of his four year old son's eye sockets. Both eyes are reported to be damaged beyond repair. The son was found naked and bleeding by neighbors and could only say "Daddy ate my eyes."
I wept out loud upon reading this story. The absolute horror of this event is not in the physical attack itself, but the fact that it was a four-year-old's own father who did this. I was shaken to the core and it took me a long time to recover to the point that I could think about it. The first reaction I had when I could analyze it dispassionately was, "This type of thing happens all the time all over the world. Why do people still think 1) there is a god, and 2) she is worthy of worship?"
The inevitable answer from the Christians I speak with is "free will." This is, of course, total bullshit. For one thing, what happened to the boy's free will? I would assume that he wanted to avoid this. But more to the point, as I wrote yesterday, the pat answer of "free will" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Also as I discussed earlier, Nancy Grace was the first person to yell "There is a GOD" when a 4 year old girl was found soon after being abducted. Why doesn't she yell "Praise the Lord! More proof of God" when a boy has his eyeballs eaten out of his head by his own father? Even if she knows that this is evil behavior, she should still say "See? Look at the glory of free will that God chose to give us." As Rick Warren wrote in his best-selling The Purpose Driven Life:
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
In a story today, a local Bakersfield news station is reporting on a father who got high on PCP and ate the eyeballs out of his four year old son's eye sockets. Both eyes are reported to be damaged beyond repair. The son was found naked and bleeding by neighbors and could only say "Daddy ate my eyes."
I wept out loud upon reading this story. The absolute horror of this event is not in the physical attack itself, but the fact that it was a four-year-old's own father who did this. I was shaken to the core and it took me a long time to recover to the point that I could think about it. The first reaction I had when I could analyze it dispassionately was, "This type of thing happens all the time all over the world. Why do people still think 1) there is a god, and 2) she is worthy of worship?"
The inevitable answer from the Christians I speak with is "free will." This is, of course, total bullshit. For one thing, what happened to the boy's free will? I would assume that he wanted to avoid this. But more to the point, as I wrote yesterday, the pat answer of "free will" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Also as I discussed earlier, Nancy Grace was the first person to yell "There is a GOD" when a 4 year old girl was found soon after being abducted. Why doesn't she yell "Praise the Lord! More proof of God" when a boy has his eyeballs eaten out of his head by his own father? Even if she knows that this is evil behavior, she should still say "See? Look at the glory of free will that God chose to give us." As Rick Warren wrote in his best-selling The Purpose Driven Life:
Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]Does Rick hear of this boy and think, "Praise the Lord. His plan for this boy is glorious?" No. of course not. Nobody sane does. People who hear or see things like this and think that they are good are insane.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
"Free Will" And Other Pat Answers
The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliche. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. In thought reform, for instance, the phrase "bourgeois mentality" is used to encompass and critically dismiss ordinarily troublesome concerns like the quest for individual expression, the exploration of alternative ideas, and the search of perspective and balance ... (loaded language is) the "language of non-thought."
-- Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, by Robert Jay Lifton
This is so absolutely true. Orwell's 1984 dramatizes this issue very, very well. It got me thinking. Once I was talking to a theist friend and I mentioned to her that I was reading up on some theodicy issues and had found of of Bert Ehrman's books about the variety of ways that the bible attempts to explain suffering. After a brief discussion of the problem (e.g. Why is there evil? If God can stop it but won't then he is evil. If he would but can't then he is not worth worshiping.) After my 3 minute description of the PROBLEM of theodicy, he reply was "Original sin. Duh!"
Bam. Like that a 3,000 year old philisophical dillema is solved. I was truly amazed at the ability of such a short, pat answer to shut down my firend's critical thinking. (Note that when you tease out the logic of original sin, it doesn't even answer the question posed!)
How many of these simple phrase responses does the Christian faith use to continue the "language of non-thought" as Lifton puts it?
Here is a sock-puppet conversation I wrote to show what I mean. (T = Theist and A = Atheist).
T: I claim that there is an all loving and all knowing and all powerful God and he created the universe and designed it for his wonderful creation, humans.
A: If God loves humans so much why do all these bad things happen?
T: Free will.
A: Huh?
T: To make humans perfect, God had to give them free will. Otherwise they would just be robots. Since people have free will, they can choose to do evil.
A: So God is all powerful? He can do the impossible?
T: Yup!
A: Then why couldn't he create a universe and a set of logical rules so that people had free will but evil things couldn't or just didn't happen?
T: That's impossible. If humans have free will, then they can choose to do evil.
A: But you said god is all powerful. If he invented logic, couldn't he change logic so that free will and evil-free behavior was not impossible?
T: Uh.... He *could* do that since he can do anything, but he *chose* to give humans free will because free will is such a good thing.
A: So he could have given us BOTH free will and NO evil, but he chose to give us free will AND evil because that is better?
T: Uhm.... yeah.
A: How is that better?
T: ....
T: God works in mysterious ways.
A: Another question. Does God know what will happen in the future?
T: Yes, God is infinite. He knows everything that will ever happen. Ever. He is outside of time. Isn't that awesome?
A: So when he snapped his figurative fingers and made the universe, he knew EVERYTHING that would happen? He knows when everyone would be born, what they would do, and when and how they would die?
T: Yup. God has a plan for us all! Doesn't that make you feel all warm, safe, and snugly.
A: Maybe. Let me ask you this... If God knows everything I am going to do, doesn't that mean I *don't* have free will?
T: No. You have free will.
A: But if God knows what I am going to do, that means that when I come up to a decision point and I could do one out of a million things, God knows I will pick choice number 673, right?
T: Yup.
A: And there is no way I could do anything else other than pick choice 673, right? Because God is perfect and if he knew I would pick 673, then I can't NOT pick it, right?
T: Yeah.
A: So I do not have the free will to pick anything other than 673. That choice has already been made by future me. It is not something waiting to be done. Present me and pre-choice me has no free will.
T: No no no. You have free will. You can choose anything you want. God just knows what you will choose.
A: Well, seems logically unsound, but let's move on. Another question. We already said that God knew everything that was going to happen in all of time before he created the universe, right?
T: Yeah.
A: So when he created me, he knew that I would be atheistic. He knew I would use the senses he gave me and the rational mind he gave me and require the appropriate level of evidence before I would choose to believe certain claims. That was his plan for me.
T: Yup.
A: And yet he refuses to show me the evidence I require.
T: God can't reveal himself, because...
A: Yeah yeah. But this means that I won't accept Jesus as my personal savior and, as a result, I will go to hell for all eternity.
T: That's what I am trying to warn you about. I don't want you to go to hell!
A: So God KNEW that I would go to hell when he created me and he created me none the less? In fact, it was his "plan" that I should go to hell. He made billions of people knowing that he was dooming them to an eternity of suffering. How is that good and not utterly evil?
T: No, you have free will. You can choose to accept Jesus any time. You will go to hell because of YOUR choice, not because God choses to send you there.
A: But God knew I would go to hell even before he made me. He could have 1) chose not to make me, or 2) to make me in a way so that I wouldn't go to hell. But instead, he made me this way and I have no way to escape hell because he already knows that I am going there. I have no free will to do otherwise.
T: Uhm... God works in mysterious ways?
A: One final question. When I first asked about the existence of evil in the world, you responded "free will."
T: Yup. People must be allowed to choose to evil things to other people if they are to have free will.
A: Well, as I said, God could have made it not work that way, but we already went over that. What I want to know is: What about natural disasters?
T: What about them?
A: What about situations where the bad actor is not a person but a force of nature? For example, in 2004 a Tsunami in Southeast Asia killed 225,000 people. There was no free will involved with the Tsunami. The Tsunami didn't choose anything. Why did God let the tectonic plates shift and create an undersea quake that resulted in a wave that killed 225,000 people. And don't try and say that all of those people deserved to drown horrible deaths because they all had sinned because they all had the free will to choose to sin. Even if I were to agree with such a concept, tens of thousands of newly born infants drowned or slowly died of exposure or disease as a reusult of the devastation. Those newborns couldn't have had committed any sin yet! Why do those evil things happen? And you can't say free will!
T: ....
T: Original sin?
A: Sigh.
T: God is love?
A: Goodbye.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Cardinal: Atheists are Not "Fully Human"
In a story posted today on the Freethinker, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor is caught on video saying, "atheists are not fully human." I will keep this post short and sweet.
1) Dehumanization is widely recognized as one of the biggest tools in a regime's arsenal when trying to attack a group of people. (See: The Holocaust.)
2) What would have happened if the Cardinal said, "Muslims are not fully human?"
Where is the outrage?
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
1) Dehumanization is widely recognized as one of the biggest tools in a regime's arsenal when trying to attack a group of people. (See: The Holocaust.)
2) What would have happened if the Cardinal said, "Muslims are not fully human?"
Where is the outrage?
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Cat Stevens on Colbert Report
I just watched the episode of the Colbert Report with Cat Stevens as a guest. I must say that I was pretty disappointed at Colbert for not calling him out. I understand leaving the strange past out of the picture as long as Stevens doesn't make any contradictory claims, but when Stevens said something along the lines of "Islam is a religion of peace. The first thing you learn to say is Salaam which means peace. So when Muslims greet each other by saying 'Salaam' they are constantly greeting each other, saying 'Peace' 'Peace' 'Peace.'"
The obvious response should have been something like, "Oh. And how would you greet Salmon Rushdie? 'Peace. By the way, I said that you must die for a piece of fiction you wrote, but I meant it peacefully.' (Cite.)
Or 'How do you greet homosexuals? 'Peace. By the way I think you should be stoned to death. Oh and I also think that positive portrayals of homosexual people in schools is a result of school administrators accusing those who advocate such policies of wanting to "feast off the innocence of our children for their own abominable sexual appetites". (cite).
That Colbert did not call him on this makes me a little sad inside. I THOUGHT that as a comedian who had the balls to do what he did at the White House Press Corps dinner, and as an alum of The Daily Show, who will take on anything, he would have the balls to call him on it.
Oh well.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
The obvious response should have been something like, "Oh. And how would you greet Salmon Rushdie? 'Peace. By the way, I said that you must die for a piece of fiction you wrote, but I meant it peacefully.' (Cite.)
