The Reckoner

Live Blogging the "Health Care Summit"

2010-02-25T09:26:00.008-06:00

So I decided to watch it. Yeah, it'll mostly be political theatre, but it'll at least be entertaining. Who knows? Maybe the dems and the repubs will actually hash out a workable plan...in one day? Yeah, that'll happen.

Anyway, it's started, so I'll get started.

Obama is making his opening remarks. Personal anecdotes about his daughters and his mom, regarding his experiences with them and health care. He says "everyone here has stories like that" but I have a hard time believing that a lot of the bluebloods among them have never had to go without, never had to face the hardship of dealing with a sickness without insurance.

Says he's read the opposition's plans. "Politics ended up trumping common sense." Too true.

He's going over some common ground regarding the ideas between the two parties: pre-existing conditions, fostering competition, etc.

Closing up, he is reiterating the four themes he wants to focus on: controlling costs, lowering deficits, expanding coverage, and

Says he wants a "discussion," not just trading talking points, that he hopes it doesn't turn into political theatre (we'll see).

Republicans' turn, delivered not by McConnell, but by Lamar Alexander.

Claims that the repubs represent a big chunk of the people, who are opposed to the health care bill, which he calls a "mistake" and makes the expected call to "start over."

Says he wants Obama to "succeed," but change directions.

Alexander is repeating the old criticisms: taxes, fees, cuts in medicare, etc.

Repeats the call to "start over."

He claims that a "comprehensive bill" won't work, ever. Cites failures of immigration and other comprehensive bills that failed despite "bipartisan" support.

He's listing off ideas...ideas that could only be part of a (DUH!) comprehensive bill!

Calls for a renunciation of the threat of using reconciliation to pass the bill. Where was he in 2005?

(Obama looks like he's a little annoyed at being lectured)

Start over, start over, don't jam it through. For pity's sake, it's been the longest debated bill in decades!

Now it's Pelosi's turn.

She's going back to March 5, when the whole process started, recalling the "bipartisan way" in which Obama brought them together...not sure, but I don't think they were that nice to the republicans.

"We cannot afford to start over" she says, as too many people already have waited too long, and suffered too much. Offers anecdotes.

Talks about John Dingell and the fight over Medicare back in the day.

We have a "moral obligation" to fix this. Pre-exisiting conditions stifles the "entrepreneurial spirit" by forcing people to stay in dead-end jobs because they can't leave for fear of losing their insurance and not being able to get new insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

The bill will create jobs, almost 400k right off the bat...we'll see.

Unless we pass this, she says, medicare is doomed.

Invokes Kennedy, "Health care is a right, not a privelege."

Reid's turn.

Starts off right off the bat with an anecdote about a constituent who had a baby with a cleft palate, and was denied insurance because that was considered a "pre-existing condition." Outrageous if true.

He's chiding Alexander that he's "entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Most people, including repubs, want us to reform health care.

Talks about the "donut hole" problem with medicare prescription drug plans.

Talks about reconciliation, defending its use.

The bill already has significant input from republicans, so why start over?

Cites Harvard studies: 45,000 people die a year because they're without health care. 70% of bankruptcies in 2008 were due to health care costs.

Calls on the republicans, "let's hear your ideas." Defends deficit cuts in the bill.

There's a huge stack by Boehner, how much you wanna bet he's gonna throw down with the
"2700 pages" critique.
Obama again, critiquing Alexander's interpretation of the "process."

He wants them to talk about the substance, not the process. "We might surprise ourselves that we agree more than we disagree." Novel idea.

Everyone agrees on costs. It's true that expanding a "broken system" is bad, but part of what we need to do is fix that system. We can't just leave it broken.

Cites small business numbers who are dealing with soaring costs, forcing many to drop coverage, reduce incomes, and forgo new hiring.

So how do we control costs? One bipartisan idea: health care exchanges.

(Damn CNN, going to commercial. Assholes. Switching to Fox. Wish I had CSPAN-3, but oh well. )

Alexander disputes Obama's CBO numbers, Obama responds that it is, offers justification that Lamar is not being fair, citing different numbers.

Oh! He just cut Lamar off. Here's that "muscle" that we've needed to see for too long.

Obama says he wants every possible cost-saving measure to be in the bill, challenges repubs to add their ideas. Asks them to focus on what's good in the bill, as well as bad, instead of just the bad.

McConnell's turn. Cites polls that show people overwhelmingly oppose the bill in its current form.

Turns floor over to Dr. No...er, Coburn.

Says we need to adress the disease, not symptoms. Let's see what he means.

He says prevention is important, and he couldn't be more right. But what's his idea??

Claims there is too much waste in government-run health care, as 20% of money spent is fraudulently awarded. Says cutting fraud would save 7.5% of costs.

Says the tort system, the "extortion system", needs to be reigned in. Fear of litigation forces docs to waste money on redundant or unnecessary tests. Says it would be worth a 7.5% in savings.

Conflict of interest in the medical field, huh?

Change food stamps and school lunches to make it meet people's nutritional needs, to incentivize prevention.