Or 'How do you greet homosexuals? 'Peace. By the way I think you should be stoned to death. Oh and I also think that positive portrayals of homosexual people in schools is a result of school administrators accusing those who advocate such policies of wanting to "feast off the innocence of our children for their own abominable sexual appetites". (cite).
That Colbert did not call him on this makes me a little sad inside. I THOUGHT that as a comedian who had the balls to do what he did at the White House Press Corps dinner, and as an alum of The Daily Show, who will take on anything, he would have the balls to call him on it.
Oh well.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Pro-Life Protesters at Notre Dame Are Hypocrites
As you may have heard, some of the pro-life crowd are protesting up a storm over Notre Dame's invitation for President Obama to speak at their commencement this month. They point to the fact that as the most prominent Catholic university in the nation, they should not allow someone who is pro choice to speak.
See here and here.
This got me thinking. Is it REALLY a motivation to hold life dear that these people are protesting over or is it merely a proxy issue to fight against a representative of a liberal party, one that is less tied to the conservative religious movements and their hate mongering?
I decided to do the job that the press SHOULD be doing and see if anyone who was pro death penalty had ever spoken at Notre Dame and what do you know? I only had to run one google query and found the following tidbits:
"President George W. Bush delivered his first presidential commencement address at Notre Dame in May 2001, declaring that the nation’s faith-based organizations were central to the war on poverty."
See here.
I haven't seen one member of the press point this out yet.
As you may know, W. executed 155 people while Governor of Texas. That is more than any other elected official in the history of the United States. Some of the people whom he had executed had questionable conviction records. Some were retarded. How is that for anti-life agenda, Catholics? George Bush executed retarded people. Where were you then?
(Side note: Guess who his staffer was who prepared biased summary memos for Bush to review during clemency hearings? Who authored memos that presented only the worst parts of the record and ignored all other evidence and mitigating circumstances? It was...wait for it... Alberto Gonzales. How was he rewarded for facilitating these executions, some of which put retarded men to death? He got to preside over the mass political firings of a large number of US Attorneys.)
Did throngs of pro life Catholic s rise up in protest? (The Catholic church is against capital punishment, by the way.) Did they bring little pictures of retarded men being executed like they brought of 10 week old fetuses being aborted? Of course not. Why? Because they knew that they were getting a president who would funnel tax payer money to churches, so they all just shut the hell up.
See here and also here.
Now, with a president who actually agrees with them on so many issues regarding social justice and societal well being is coming to speak, they bash him on his pro choice agenda, conveniently ignoring the fact that he wants to discourage abortions at every turn by providing sex education to avoid unwanted pregnancies, by encouraging adoption over abortion, and by encouraging people to abstain from sex until they know enough to know how to be sensible about it.
Pointing out that the loudest proclaimers of faith are often the biggest hypocrites is an age old task, but we should all keep doing it. Sooner or later enough people will wake up to the scam and put an end to it.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
See here and here.
This got me thinking. Is it REALLY a motivation to hold life dear that these people are protesting over or is it merely a proxy issue to fight against a representative of a liberal party, one that is less tied to the conservative religious movements and their hate mongering?
I decided to do the job that the press SHOULD be doing and see if anyone who was pro death penalty had ever spoken at Notre Dame and what do you know? I only had to run one google query and found the following tidbits:
"President George W. Bush delivered his first presidential commencement address at Notre Dame in May 2001, declaring that the nation’s faith-based organizations were central to the war on poverty."
See here.
I haven't seen one member of the press point this out yet.
As you may know, W. executed 155 people while Governor of Texas. That is more than any other elected official in the history of the United States. Some of the people whom he had executed had questionable conviction records. Some were retarded. How is that for anti-life agenda, Catholics? George Bush executed retarded people. Where were you then?
(Side note: Guess who his staffer was who prepared biased summary memos for Bush to review during clemency hearings? Who authored memos that presented only the worst parts of the record and ignored all other evidence and mitigating circumstances? It was...wait for it... Alberto Gonzales. How was he rewarded for facilitating these executions, some of which put retarded men to death? He got to preside over the mass political firings of a large number of US Attorneys.)
Did throngs of pro life Catholic s rise up in protest? (The Catholic church is against capital punishment, by the way.) Did they bring little pictures of retarded men being executed like they brought of 10 week old fetuses being aborted? Of course not. Why? Because they knew that they were getting a president who would funnel tax payer money to churches, so they all just shut the hell up.
See here and also here.
Now, with a president who actually agrees with them on so many issues regarding social justice and societal well being is coming to speak, they bash him on his pro choice agenda, conveniently ignoring the fact that he wants to discourage abortions at every turn by providing sex education to avoid unwanted pregnancies, by encouraging adoption over abortion, and by encouraging people to abstain from sex until they know enough to know how to be sensible about it.
Pointing out that the loudest proclaimers of faith are often the biggest hypocrites is an age old task, but we should all keep doing it. Sooner or later enough people will wake up to the scam and put an end to it.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Court Prevents Religious Child Abuse
In a story on MSNBC.COM today it was reported that a Minnesota District Court Judge has ruled that
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
[A] 13-year-old cancer patient whose parents want to treat him with “alternative medicine” must seek conventional medical treatment for their son.In a 58-page ruling Friday, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been “medically neglected” and is in need of child protection services.
I will give you all two guesses as to why the young boy's parents want to treat him with a methodology that has shown less than 5% survival rate instead of chemo which, in cases like his, show up to a 90% survival rate. Note: Your second guess doesn't count. That's right...religion.
The boy in question, Daniel, happens to have been born to parents that believe in natural remedies for religious purposes. In fact, his mother testified in court that, “My son is not in any medical danger at this point.” This was something that medical experts and the judge found to be absolutely wrong. She also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band. As such, she explained, Daniel was the one who refused treatment, not his parents, but that they (his parents) support his decision.
Let's take a step back for a second here. Two parents have convinced a boy that he is a "medicine man" and and "elder" of their group of believers. They then claim that he made the decision to refuse chemo on his own. How disingenuous can you be? They fail to recognize that by brainwashing their children (yes, they have six) they have removed the ability of tier children to make any informed decision of their own free will. In fact, the court found that the boy... excuse me..."medicine man" ... didn't even know what what wrong with him. From the story:
The judge wrote that Daniel has only a “rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."
There are many atheists who are starting to describe the raising children to believe things that are in direct contradiction to science as child abuse. This is obviously a shocking concept to most people who have never thought about it, but cases such as this really bring it home. This is child abuse pure and simple. Did the court remove Daniel and his siblings form the home of these abusive parents? Of course not. It merely ordered new treatment which the boy may, in the end, refuse. Why do we let children stay with parents like this?
I am so tempted to give up sometimes.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
If Hell Exists, then I will Meet Nancy Grace There!
Today , CNN.com posted a video. It is a Nancy Grace report on about how a 4 year old girl was abducted out of her own front yard by a carnival worker who had been targeting her. The 23 year old man drove up and chased the 4 year old and beat her 12 year old sister so he could snatch the little girl. Well, it seems that because the 12 year old sister gave such a good description of the man and his car, and because he was a known (or maybe suspected) predator, the police found him and rescued the 4 year old girl, unharmed. This is truly an exceptional event. It reminds of the following statistics:
Well, what do you think Nancy said in her report when one of these 12,000 kids was rescued? She started her report by saying "Well....THERE IS A GOD!"
What? There is a God?!?! I guess all of the thousands of little girls and boys who are abducted EVERY YEAR and are never heard of again (probably raped for a long time and then have their heads cut off and tossed in a ditch) had it coming in God's eyes, huh Nancy?
This type of crime is the absolute WORST thing that humans can do to one another. It makes even the stoutest opponent of capital punishment quiver with internal conflict. To point to one girl who survived as evidence of a god is to ignore the 1,00s of others who are raped and killed every year. "But God has a plan" I hear the religious saying. That's right. God has a plan. As Rick Warren, author of the hugely popular A Purpose Driven Life, writes in chapter 2:
Nancy Grace knows this yet she just wants to make money by exploiting tales of horror regarding lost children. Millions of people in her audience are religious and don't want to hear discussions such as these so she just points to the one child who WASN'T raped and murdered and claims "See? God exists!"
Shame on her.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
- ~800,000 children go missing every year in the US ALONE
- While ~350,000 of them are found and had a "benign" explanation for why they were missing, that still leaves ~450,000 EACH YEAR that are more serious situations
- ~350,000 of those are classified as "runaways/thrownaways," ~55,000 are clasified as "family abduction," and ~62,000 are "missing involuntary, lost, or injured"
- That leaves about 12,000 that are "non-family abductions" each and every year. Think about that: 33 kids are abducted by a non family member each and every day. EVERY DAY! And that is in the U.S. alone.
Well, what do you think Nancy said in her report when one of these 12,000 kids was rescued? She started her report by saying "Well....THERE IS A GOD!"
What? There is a God?!?! I guess all of the thousands of little girls and boys who are abducted EVERY YEAR and are never heard of again (probably raped for a long time and then have their heads cut off and tossed in a ditch) had it coming in God's eyes, huh Nancy?
This type of crime is the absolute WORST thing that humans can do to one another. It makes even the stoutest opponent of capital punishment quiver with internal conflict. To point to one girl who survived as evidence of a god is to ignore the 1,00s of others who are raped and killed every year. "But God has a plan" I hear the religious saying. That's right. God has a plan. As Rick Warren, author of the hugely popular A Purpose Driven Life, writes in chapter 2:
Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]Ignoring the obvious issues with this (e.g. God planned every abortion...ever, it denies free will, etc.) why doesn't this make people who hear about a child being abducted and raped and murdered say to themselves, "Hallelujah! Witness God's glorious plan!" Why? I will tell you why: Because they want to give credit to God for the good things that happen and yet they do not want to credit him for all of the horrific things that happen. If they did, they would start to 1) doubt that there is a god, or 2) even if there IS a god, doubt that that he is all loving and/or all powerful.
Nancy Grace knows this yet she just wants to make money by exploiting tales of horror regarding lost children. Millions of people in her audience are religious and don't want to hear discussions such as these so she just points to the one child who WASN'T raped and murdered and claims "See? God exists!"
Shame on her.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Hypothesis: Satan Wrote The Bible
This question always seems to stump the theists I speak with so I thought I would toss it up here for the record:
How do the Christians know that Satan did not write the bible? Of course by "Satan" I am thinking of a Satan analog. Some malevolent being that intends to do harm to humanity without just wiping them out in one blow. I have to phrase the question the way I do because it seems to be the only way theists can understand what I am saying. Phrasing it this way usually brings up other problems with theists, but I explains those later in my discussions with them.
Back to my hypothesis. For example, the official explanation for why there are so many dieties that predate Jesus that have so many similar elements (healing the sick, walking on water, born of a virgin, bron on Dec 25, was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, etc.) is that Satan KNEW that Jesus was coming so he created all of these prior false deities in order to deceive humanity.
If what the church says in this area is true, how do they know that the Bible is not just another deception?
I usually have to point out to thiests that "You obviously can't use the text of the Bible to figure this one out, so please don't bother quoting it. We need some external measurements/logic to figure this one out!" That tends to shut down the discussion, however, since they don't have anything external to the Bible to use in their arguments. So I have recently left that part out of my hypothesis and let them start quoting the bible and I note that my hypothesis means that we can't trust the passage they just quoted.
Eventually they hit upon the following idea:
This is where it gets interesting. The evidence seems to support my hypothesis that fostering a false belief in Jesus as a god has been one of the best ways a malicious and powerful being could sow as much havok upon humanity as possible, with very little effort. How many bad things have happend in human history due to belief is Satan's book? The Dark Ages *ALONE* were "600 years of degenerate, inhuman behavior."1 Point to a better example of a single writing that has inflicted more death, more destruction, a greater sense ill-will to others, a greater sense of unworthiness, guilt, and self-disgust. This evidence seems to support my hypothesis.
That this was done by writing about the apparently wonderfully peaceful and kind and loving Jesus Christ is all the more sinister and diabolical. As they say about Satan, he will not come to you as an evil deamon, but as someone who seems to have the best intentions.
So, I ask you all, "Did Satan Write The Bible?"
1 The Dark Ages from the History Channel. I am not going into a discussion of all of the attrocities done in the name of the bible. They seem fairly well documented.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
How do the Christians know that Satan did not write the bible? Of course by "Satan" I am thinking of a Satan analog. Some malevolent being that intends to do harm to humanity without just wiping them out in one blow. I have to phrase the question the way I do because it seems to be the only way theists can understand what I am saying. Phrasing it this way usually brings up other problems with theists, but I explains those later in my discussions with them.
Back to my hypothesis. For example, the official explanation for why there are so many dieties that predate Jesus that have so many similar elements (healing the sick, walking on water, born of a virgin, bron on Dec 25, was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, etc.) is that Satan KNEW that Jesus was coming so he created all of these prior false deities in order to deceive humanity.
If what the church says in this area is true, how do they know that the Bible is not just another deception?
I usually have to point out to thiests that "You obviously can't use the text of the Bible to figure this one out, so please don't bother quoting it. We need some external measurements/logic to figure this one out!" That tends to shut down the discussion, however, since they don't have anything external to the Bible to use in their arguments. So I have recently left that part out of my hypothesis and let them start quoting the bible and I note that my hypothesis means that we can't trust the passage they just quoted.
Eventually they hit upon the following idea:
Satan would not be helping himself any if he was behind all that was written about Christ. It makes people hate Satan.
This is where it gets interesting. The evidence seems to support my hypothesis that fostering a false belief in Jesus as a god has been one of the best ways a malicious and powerful being could sow as much havok upon humanity as possible, with very little effort. How many bad things have happend in human history due to belief is Satan's book? The Dark Ages *ALONE* were "600 years of degenerate, inhuman behavior."1 Point to a better example of a single writing that has inflicted more death, more destruction, a greater sense ill-will to others, a greater sense of unworthiness, guilt, and self-disgust. This evidence seems to support my hypothesis.
That this was done by writing about the apparently wonderfully peaceful and kind and loving Jesus Christ is all the more sinister and diabolical. As they say about Satan, he will not come to you as an evil deamon, but as someone who seems to have the best intentions.
So, I ask you all, "Did Satan Write The Bible?"
1 The Dark Ages from the History Channel. I am not going into a discussion of all of the attrocities done in the name of the bible. They seem fairly well documented.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
U.S. Military Infiltrated By Fundamentalists
This month's Harper's Magazine's cover story is entitled "Jesus killed Mohammed:
The crusade for a Christian military." The story is only available in the print edition right now, but I STRONGLY encourage everyone to go get a copy and read it. The story contains story after story of how the fundamentalist Christians are trying to take over the U.S. military y using it as a platform to convert soldiers who are, legally, captive audiences. Even I, a skeptical atheist, was SHOCKED at the level of Christian fanaticism documented to be present throughout our military. This is an issue of great concern to all of us. Throughout history, one of the ways that countries have fallen has been via a infiltration of the military by fanatical elements and a subsequent coup. Before reading all of these well-documented accounts I would have dismissed such fears as hysterical. I don't think that any more.
Please read this story as soon as you can and write your representative and senator about this very important issue.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
The crusade for a Christian military." The story is only available in the print edition right now, but I STRONGLY encourage everyone to go get a copy and read it. The story contains story after story of how the fundamentalist Christians are trying to take over the U.S. military y using it as a platform to convert soldiers who are, legally, captive audiences. Even I, a skeptical atheist, was SHOCKED at the level of Christian fanaticism documented to be present throughout our military. This is an issue of great concern to all of us. Throughout history, one of the ways that countries have fallen has been via a infiltration of the military by fanatical elements and a subsequent coup. Before reading all of these well-documented accounts I would have dismissed such fears as hysterical. I don't think that any more.
Please read this story as soon as you can and write your representative and senator about this very important issue.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
How low will you go for votes?
On today's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Mr. Matthews interviewed Mike Pence, (R) Indiana and Chairman of the House Republican Conference. During the interview, Rep. Pence asserted that Republicans were passionate about many things such as climate change legislation. Raising a skeptical eyebrow, Mr. Matthews asked Rep. Pence if he believed in the theory of evolution. Watching Rep. Pence squirm is precious. Chris keeps up the heat and you can see the calculus going on in Rep. Pence's mind...
"I know that evolution is supported by practically every school of science known to man. However, if I say I believe in this theory which I know to be true, my ignorant fundamentalist constituents will hang me out to dry."
He tries and tries to give an obsequious answer but Mr. Matthews keeps the heat turned up. In the end, Mr. Matthews even calls him on it. He literally says that he thinks that Spence is doing the calculus I just cited. Precious!
When will our leaders be allowed to use science even if it disagrees with their constituent's fairy tales?
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
"I know that evolution is supported by practically every school of science known to man. However, if I say I believe in this theory which I know to be true, my ignorant fundamentalist constituents will hang me out to dry."
He tries and tries to give an obsequious answer but Mr. Matthews keeps the heat turned up. In the end, Mr. Matthews even calls him on it. He literally says that he thinks that Spence is doing the calculus I just cited. Precious!
When will our leaders be allowed to use science even if it disagrees with their constituent's fairy tales?
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Trial by Scripture
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to grant certiorari on Oliver v. Quarterman.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff, Oliver, had been convicted in Texas (still not Texsylvania, but getting closer!) of capital murder. After his conviction, the jury sentenced him to death. The appellate court writes:
When he appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that court held that, "While there was testimony that at least one Bible was brought to the jury room and some passages were read by a few jurors, every juror who testified stated that neither the Court nor another juror claimed that the Bible should be considered as law or evidence in the case.”
On appeal to the Federal District court, Oliver found new evidence:
In the opinion up for certiorari yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cites cases from multiple sister circuits that all essentially found the same as the Fifth Circuit which was that "The jury’s use of the Bible during the sentencing phase of Oliver’s trial amounted to an improper external influence on the jury’s deliberations. However, Oliver has failed to rebut the state court’s factual finding that the Bible did not prejudice the jury’s decision."
The Supreme Court of the United States decided yesterday NOT to review this case by denying certiorari.
ANALYSIS
While I don't want to encourage a public policy the promotes reviewing the internal workings of the jury room after every trial - which would cause 1,000's of "mini-trials" about jury behavior after every trial which, in turn, would cause lots or problems such as further fear of reasonable people to be jurors and massive costs for the smallest trial - I find the courts' reasoning in this and the cited cases to be faulty. All of the courts in this case and the cited cases find that use of the Bible during sentencing is improper. With that, I agree entirely. However, they then find it to essentially be harmless error because the trial courts found that the Bible did not "prejudice the jury's decision."
WHAT? In this and other cases, people brought the Bible into the room, looked up passages DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT HAND and read those passages out loud to the jury. One guy in a cited case even studied the Bible at home and made a "pro-killing-the-defendant vs. anti-killing-the-defendant" checklist of passages he found and brought that list into the jury room and shared it. In this case, the passage most cited by the jury members was Numbers 35:16: "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death." The courts characterize all of this as analogous to a situation where a juror quotes folklore or common sayings from memory. It is a part of life and and part of common wisdom, they observe.
There are so many things wrong here I don't know where to begin.
First, if these passages are a part of common wisdom, then why do people have to search high and low through the book to find applicable passages? Answer: Because these passages are NOT as common as folklore and "sayings." These are much more obscure and have to be sought out. What IS part of common folklore is the concept that the Bible is the highest law of God. That's it. While there are surely SOME passages that are part of common folklore (e.g. The ever-misunderstood 'cast the first stone' story, etc) the fact that in every case the jurors "searched" the Bible for applicable passages shows us that the quoted passages themselves are NOT part of 'common wisdom.' The Christian thinks, "I know that the Bible is God's law. I don't know off of the top of my head what it says about this so I better look it up and do whatever it says [even if I find something that is out-dated, out of context, against the laws of the U.S., or even immoral.]" To think that the jurors were not seeking out instructions on what to do in such cases (i.e. seeking to 'prejudice' themselves by finding instructions from a source external to the legal proceedings before them) is foolish and insluting to our intelligence.
Second, as I said, the Bible is, first and foremost, a set of LAWS - especially the Old Testament. People treat the rules laid out in the Bible with reverence that is MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than little sayings like "A stitch in time saves nine" and the like. To put them on the same level is ludicrous.