We need to attack "where the money is" referring to fraud.

Don't need government programs, just incentives.

Obama says that there is plenty in the bill that deals with fraud, which Coburn acknowledges, but points out that it only extends to government health care.

There are plenty of measures for prevention in the bill.
Steny Hoyer's turn.

Every American should be covered.

More anecdotes of the misery people suffer.

Cost containment is key, as all agree. The "how" is the problem, of course.

Wants an open, free market that's transparent, whatever that means.

He's paying Coburn compliments on his suggestions. Says the bill does most of what he said, so what's to disagree on?

Says he's trying to drive down costs by giving everyone access to "large group" insurance rates, which of course are cheaper.

Cracking down on redundant tests.

First mention of the public option so far, mentioned in passing as a way to incentivize competition and cover people who cannot afford private insurance.

Obama addresses Coburn's points, says there are things we can do at the state level, invites republicans to voice their objections to specific dem provisions to drive down costs, gives example of increasing access to large group insurance, doesn't mention whether it's through exchanges or the public option.
John Boehner, who cedes his time to John Kline.

Says that one idea is to allow small businesses to group together like large companies. Good idea! Where were you last year?

Says this is better than the idea of exchanges, but doesn't say why other that to claim it will save more money.

Max Baucus is up.

Says we are actually quite close, there's not a lot that keeps us apart.

Says most of what Alexander suggested is already in the bill.

People can buy across state lines. No tort reform, but states will be able to settle disputes. Small businesses can pool together to get better insurance, through the SHOP act, which allows businesses to run their own exchanges to shop and compare insurance plans. Tax credits for employer insurance, 35-50%.

We're not that far apart.

Changes the way we reimburse doctors, rewarding quality vs. quantity.

(Fox is showing the new taxes in the senate bill, vs. CNN which is repeating the speaker's main points. way to stay classy Fox).
Boehner cedes to Dave Kemp.

Oh, this guy is a twit. "How can you say you're saving money when you spend 1 trillion over 10 years?" Gee, I guess he really thinks it will be cheaper to do nothing.

Lawsuit reform, again. OK, but what else?

Mentions that there is a provision in the bill that would create an un-elected board which would make recommendation to congress on medicare cuts, then claims if congress does not act, then the board would have to "look elsewhere" in medicare to cut. If it's up to congress, what power does this board have that this guy is so afraid of?

Obama cuts in to re-address the same points raised previously by Coburn, namely the CBO report.
Rob Andrews.

Talks about exchanges again. Disagreement erupts between him and John Kyl(?).

McConnell protests that dems have had more time.
Paul Ryan's turn. Says that federal regulation of insurance will cut off competition. Ho hum, same old lie.

Kline responds asking Ryan if he supports consumer protections, which he does, making him squirm to justify why he opposes regulation.

Obama is using this opportunity to address the philosophical differences. Says both parties would agree that certain protections need to be implemented. The disagreement is how much should government set as a baseline for people's insurance, how much they are entitled/required to have.

Schumer's turn.

Compliments Coburn again.

I need to take a break, I've been at it for almost 2 hours. Back later.

Songs ruined by commercials

2010-02-24T09:40:00.002-06:00

I really hate it when ad agencies try to use popular music to hawk their wares, and I really really hate it when artists sell-out to them and allow them to use their songs.

It's not a new practice, and from the ad agency's point of view, I suppose it beats keeping a jingle-writer on the payroll. But it ruins the song for me, because then whenever I hear that song, I inevitably think about the commercial, which is the whole point of using the song in the ad to begin with.

But all it does is make me angry at the artist and the ad company they sold out to.

I love Ray LaMontagne, but I lost a lot of respect for him when he let his song "Trouble" be used to sell insurance for Traveler's. And I won't be using Traveler's anytime soon, if I can help it.

There's also "She Sells Sanctuary" by The Cult, one of the few rock bands of the 1980s that actually rocked, but unfortunately sold their best known single to Nissan to sell Altimas in the early 2000s. I've always been a Ford man, anyway.

My wife and I both love Death Cab For Cutie, but it took me a long time to get into Ben Gibbard's other band, The Postal Service, because the two singles I was most familiar with when it came out in 2003 were also used in commercials. "We Will Become Silhouettes" was used by Honda to sell Civics, and "Such Great Heights" is featured in those UPS "whiteboard" commercials. So it was almost six years before I really listened to the album, "Give Up," and it's gorgeous. Too bad two of the best songs were wasted as ambient filler for commercials.

I also a huge fan of Wilco, but I was so bummed when I heard "You Are My Face" in a Volkswagen commercial, which apparently was only one track of many that they sold from their magnificent 2007 album "Sky Blue Sky." I wanted to kick Jeff Tweedy in the nuts.

Thankfully, sometimes an ad agency has trouble getting the rights to a song, and so instead they'll hire a cover act to do the song. So it's easier to ignore the Blackberry commercial which uses the Beatles' "All You Need Is Love" to sell phones.