Third, since the Bible is a set of LAWS, how would the courts feel is instead of the Bible, the jury had pulled out the code of laws of a foreign country, say....Iran, and analyzed those laws prior to deciding which penalty to administer? Seriously, imagine it. The jurors pull out the Iranian Code, look up a bunch of rules about what to do when a person kills another with an "iron implement" (all of which say that he should be executed), read these Iranian laws aloud to each other and pass the Iranian law books around pointing to the passages in question, and then sentence the man to death. I strongly suspect we would have a different opinion today if those were the facts.
Fourth, ... NUMBERS? You used NUMBERS? What happened to the majority of the New Testament? (Not that the NT is all love and peace, but that is another story.) Why is it that when the death penalty and welfare are up for discussion, the Christians reach for the Old Testament and when they want to feel good about how nice they are to each other they reach for the New Testament? Isn't it odd that when we atheists argue that God is a vicious maniac who murdered AT LEAST 30,000,000 people in the Bible including tens of thousands of completely innocent infants, the Christians say "Bah. That's the OLD Testament! We live under a New Covenant now!" But when they want to string up a criminal, they dive right on into the Old Testament?
Fifth, why did they choose the ONE passage that matches EXACTLY the fact pattern of this case? "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death." Why not any of the other of the 774,746 total words in the Bible. Why these? Give up? They were seeking guidance on what to do with this specific fact pattern. Not a fact pattern about adultery or spilling your seed on the floor or children who talk back to their parents. Not even fact patterns from Numbers that talk about killing people with wood or with their hands or a number of other ways. They specifically used the one about an instrument of iron used to kill someone. To pretend that they were not prejudiced byb the law they found in the Bible that fits the fact pattern of the crime is to stick our heads in the sand.
Sixth, why did the Jurors not immediately kill the criminal themselves? Just 3 lines down from the verse they cited so often, the Bible very clearly instructs them to kill the murder on sight. It clearly tells us that "the revenger of blood" must murder the murderer just as soon as he sees him. (35:19 "The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him." 35:21 "Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.") Again, why use the verse that is 3 above that one to kill him yet ignore the verses that tell you to do it yourself? Who else by the jury is the "revenger of blood?" The answer, of course, is that the Christians are using morality from other places in the Bible and mostly found OUTSIDE the Bible to decide to ignore those passages that they find imorral or unpleseant. That they find this OK when dealing with the life and death of a fellow human is staggering. The hypocrisy and blindness to logic continues to astound.
Finally, have you SEEN what ELSE Numbers tells us to do in the realm of justice? Here are just a few rules and quotes from Numbers related to justice (note the total LACK of justice) and compassion for criminals:
(List taken from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com and cited appropriately.)
Don't get me wrong. Criminals should be punished. I would ock this criminal up for the rest of his life without any possibility for parole. he should die in jail. I personally have been against the death penalty sinnce I was young, mostly because 1) too many mistakes can be made (as we are now finding out more and more with the thousands of DNA cases resulting in the release of wrongly convicted people) and 2) I don't want to live in a society where blood lust rules the day. I am constaly shocked that Christians and I do not agree on this issue, but that's faith-based logic for you!
As for this line of cases, it is a travesty that the courts shut their eyes to this and pretend that "the jury was not prejudiced by the Bible that was an improper influence upon them." It makes them look like the trial in Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first. Verdict later."
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff, Oliver, had been convicted in Texas (still not Texsylvania, but getting closer!) of capital murder. After his conviction, the jury sentenced him to death. The appellate court writes:
"[Juror] Kenneth McHaney stated that during the jury’s deliberations, one juror, Kenneth Grace, read the Bible aloud to a small group of jurors in the corner of the jury room. McHaney also testified that fellow juror Donna Matheny mentioned to him that the Bible contained a passage discussing who is a murderer and who should be put to death, and that he asked Matheny if he could read her Bible, which Matheny had highlighted. McHaney recalled reading verses pertaining to the importance of obeying the law of the land, the commandment that “thou shalt not kill,” and the passage Matheny pointed out that discussed who is a murderer and who deserves a death sentence. In particular, he recalled reading a passage that says that if a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, then he is a murderer and should be put to death. McHaney also witnessed juror Rhonda Robinson reading the same passage from the Bible. McHaney believed that there were approximately four Bibles in the jury room, but he could not recall the exact number. He said that many jurors had Bibles with them because they went to church or Bible study at night.Oliver argued that his sixth and eighth amendment rights were violated by all of this consideration of the Bible during the sentencing deliberations. When he complained about this to the trial court, the trial court decided that, "a conscientious, dedicated and carrying [sic] jury considered this case in accord with the Court’s Charge and the instructions of the Court and rendered their verdict in accord with the evidence they heard in this case uninfluenced by any outside influence of any kind shown to the Court in this hearing.”
Juror Maxine Symmank stated that she read the Bible to herself while in the jury room and that there was another male juror who read the Bible aloud to a small group of jurors at one end of the table. Symmank could not recall exactly when she read the Bible, although she believed it was after the jury made its punishment determination while the jurors waited for the court to reconvene. She admitted, however, that it is possible that she also read the Bible during earlier parts of the proceedings. Symmank recalled reading the same passage that McHaney had consulted from the Book of Numbers: “And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.” Symmank had decided to read this passage after a fellow juror opened the Bible to that page. Symmank confirmed, however, that no juror explicitly stated that the jury should use the Bible as evidence in its deliberations.
Rodney Rodrigues corroborated the testimony of the previous two jurors that at least one juror read Biblical passages aloud to a small group of jurors at some point during the deliberations. He testified that he did not read the Bible, but that some of his fellow jurors did. He did not know which passages the other jurors read. Finally, Glenda Webb recalled seeing more than one Bible in the jury room, but she stated that the Bible was not a focus of the jury’s discussions. She recalled that some jurors consulted the Bible after they had made their decision on the appropriate punishment."
When he appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that court held that, "While there was testimony that at least one Bible was brought to the jury room and some passages were read by a few jurors, every juror who testified stated that neither the Court nor another juror claimed that the Bible should be considered as law or evidence in the case.”
On appeal to the Federal District court, Oliver found new evidence:
"He alleged that juror Michael Brenneisen, who did not testify at the state court hearing, told foreign journalist Egon Clausen in an interview that the jurors discussed the Bible in depth before they rendered their decision during the punishment phase of the trial. Brenneisen told Clausen that he used the Bible during the punishment phase to ensure he was reaching the correct decision. Specifically, Brenneisen remembered asking himself, “is this the way the Lord would decide the case?” He also stated that the jury used the Bible “to lend support for or against the judgment call.” He noted that the jury “went both directions in our use of the scripture—forgiveness and judgment.” He acknowledged that the jury referred to specific passages in the Bible during its discussions, opening the Bible to various passages and reading them word-for-word. He also told Clausen that his personal belief is that if civil law and Biblical law conflict, then the Biblical law is paramount."The district court denied Oliver’s habeas petition.
In the opinion up for certiorari yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cites cases from multiple sister circuits that all essentially found the same as the Fifth Circuit which was that "The jury’s use of the Bible during the sentencing phase of Oliver’s trial amounted to an improper external influence on the jury’s deliberations. However, Oliver has failed to rebut the state court’s factual finding that the Bible did not prejudice the jury’s decision."
The Supreme Court of the United States decided yesterday NOT to review this case by denying certiorari.
ANALYSIS
While I don't want to encourage a public policy the promotes reviewing the internal workings of the jury room after every trial - which would cause 1,000's of "mini-trials" about jury behavior after every trial which, in turn, would cause lots or problems such as further fear of reasonable people to be jurors and massive costs for the smallest trial - I find the courts' reasoning in this and the cited cases to be faulty. All of the courts in this case and the cited cases find that use of the Bible during sentencing is improper. With that, I agree entirely. However, they then find it to essentially be harmless error because the trial courts found that the Bible did not "prejudice the jury's decision."
WHAT? In this and other cases, people brought the Bible into the room, looked up passages DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT HAND and read those passages out loud to the jury. One guy in a cited case even studied the Bible at home and made a "pro-killing-the-defendant vs. anti-killing-the-defendant" checklist of passages he found and brought that list into the jury room and shared it. In this case, the passage most cited by the jury members was Numbers 35:16: "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death." The courts characterize all of this as analogous to a situation where a juror quotes folklore or common sayings from memory. It is a part of life and and part of common wisdom, they observe.
There are so many things wrong here I don't know where to begin.
First, if these passages are a part of common wisdom, then why do people have to search high and low through the book to find applicable passages? Answer: Because these passages are NOT as common as folklore and "sayings." These are much more obscure and have to be sought out. What IS part of common folklore is the concept that the Bible is the highest law of God. That's it. While there are surely SOME passages that are part of common folklore (e.g. The ever-misunderstood 'cast the first stone' story, etc) the fact that in every case the jurors "searched" the Bible for applicable passages shows us that the quoted passages themselves are NOT part of 'common wisdom.' The Christian thinks, "I know that the Bible is God's law. I don't know off of the top of my head what it says about this so I better look it up and do whatever it says [even if I find something that is out-dated, out of context, against the laws of the U.S., or even immoral.]" To think that the jurors were not seeking out instructions on what to do in such cases (i.e. seeking to 'prejudice' themselves by finding instructions from a source external to the legal proceedings before them) is foolish and insluting to our intelligence.
Second, as I said, the Bible is, first and foremost, a set of LAWS - especially the Old Testament. People treat the rules laid out in the Bible with reverence that is MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than little sayings like "A stitch in time saves nine" and the like. To put them on the same level is ludicrous.
Third, since the Bible is a set of LAWS, how would the courts feel is instead of the Bible, the jury had pulled out the code of laws of a foreign country, say....Iran, and analyzed those laws prior to deciding which penalty to administer? Seriously, imagine it. The jurors pull out the Iranian Code, look up a bunch of rules about what to do when a person kills another with an "iron implement" (all of which say that he should be executed), read these Iranian laws aloud to each other and pass the Iranian law books around pointing to the passages in question, and then sentence the man to death. I strongly suspect we would have a different opinion today if those were the facts.
Fourth, ... NUMBERS? You used NUMBERS? What happened to the majority of the New Testament? (Not that the NT is all love and peace, but that is another story.) Why is it that when the death penalty and welfare are up for discussion, the Christians reach for the Old Testament and when they want to feel good about how nice they are to each other they reach for the New Testament? Isn't it odd that when we atheists argue that God is a vicious maniac who murdered AT LEAST 30,000,000 people in the Bible including tens of thousands of completely innocent infants, the Christians say "Bah. That's the OLD Testament! We live under a New Covenant now!" But when they want to string up a criminal, they dive right on into the Old Testament?
Fifth, why did they choose the ONE passage that matches EXACTLY the fact pattern of this case? "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death." Why not any of the other of the 774,746 total words in the Bible. Why these? Give up? They were seeking guidance on what to do with this specific fact pattern. Not a fact pattern about adultery or spilling your seed on the floor or children who talk back to their parents. Not even fact patterns from Numbers that talk about killing people with wood or with their hands or a number of other ways. They specifically used the one about an instrument of iron used to kill someone. To pretend that they were not prejudiced byb the law they found in the Bible that fits the fact pattern of the crime is to stick our heads in the sand.
Sixth, why did the Jurors not immediately kill the criminal themselves? Just 3 lines down from the verse they cited so often, the Bible very clearly instructs them to kill the murder on sight. It clearly tells us that "the revenger of blood" must murder the murderer just as soon as he sees him. (35:19 "The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him." 35:21 "Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.") Again, why use the verse that is 3 above that one to kill him yet ignore the verses that tell you to do it yourself? Who else by the jury is the "revenger of blood?" The answer, of course, is that the Christians are using morality from other places in the Bible and mostly found OUTSIDE the Bible to decide to ignore those passages that they find imorral or unpleseant. That they find this OK when dealing with the life and death of a fellow human is staggering. The hypocrisy and blindness to logic continues to astound.
Finally, have you SEEN what ELSE Numbers tells us to do in the realm of justice? Here are just a few rules and quotes from Numbers related to justice (note the total LACK of justice) and compassion for criminals:
(List taken from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com and cited appropriately.)
- God shows his hospitality with the admonition: "The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." 1:51, 3:10, 3:38
- Two of Aaron's sons are killed by God for "offering strange fire before the Lord." 3:4
- Don't touch or "go in to see when the holy things are covered." God kills people who touch or look at covered holy things. 4:15, 20
- God tells the people to expel from camp "every leper, every one that hath an issue, and whoever is defiled by the dead." So by God's instructions, the sick are abandoned and left to suffer and die alone. 5:1-4
- The Law of Jealousies. If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, he reports it to the priest. The priest then makes her drink some "bitter water." If she is guilty, the water makes her thigh rot and her belly swell. If innocent, no harm done -- the woman is free and will "conceive seed." In any case, "the man shall be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity." 5:11-31
- If you don't keep the Passover you'll be "cut off" from your people. 9:13
- "And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it." (He had his hearing aid on.) He then burned the complainers alive. That'll teach them. 11:1
- God promises to give them "flesh to eat," not for just a few days, but "for a whole month, until it come out of your nostrils, and it be loathsome to you." Yuck. 11:20
- "And while the flesh [of the quails] was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague. "The Bible isn't too clear about what these poor folks did to upset God so much; all it says is that they had "lusted." 11:33
- Miriam and Aaron (Moses' brother and sister) criticize Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman and thus breaking the law of God. But God makes it clear that his rules don't apply to his favorites, and he strikes Miriam with leprosy. Notice that only Miriam is punished, though both she and Aaron complained. 12:1, 9-10
- More plagues and pestilence sent by God. God repeats one of his favorite promises: "your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness." 14:12, 29, 14:32-37
- God punishes the children for the failings of their great-great grandfathers. 14:18
- God killed those that murmured against him with a plague. 14:36-37
- "If any soul sin through ignorance ..." but how can someone sin through ignorance? Don't you have to know that an action is wrong for it to be sinful? Oh well, if you do happen to sin through ignorance, you can be forgiven by God if you kill some animals. 15:27-30
- The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. 15:32-36
- Because of a dispute between Korah and Moses, God has the ground open up and swallow Korah, Dathan, and Abiram "and their wives, and their sons, and their little children." Then, just for the hell of it, God has a fire burn to death 250 "men that offered incense." 16:20-35
- After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700." 16:41-50
- God threatens to kill those who murmur. To which the people reply, "Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish .... Shall we be consumed with dying?" 17:12-13
- Stay away from holy things and places -- like churches. God might have to kill you if you get too close.18:3, 22, 32
- God shows us how to make new friends by saying : "The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." 18:7
- God describes once again the procedure for ritualistic animal sacrifices. such rituals must be extremely important to God, since he makes their performance a "statute" and "covenant" forever. 18:17-19
- The purification of the unclean. These absurd rituals, cruel sacrifices, and unjust punishments are vitally important to God. They are to be "a perpetual statute" for all humankind. 19:1-22
- Moses is punished for hitting the rock with his staff (like he did before in Ex.17:6) to get water, rather than just speaking to the rock (as God asked him to do this time). For messing up the magic trick, Moses will never get to the promised land. 20:8-12
- "And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities." This verse demonstrates the power of prayer: If you ask God, he will destroy entire cities for you. 21:3
- God sends "fiery serpents" to bite his chosen people, and many of them die. 21:6
- God delivers the Amorites into Moses' hands. (You're in God hands with Moses.) So Moses does the usual thing, killing everyone "until their was none left alive." 21:34-35
- God says to Balaam, "If men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them." Men come, and Balaam goes with them, just as God had commanded." And God's anger was kindled because he went" -- but he was just following God's instructions! 22:20-22
- After the people "commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab," Moses has them all killed. Then God tells Moses to hang their dead bodies up in front of him; God says that this will satisfy him. 25:1-5
- When one of the Israelite men brings home a foreign woman, "Phinehas (Aaron's grandson) sees them and throws a spear "through the man .. and the woman through her belly." This act pleases God so much that "the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." But not before 24,000 had died. 25:6-9
- For impaling the interracial couple, God rewards Phinehas and his sons with the everlasting priesthood. 25:10-13
- God tells Moses how to care for his neighbors by saying: "Vex the Midianites, and smite them." 25:16-17
- The ground swallow Korah and his companions and a fire consumes 250 men. 26:10
- "And Nadab and Abihu died when they offered strange fire before the Lord." When you go camping avoid making any unusual fires. 26:61
- Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins.) 31:1-54
- God killed all the Egyptian firstborn. 33:4
- God tells Moses to exterminate the residents of Canaan and destroy all of their religious symbols and possessions. 33:50-52
- But if the Israelites don't kill them all, then God will make them pricks in their eyes and thorns in their sides. And he will do unto the Israelites as he planned to do to the inhabitants of Canaan. 33:55-56
- "The revenger of blood" must murder the murderer just as soon as he sees him. 35:19, 21
- When a murder is committed the blood pollutes the land. The only way to cleanse it is to spill more blood by killing the killer. 35:30, 33
Don't get me wrong. Criminals should be punished. I would ock this criminal up for the rest of his life without any possibility for parole. he should die in jail. I personally have been against the death penalty sinnce I was young, mostly because 1) too many mistakes can be made (as we are now finding out more and more with the thousands of DNA cases resulting in the release of wrongly convicted people) and 2) I don't want to live in a society where blood lust rules the day. I am constaly shocked that Christians and I do not agree on this issue, but that's faith-based logic for you!
As for this line of cases, it is a travesty that the courts shut their eyes to this and pretend that "the jury was not prejudiced by the Bible that was an improper influence upon them." It makes them look like the trial in Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first. Verdict later."
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Ignorance is Bliss?
The latest from the "Why Ignorance is Great" file:
Boing Boing (and most of the rest of the web) has reported that, a few days ago, Texas State Rep. Betty Brown (R) proposed that Americans with Asian names should change their names so that "Americans" can handle the names better. This came after news that "some Americans of Chinese descent were turned away from the polls because the names on their ID didn't match with the incompetently assembled voter lists."
Ignore, for the moment, the obvious fact these people ARE Americans (they are trying to vote). Ignore, also, the other obvious fact that they are doing MORE for their country than about 50% or more of us because they are actually TRYING TO VOTE. (Even for the presidential election, the most well-attended, we barely get above 50% turnout.) Beneath this stupidity lies a certain attitude. This type of attitude - specifically, "don't ask me to learn anything new" combined with the galling assumption that if people look or sound different from you, they must not be Americans - is very similar to the attitude that helps perpetuate religions.
All one has to do to see the parallels is look at the 1,000s of denominations within Christianity. How easy it is to imagine that same idiot politician saying something like, "Those Catholics should change their rituals and belief systems so that we 'Christians' could have an easier time in dealing with them?"
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Boing Boing (and most of the rest of the web) has reported that, a few days ago, Texas State Rep. Betty Brown (R) proposed that Americans with Asian names should change their names so that "Americans" can handle the names better. This came after news that "some Americans of Chinese descent were turned away from the polls because the names on their ID didn't match with the incompetently assembled voter lists."
Ignore, for the moment, the obvious fact these people ARE Americans (they are trying to vote). Ignore, also, the other obvious fact that they are doing MORE for their country than about 50% or more of us because they are actually TRYING TO VOTE. (Even for the presidential election, the most well-attended, we barely get above 50% turnout.) Beneath this stupidity lies a certain attitude. This type of attitude - specifically, "don't ask me to learn anything new" combined with the galling assumption that if people look or sound different from you, they must not be Americans - is very similar to the attitude that helps perpetuate religions.
All one has to do to see the parallels is look at the 1,000s of denominations within Christianity. How easy it is to imagine that same idiot politician saying something like, "Those Catholics should change their rituals and belief systems so that we 'Christians' could have an easier time in dealing with them?"
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Need a house? How about one with a bug problem?
Robert Heinlein's house is for sale. It is a steal at $650,000.00. Two things explain the low price.
First, he was the author of the Sci Fi classic, Starship Troopers. As such, the house has a high chance to be infested with sentient creatures who breed like bugs, are hard to stamp out, and who eagerly look forward to a time when the world of mankind will come to a hellish end so they can rule our planet.
Second, it is in Colorado Springs. Colorado Spring is the Mecca of Evangelical Christians (See the Jesus Camp movie and any of the hundreds of stories about the Air Force Academy harassing non-Christian cadets) which means that the house is probably in a neighborhood, wait for it...... infested with sentient creatures who breed like bugs, are hard to stamp out, and who eagerly look forward to a time when the world of mankind will come to a hellish end so they can rule our planet.
I couldn't help myself.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
First, he was the author of the Sci Fi classic, Starship Troopers. As such, the house has a high chance to be infested with sentient creatures who breed like bugs, are hard to stamp out, and who eagerly look forward to a time when the world of mankind will come to a hellish end so they can rule our planet.
Second, it is in Colorado Springs. Colorado Spring is the Mecca of Evangelical Christians (See the Jesus Camp movie and any of the hundreds of stories about the Air Force Academy harassing non-Christian cadets) which means that the house is probably in a neighborhood, wait for it...... infested with sentient creatures who breed like bugs, are hard to stamp out, and who eagerly look forward to a time when the world of mankind will come to a hellish end so they can rule our planet.
I couldn't help myself.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Guilty Until Proven Miraculous
Another news article form the "You're not helping" file. This time it is Maryland that is not helping...
"A Maryland woman involved with a group described as a religious cult pleaded guilty in the starvation death of her son, but insisted that the charges be dropped when he is resurrected."
So starts the article about Ria Ramkissoon, the Baltimore, MD mother who allowed her one year old son to be killed by her fellow believers because he would not say "amen" before eating. (They apparently thought that this indicated that he was a demon or possessed by a demon... details are fuzzy in the demonology area.) The details of the incident are horrible and surely make even grown men cringe and cry inside. Other sources has covered the details of the crime. What I want to know who the hell allowed the prosecuting attorney to include the resurrection clause in the plea deal? Several points to be made there:
1) Even if he were to be magically resurrected, she still allowed her son to die. The crime would still have been committed and would still deserve punishment.
2) Whatever money Maryland saves from avoiding a trail in this area is outweighed by the importance of not allowing this sort of cow-towing to the "you must respect my religious beliefs" sentiments. Offer her a plea. She says, "not without the resurrection clause." You say, "looks like we go to trial." End of story.
3) Why is this group called a "cult" when other religious belief systems that threaten the health and welfare of children (e.g. "Christian Science" believers) are not? Why is withholding medicine because of Christian Science beliefs different from withholding food?
For that matter, why does our country call parents who kill their children "crazy" at all? They presumably believe the story of Abraham almost murdering his son Issac because God told him to and find it inspirational and not horrifying as the rest of us do. They presumably believe the rest of the stories where god order the slaughter of millions upon millions of people in the Bible and find no fault with those who hear the voice of God and did as instructed. If so, how are we to tell the difference between Abraham and these parents? What would it look like to us if God did, in fact, tell someone to kill their child today? Because of the unfalsifiable nature of religious claims, we can not tell when someone if hearing God and when they are crazy. the fact that 75% of us claim to be religious (that vast majority of whom claim to be Christian) yet I would assume 99% of us would call any such person crazy tends to show how preposterous religious claims are.
That Maryland played into these claims and gave them any respect in this area is a grave embarrassment to us all. This woman is sick. Playing into her delusions to save the taxpayers a few bucks is cruel. It continues to hurt her. A troubled person like this sees such government action and documentation as proof" in her mind that she may be a vindicated in the future. It tells her that we, society, agree that she may not have done something wrong after all.
On a broader scale it continues to perpetrate the acceptance of religion by our society. Most people see this as a good things, but as I have said before, I agree with Sam Harris's views in The End of Faith. Generally, the more society allows religious beliefs to be taken seriously, the more society risks annihilation by religious believers. In this day and age when small minorities of "true believers" can destroy the world if they get their hands on the right technology, it is imperative that all of us come to our senses and stop giving religious beliefs "play time" in our government and town squares.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
"A Maryland woman involved with a group described as a religious cult pleaded guilty in the starvation death of her son, but insisted that the charges be dropped when he is resurrected."
So starts the article about Ria Ramkissoon, the Baltimore, MD mother who allowed her one year old son to be killed by her fellow believers because he would not say "amen" before eating. (They apparently thought that this indicated that he was a demon or possessed by a demon... details are fuzzy in the demonology area.) The details of the incident are horrible and surely make even grown men cringe and cry inside. Other sources has covered the details of the crime. What I want to know who the hell allowed the prosecuting attorney to include the resurrection clause in the plea deal? Several points to be made there:
1) Even if he were to be magically resurrected, she still allowed her son to die. The crime would still have been committed and would still deserve punishment.
2) Whatever money Maryland saves from avoiding a trail in this area is outweighed by the importance of not allowing this sort of cow-towing to the "you must respect my religious beliefs" sentiments. Offer her a plea. She says, "not without the resurrection clause." You say, "looks like we go to trial." End of story.
3) Why is this group called a "cult" when other religious belief systems that threaten the health and welfare of children (e.g. "Christian Science" believers) are not? Why is withholding medicine because of Christian Science beliefs different from withholding food?
For that matter, why does our country call parents who kill their children "crazy" at all? They presumably believe the story of Abraham almost murdering his son Issac because God told him to and find it inspirational and not horrifying as the rest of us do. They presumably believe the rest of the stories where god order the slaughter of millions upon millions of people in the Bible and find no fault with those who hear the voice of God and did as instructed. If so, how are we to tell the difference between Abraham and these parents? What would it look like to us if God did, in fact, tell someone to kill their child today? Because of the unfalsifiable nature of religious claims, we can not tell when someone if hearing God and when they are crazy. the fact that 75% of us claim to be religious (that vast majority of whom claim to be Christian) yet I would assume 99% of us would call any such person crazy tends to show how preposterous religious claims are.
That Maryland played into these claims and gave them any respect in this area is a grave embarrassment to us all. This woman is sick. Playing into her delusions to save the taxpayers a few bucks is cruel. It continues to hurt her. A troubled person like this sees such government action and documentation as proof" in her mind that she may be a vindicated in the future. It tells her that we, society, agree that she may not have done something wrong after all.
On a broader scale it continues to perpetrate the acceptance of religion by our society. Most people see this as a good things, but as I have said before, I agree with Sam Harris's views in The End of Faith. Generally, the more society allows religious beliefs to be taken seriously, the more society risks annihilation by religious believers. In this day and age when small minorities of "true believers" can destroy the world if they get their hands on the right technology, it is imperative that all of us come to our senses and stop giving religious beliefs "play time" in our government and town squares.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Why I am a Hell-Bound Atheist
A friend of mine asked me about my belief system and when I finished writing up my email to her, I found that I had a nice little stream of consciousness post. Hope it strikes a chord.
Why I am an Atheist - (Besides the fact that the burden of proof is on the theists)
Atheism has traditionally been defined as “the absence of a belief in any gods.” Side note: you will note from this definition that an ‘agnostic’ (one who doesn’t know what to believe or one who says that we can never know either way) is merely an atheist since the agnostic, by definition, does not believe in any gods. Within Atheism, however, there are two main current schools of thought: weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheism is the traditional absence of belief in any gods whereas strong atheism is the active belief that there are no gods. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one in some cases. I tend more towards the strong atheistic view.
Essentially, the strong atheists point out two observations. First, we find so much evidence against the existence of any god. Second, there is no evidence that supports the existence of a god. I shall discuss each claim in turn.
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GODS
As for the evidence against the existence of gods, there are many arguments in this vein. The simplest example of which is the “Problem of Evil.” Epicurus first raised this problem by asserting the truth of the following syllogism:
1. If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
Another way of putting it is by asking someone to attempt to reconcile the following three assertions:
1. God is all powerful
2. God is all loving
3. Innocent people suffer
I have found in my journeys that it is important to focus on the suffering of innocents at the hands of natural forces such as the thousands of infants drowned in the 2004 tsunami. This is because one of the theodicies (an attempt to provide a logical justification for the existence of evil) is that of free will. “God must give man free will,” claim the defenders of the gods, “because free will is such a valuable thing. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without eliminating free will as well.”
This argument falters in several places.
First, if God is all powerful, why is he constrained by this “either-or” choice? We couldn’t he make man have free will and just remove evil as a choice? It seems illogical to ask that. But God presumably created the very rules of logic and could have chosen to create this universe with a different set of logical rules, even if only in the area of evil. If he chose not to, he chose to allow evil which means he is not all-loving or all-good. If he could not make such a choice, then he is constrained by the laws of the universe and not all-powerful. Which begs the question, “Who is God’s God?”
Another related argument is the question, “Then why didn’t god make doing evil things so much more distasteful and doing things more pleasurable?” The apologists argue that this soon becomes a “toy world” where free will has no real value. This is shown to be a hollow argument by asking, “Then, if increasing the pain experienced when doing evil and increasing the pleasure experienced when doing good is something that God doesn’t want to have happen for fear of lessning the value of free will, then shouldn’t humans avoid trying to do the same thing? By passing laws that do just that, aren’t we subverting God’s will?” No one seems to agree with this.
Another problem with the free will argument is that it denies the free will of the victim. The victims of rape, murder, torture, slavery, etc., presumably want to exercise their free will to remain free of such evils. How is it that the criminal’s free will wins out in so many cases? In the case where infants are murdered, it appears that they had no free will at all.
Finally, if one believes that god knows the past present and future, and has always known them, then he must have known that people would sin and not ask for forgiveness and would therefore burn in a lake of fire for all eternity. Two problems arise here. First, many argue that this means that there is no free will. Basically, if god knows what I will do in the future, that means I am powerless to do otherwise when the time comes. If I cannot choose to do anything other than what god knows I will do, I have no free will.
Second, why did god bother to make people who will burn in hell? He essentially just made a bunch of people (six or seven billion if you count up all the past and present non-Christians in the world) who would live for a few years and then burn for eternity. Why? It’s not like he was running an experiment and wanted to see what would happen. He *knew* what would happen before he started. He knew who would go to heaven and who would go to hell and he made those whom he knew would suffer for eternity anyway. Basically, as an atheist, he made me just to torture me forever. For those who would next argue that sinners are needed to teach people to believe in god. To that I reply, “Is that the best way god has of teaching people to believe in him? Make billions of people and burn them forever AFTER the people you are trying to teach something to have died anyway?” Why not just make people with the belief switch turned on? Why the eternal torturing of billions of people? Besides, the only thing that the faithful see here on Earth is that evil people get away with their evil the vast majority of the time. It is only when they are in heaven that they can hear the screams of the damned, a fact which the Bible makes sure to point out. (If that is true, how could heaven be a pleasant place? You hear the screams of burning men women and children for all eternity? Are you supposed to feel good about that?) It seems the mere fact that earth-bound humans see evil people get away with so much would tend to make fewer believers not more. How does the torture of hell help other than to give the saved in heaven something to be smug about?
The final answer, and other the first that evangelicals cite, is that of "original sin." This is one of those pat answers that the believers spout out without really thinking about it. Original sin is actually a LESS moral answer than a pure free will argument. The theory behind original sin is that because Adam and Eve broke a rule made by god, that god knew that they would break, (I smell a set up) then god had to damn everyone to experience evil. Damn me for the actions of another? How does this make logical or moral sense. (I won't belabor the point that god KNEW that A & E would bite the fruit when he made the world and he decided to do it anyway. It still comes down to god;s choice of creating evil and suffering and torturing people whom he created, knowing that they would inevitably be tortured for all eternity.)
But I digress. This is but one line of evidence, logical and not physical, that tends to show an absence of god. There are many more. (E.G. If the Bible is the inspired 100% true word of God, why put trillions upon trillions of pieces of evidence around to try and trick us to believe that the Earth was 14 billion years old instead of the 6,000 years old that the Bible says it is? Etc.)
LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD
Even if god exists, he made me a rational being that has found great value in the scientific method. No experimental system has proven the existence of god. Experiment after experiment has shown that prayer has no effect whatsoever on the recovery of the sick or that the results for prayer targets and non targets are equivocal. (Some even show harmful effects.) Every scripture is manifestly man made and a document of its time. Prophecies are all written eons before the later scriptures that purport to fulfill them. Prophesies are as vague as horoscopes because they need to always apply to reader’s present time. (All it would take for me to believe in a higher power would be a copy of a scroll dated to the time of the gospels that says something like “In the year 1998 a series of computers will be hooked together using the TCPIP protocol and will be known as the Internet.” Or perhaps it could include a complete genetic sequence that matched that of the human genome. Or perhaps the Ten Commandments writ large across the face of the moon. Nothing like this exists anywhere we have looked. The Bible is filled with figs and farming tips™, nothing more. Evolution is now fact and it is one of the worst ways to develop a human we can think of. (It also goes against Genesis 1 and 2. While Gen 1 and 2 contradict each other in many places, neither of them support evolution.)
We readily acknowledge that one can never prove a negative. You can no more prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessings be upon her holy hooves) doesn’t exist any more than I can prove that God doesn’t exist. However, the evidence indicates that the chances of any gods existing is equal or less than the chance of gravity stopping to work tomorrow. Since I “believe” in gravity, I should also, on evidence of equal or greater strength, “believe” that there are no gods.
Ergo, I do.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Why I am an Atheist - (Besides the fact that the burden of proof is on the theists)
Atheism has traditionally been defined as “the absence of a belief in any gods.” Side note: you will note from this definition that an ‘agnostic’ (one who doesn’t know what to believe or one who says that we can never know either way) is merely an atheist since the agnostic, by definition, does not believe in any gods. Within Atheism, however, there are two main current schools of thought: weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheism is the traditional absence of belief in any gods whereas strong atheism is the active belief that there are no gods. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one in some cases. I tend more towards the strong atheistic view.
Essentially, the strong atheists point out two observations. First, we find so much evidence against the existence of any god. Second, there is no evidence that supports the existence of a god. I shall discuss each claim in turn.
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GODS
As for the evidence against the existence of gods, there are many arguments in this vein. The simplest example of which is the “Problem of Evil.” Epicurus first raised this problem by asserting the truth of the following syllogism:
1. If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
Another way of putting it is by asking someone to attempt to reconcile the following three assertions:
1. God is all powerful
2. God is all loving
3. Innocent people suffer
I have found in my journeys that it is important to focus on the suffering of innocents at the hands of natural forces such as the thousands of infants drowned in the 2004 tsunami. This is because one of the theodicies (an attempt to provide a logical justification for the existence of evil) is that of free will. “God must give man free will,” claim the defenders of the gods, “because free will is such a valuable thing. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without eliminating free will as well.”
This argument falters in several places.
First, if God is all powerful, why is he constrained by this “either-or” choice? We couldn’t he make man have free will and just remove evil as a choice? It seems illogical to ask that. But God presumably created the very rules of logic and could have chosen to create this universe with a different set of logical rules, even if only in the area of evil. If he chose not to, he chose to allow evil which means he is not all-loving or all-good. If he could not make such a choice, then he is constrained by the laws of the universe and not all-powerful. Which begs the question, “Who is God’s God?”
Another related argument is the question, “Then why didn’t god make doing evil things so much more distasteful and doing things more pleasurable?” The apologists argue that this soon becomes a “toy world” where free will has no real value. This is shown to be a hollow argument by asking, “Then, if increasing the pain experienced when doing evil and increasing the pleasure experienced when doing good is something that God doesn’t want to have happen for fear of lessning the value of free will, then shouldn’t humans avoid trying to do the same thing? By passing laws that do just that, aren’t we subverting God’s will?” No one seems to agree with this.
Another problem with the free will argument is that it denies the free will of the victim. The victims of rape, murder, torture, slavery, etc., presumably want to exercise their free will to remain free of such evils. How is it that the criminal’s free will wins out in so many cases? In the case where infants are murdered, it appears that they had no free will at all.
Finally, if one believes that god knows the past present and future, and has always known them, then he must have known that people would sin and not ask for forgiveness and would therefore burn in a lake of fire for all eternity. Two problems arise here. First, many argue that this means that there is no free will. Basically, if god knows what I will do in the future, that means I am powerless to do otherwise when the time comes. If I cannot choose to do anything other than what god knows I will do, I have no free will.
Second, why did god bother to make people who will burn in hell? He essentially just made a bunch of people (six or seven billion if you count up all the past and present non-Christians in the world) who would live for a few years and then burn for eternity. Why? It’s not like he was running an experiment and wanted to see what would happen. He *knew* what would happen before he started. He knew who would go to heaven and who would go to hell and he made those whom he knew would suffer for eternity anyway. Basically, as an atheist, he made me just to torture me forever. For those who would next argue that sinners are needed to teach people to believe in god. To that I reply, “Is that the best way god has of teaching people to believe in him? Make billions of people and burn them forever AFTER the people you are trying to teach something to have died anyway?” Why not just make people with the belief switch turned on? Why the eternal torturing of billions of people? Besides, the only thing that the faithful see here on Earth is that evil people get away with their evil the vast majority of the time. It is only when they are in heaven that they can hear the screams of the damned, a fact which the Bible makes sure to point out. (If that is true, how could heaven be a pleasant place? You hear the screams of burning men women and children for all eternity? Are you supposed to feel good about that?) It seems the mere fact that earth-bound humans see evil people get away with so much would tend to make fewer believers not more. How does the torture of hell help other than to give the saved in heaven something to be smug about?
The final answer, and other the first that evangelicals cite, is that of "original sin." This is one of those pat answers that the believers spout out without really thinking about it. Original sin is actually a LESS moral answer than a pure free will argument. The theory behind original sin is that because Adam and Eve broke a rule made by god, that god knew that they would break, (I smell a set up) then god had to damn everyone to experience evil. Damn me for the actions of another? How does this make logical or moral sense. (I won't belabor the point that god KNEW that A & E would bite the fruit when he made the world and he decided to do it anyway. It still comes down to god;s choice of creating evil and suffering and torturing people whom he created, knowing that they would inevitably be tortured for all eternity.)
But I digress. This is but one line of evidence, logical and not physical, that tends to show an absence of god. There are many more. (E.G. If the Bible is the inspired 100% true word of God, why put trillions upon trillions of pieces of evidence around to try and trick us to believe that the Earth was 14 billion years old instead of the 6,000 years old that the Bible says it is? Etc.)
LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD
Even if god exists, he made me a rational being that has found great value in the scientific method. No experimental system has proven the existence of god. Experiment after experiment has shown that prayer has no effect whatsoever on the recovery of the sick or that the results for prayer targets and non targets are equivocal. (Some even show harmful effects.) Every scripture is manifestly man made and a document of its time. Prophecies are all written eons before the later scriptures that purport to fulfill them. Prophesies are as vague as horoscopes because they need to always apply to reader’s present time. (All it would take for me to believe in a higher power would be a copy of a scroll dated to the time of the gospels that says something like “In the year 1998 a series of computers will be hooked together using the TCPIP protocol and will be known as the Internet.” Or perhaps it could include a complete genetic sequence that matched that of the human genome. Or perhaps the Ten Commandments writ large across the face of the moon. Nothing like this exists anywhere we have looked. The Bible is filled with figs and farming tips™, nothing more. Evolution is now fact and it is one of the worst ways to develop a human we can think of. (It also goes against Genesis 1 and 2. While Gen 1 and 2 contradict each other in many places, neither of them support evolution.)
We readily acknowledge that one can never prove a negative. You can no more prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessings be upon her holy hooves) doesn’t exist any more than I can prove that God doesn’t exist. However, the evidence indicates that the chances of any gods existing is equal or less than the chance of gravity stopping to work tomorrow. Since I “believe” in gravity, I should also, on evidence of equal or greater strength, “believe” that there are no gods.
Ergo, I do.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Scout's Honor?
As you may, or may not, know, the President of the United States is traditionally asked to become the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). This has happened to Obama. Every president since Taft has accepted this role. For those who do not know, the BSA is a Christian organization. (There are at least 180 references to Christ on their website.) They ban members who do not believe the same things that they do. This means that when he was the irght age to be a scout, before he started to claim that he was a Christian, Obama would have been kicked out of and banned from the Scouts.
Please contact President Obama and let him know that it is unacceptable for the President of the United States to accept such a position. He was the first president ever to mention "non-believers" in his inauguration speech, don't let him back track now!
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Please contact President Obama and let him know that it is unacceptable for the President of the United States to accept such a position. He was the first president ever to mention "non-believers" in his inauguration speech, don't let him back track now!
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
The Devil is in the Details
According to an AP report, a woman accused of taking more than $73,000 from the Arlington church where she was an administrative assistant blames the devil. Here is the blurb:
While it is easy to laugh at these types of stories, it demonstrates, in a fairly unique way, the effect that religion has on personal responsibility. There are large swaths of my country, (U.S.) where people genuinely believe the ideas behind this woman claims. They really really truly believe that there is a Satan who is out to get them. They believe that when their friends and family screw them over, it is to some degree, not their fault. Satan made them do it.
My point here is twofold. First, as stated above, religion removes a layer of personal responsibility for a person. Even if this example is silly, just talk to any born again Christian who is born again via a drug recovery program. They will swear to you that "I couldn't have done it without Jesus." When asked, "Do you ever think that you DID do it with out Jesus?" they talk about the feeling they get when the Holy Spirit is with them, etc. (See, also, professional athletes thanking Jesus for their victory, as if Jesus cares.)
My second point is that while even "reasonable" Christians scoff at the concept of Satan (and talking snakes and Noah's ark, and a 6,000 year old Earth and a virgin birth and walking on water and...) there are many many people who really believe this stuff. they don't just SAY they believe it like many other Christians. They believe it. They take it to heart when their pastors say that the Bible is the infallible word of God. To the atheist, these "fundamentalists" or "true believers" are actually more intellectually honest than all the other Christians who no longer believe in all of those "myths." While the Reasonable Christians "RCs" give lip service to the infallibility of the Bible, the True Christians "TCs" really believe it. This is one of the biggest disconnects in my country right now. The RCs don't understand that there are a HUGE number of TCs out there. When they see the end results of TCs beliefs (Gay hate speech, the Kansas school board inserting creationism into the science classes, etc) the RCs recoil. "Crazies" they shout. "Fundamentalists" they cry. "Is that REALLY what my religious scripture says?" they ask themselves on the inside. I suspect that a large number of RCs suppress that doubt by demonizing the TCs. But the point is there, festering.
LOGICAL ISSUE
Assertion: The Bible is supposed to be the best guide to moral behavior.
Observed behavior: Many RCs pick and choose which parts of the bible are true and which are not. thus they pick which morality pieces to follow and which to discard since they are incompatible with the RC's world view. (E.G. Bible says gays should be stoned to death along with adulterers, disobedient children, and someone who wears a garment made of two fabrics. No RC advocates for the death of gays, but, as documented in the movie The God Who Wasn't There, there ARE TCs who say that exact thing.)
Conclusion: If one picks which parts of the Bible's morality to believe, then there must be some guiding morality outside of the Bible that guides the RC in her choice of Bible passages. Something outside the Bible tells us that stoning children for disobeying their parents is wrong. the Bible does not. Since that something is outside the Bible, the Bible cannot be the final word on morality.
Note: I am choosing to avoid the whole "Old Covenant vs New Covenant" debate. I will just say this. At a minimum the Bible is unclear as to whether the old Mosaic laws still apply. In reality, there are several passages where Jesus says that they do. (e.g. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.") One of the main stories used to show that they do not ("Those of you without sin throw the first stone") has two main issues: 1) it doesn't actually say the mosaic laws are wrong or that they no longer apply, 2) has been proven by many people including Bart Ehrman, to have been added to the Gospel of John a long time after the gospel was written, probably in a clumsy attempt to resolve this (The old laws still apply) problem in the Bible.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
"ARLINGTON, Wash. (AP) - A woman accused of taking more than $73,000 from the Arlington church where she was an administrative assistant blames the devil. Papers filed with a theft charge Wednesday in Snohomish County Superior Court say the 62-year-old Arlington woman told detectives "Satan had a big part in the theft." The Everett Herald reported the woman was accused of forging the pastor's signature on 80 checks from the Arlington Free Methodist church. She was fired in February 2008. She told detectives she used the money to cover household expenses because she couldn't stand the thought of losing her home."
While it is easy to laugh at these types of stories, it demonstrates, in a fairly unique way, the effect that religion has on personal responsibility. There are large swaths of my country, (U.S.) where people genuinely believe the ideas behind this woman claims. They really really truly believe that there is a Satan who is out to get them. They believe that when their friends and family screw them over, it is to some degree, not their fault. Satan made them do it.
My point here is twofold. First, as stated above, religion removes a layer of personal responsibility for a person. Even if this example is silly, just talk to any born again Christian who is born again via a drug recovery program. They will swear to you that "I couldn't have done it without Jesus." When asked, "Do you ever think that you DID do it with out Jesus?" they talk about the feeling they get when the Holy Spirit is with them, etc. (See, also, professional athletes thanking Jesus for their victory, as if Jesus cares.)
My second point is that while even "reasonable" Christians scoff at the concept of Satan (and talking snakes and Noah's ark, and a 6,000 year old Earth and a virgin birth and walking on water and...) there are many many people who really believe this stuff. they don't just SAY they believe it like many other Christians. They believe it. They take it to heart when their pastors say that the Bible is the infallible word of God. To the atheist, these "fundamentalists" or "true believers" are actually more intellectually honest than all the other Christians who no longer believe in all of those "myths." While the Reasonable Christians "RCs" give lip service to the infallibility of the Bible, the True Christians "TCs" really believe it. This is one of the biggest disconnects in my country right now. The RCs don't understand that there are a HUGE number of TCs out there. When they see the end results of TCs beliefs (Gay hate speech, the Kansas school board inserting creationism into the science classes, etc) the RCs recoil. "Crazies" they shout. "Fundamentalists" they cry. "Is that REALLY what my religious scripture says?" they ask themselves on the inside. I suspect that a large number of RCs suppress that doubt by demonizing the TCs. But the point is there, festering.
LOGICAL ISSUE
Assertion: The Bible is supposed to be the best guide to moral behavior.
Observed behavior: Many RCs pick and choose which parts of the bible are true and which are not. thus they pick which morality pieces to follow and which to discard since they are incompatible with the RC's world view. (E.G. Bible says gays should be stoned to death along with adulterers, disobedient children, and someone who wears a garment made of two fabrics. No RC advocates for the death of gays, but, as documented in the movie The God Who Wasn't There, there ARE TCs who say that exact thing.)
Conclusion: If one picks which parts of the Bible's morality to believe, then there must be some guiding morality outside of the Bible that guides the RC in her choice of Bible passages. Something outside the Bible tells us that stoning children for disobeying their parents is wrong. the Bible does not. Since that something is outside the Bible, the Bible cannot be the final word on morality.
Note: I am choosing to avoid the whole "Old Covenant vs New Covenant" debate. I will just say this. At a minimum the Bible is unclear as to whether the old Mosaic laws still apply. In reality, there are several passages where Jesus says that they do. (e.g. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.") One of the main stories used to show that they do not ("Those of you without sin throw the first stone") has two main issues: 1) it doesn't actually say the mosaic laws are wrong or that they no longer apply, 2) has been proven by many people including Bart Ehrman, to have been added to the Gospel of John a long time after the gospel was written, probably in a clumsy attempt to resolve this (The old laws still apply) problem in the Bible.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Et Tu, Canada?
The Globe and Mail, which bills itself as "The most authoritative news in Canada," is reporting that Gary Goodyear, the ex-chiropractor, self-proclaimed Christian, now-federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, has refused to confirm belief in evolution. Normally, I would assume that this is just another case of a politician not wanting to anger the already angry mob of his constituents. However, this was a little eye-grabbing for three reasons:
Let's look at that graphically. Click on the attached image to see the rankings.
This reduction in funding for science is what the Bush administration did and it is what every religious state tends to do. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, the problem with religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world around them. I guess I have been a bit naive to assume that the same widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States that has caused the removal of science form the executive decision-making process over the last eight years would be unique to the U.S.
I call on all Canadians to give this guy the boot. Tell him to, "take off, you hosehead, eh!" (Yes, I am pulling out all of my Bob and Doug McKenzie phrases in a pathetic attempt at ironically expecting both more and less of Canada at the same time.) Seriously, though:
Et tu, Canada?
UPDATE
A friend pointed out that the outcry to this issue was so great in Canada that the Minister has since said that he believes in evolution. In reading his statements, three things come to mind:
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
- It's Canada. Aren't you guys supposed to be the reasonable version of the US? What gives?
- Wait a tic... The Minister of State for Science and Technology for Canada used to be a chiropractor? You know who these guys are, right? Just look up "subluxation," a main concept of chiropracty which is not based on solid science. Also, they don't belive in vaccination. The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult"and boycotted it until losing a 1987 antitrust case.
- This is the same politician who has been at the center of Canadian federal funding cuts for researchers.
Let's look at that graphically. Click on the attached image to see the rankings.This reduction in funding for science is what the Bush administration did and it is what every religious state tends to do. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, the problem with religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world around them. I guess I have been a bit naive to assume that the same widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States that has caused the removal of science form the executive decision-making process over the last eight years would be unique to the U.S.
I call on all Canadians to give this guy the boot. Tell him to, "take off, you hosehead, eh!" (Yes, I am pulling out all of my Bob and Doug McKenzie phrases in a pathetic attempt at ironically expecting both more and less of Canada at the same time.) Seriously, though:
Et tu, Canada?
UPDATE
A friend pointed out that the outcry to this issue was so great in Canada that the Minister has since said that he believes in evolution. In reading his statements, three things come to mind:
- The descriptions of evolution that the Minister gives in no way describe how evolution actually works.
- How is it that all of Canada can get into an uproar about this while in the U.S., three of the serious Republican Candidates for President of the U.S. said that they do not believe in evolution on national TV and noboddy batted an eye.
- I seem to owe Canadians an apology. They saw a mystic in their government and immediately called for his removal. We see mystics running for government and immediately vote for them.
UPDATE: After a technical issue and an absence, I have had to re-post all of my old posts. As a result there will be many posts listed as published today, Dec 3, 2009, that were posted sometime earlier in the year, but I do not know the exact date. this post is one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)