But the worst is when I hear a song for the first time in a commercial, and then hear it on the radio, which makes me want to turn the station. Such is the case with the new commercial for the Cadillac SRX, which uses a song I first thought sounded like Ben Gibbard and Death Cab For Cutie, but is actually a new band called Phoenix, the song being "1901." Too bad for them than I've been completely turned off by the song, because I originally thought it was catchy, but now every time I hear that riff and the chorus, all I can think about is that smug voice talking about a luxury car that's guaranteed to "reignite the soul."

Too bad it sucked the soul out of a decent sounding band and ruined them for me, and probably others, as I can't imagine I'm the only person who gets annoyed when good music is used to hawk cheap, useless crap.

Of course, it's kind of hard to blame the artists when the business model for making money off music so disfavors the artist. Selling CDs is a joke, for the most part, because who buys em? And digital downloads, even if paid for, don't bring the bacon, and even then the distributor probably keeps the lion's share of the proceeds. Live shows bring in money, but you have to already have made it somewhat big if you think you support yourself by touring. So I understand why artists would sell their songs to be used in commercials: it brings in money and it puts the music out there where it can be noticed. The only problem is that when I notice, it doesn't make me want to listen to more, it makes me change the channel.

People are just like cars, doncha know?

2010-02-23T14:37:00.005-06:00

My dedication to civility and respect is going to be tested right off the bat, I see.

I'd never heard of Neal Boortz before, but apparently he thinks that society should value people in the same way it values automobiles when it comes to fixing damaged ones, and who should pay.

I had just walked into my local ABC store to pick up some brandy for the wife and some vodka for myself, and this guy's radio show was blaring through the speakers.

He started by presenting a hypothetical: if you crashed your car and didn't have insurance, and then go to an insurance company to apply for coverage with the added demand that they pay for the crash, even though it happened before coverage started, you would rightly be denied coverage for that car.

From there, he takes the analogy to health care with a particular harshness that I felt was uncalled for, and I'll paraphrase what he said to as close as I can remember it:

"So let's say that you don't have health insurance, and you contract diabetes because you're a fat pig, and then you decide you need insurance to help pay for the disease you contracted. Why should anyone insure you at all? You didn't have coverage prior to the disease you contracted."

He said "fat pig" with such vitriol I could practically hear the spittle pelting his microphone.

I was pretty disgusted, obviously, because this man seems to think that people are no different than cars, and should be "totalled out" if they're "wrecked" and are unable to pay for "repairs."

I took my purchase up to the counter and asked the clerk who it was that was on the radio.

"Boortz," he said simply.

"Well, it's kind of silly to treat people and cars as being the same, isn't it?"

The clerk, a man in his 40s, simply shrugged, looked away and curtly replied, "Have a nice day, sir." He obviously did not want to talk politics, though I can't fairly say whether it was him or another employee who appreciated Boortz's "insightful commentary."

So I took my bag and left.

Perusing Boortz's site, he keeps a blog where he posted pretty much the same argument:

...my "talking point," as you put it, is that it makes no logical sense whatsoever to require an insurance company to sign someone up for an insurance policy to provide coverage for an even that has already taken place. If you applied for homeowner's insurance after your house burned down it is a pretty safe bet that you're application will be declined. If you call Geico and try to insure your car after you've wrecked it, you're unlikely to get coverage for that wreck. Can someone please explain to me then just why it is generally accepted that a person ought to be permitted to contract a disease first, and then buy insurance to cover the costs of that disease after the fact? If that's the routine, they why would anyone ever buy insurance until they're actually sick?

Of course, that isn't how it happens in the real world. In general, there are only two reasons why people go without health insurance: either they cannot afford the premiums or they're stupid.

Now, there are plenty of stupid people in the world, and the American electorate has more than its fair share, but among the nearly 40 million who go without, affordability is the reason, not because they want to be Evel Knievel when it comes to their own health. There are plenty of stories of people who have to choose between feeding their family, paying their mortgage, or paying their insurance premiums. And the number keeps rising.

But that's just a minor mistake when taken against the assertion that people are to be treated like houses and cars. One wonders what kind of world it would be where Boortz's pragmatism ruled, cetainly not the kind that values human life: "What's that? You say you've got a debilitating illness that is life-threatening? Sorry brother, it's not cost-effective to save your life, doesn't matter if it was your own fault or not. I got mine, so sod off."

Here's the second part of his argument, where he stretches things way beyond reality.

Now .. here are some hard truths that are going to anger some of you. First, you have no right to health care. To obtain health care you must have access to the services of a health care practitioner and the products manufactured by drug and medical implement companies. To claim a right to health care you are claiming a right to the time and property of some other person. How do you then balance your claim of a right to a portion of that person's life against their own right to protect their lives and property? The argument for a right to health care simply cannot be sustained until you are willing to accept the idea that one individual in our society has a right to the life and property of another.

But that's bollocks, of course. This is the same kind of reasoning that would demolish such "socialist" government programs like fire and police departments. Fire and police are paid through community taxes (i.e. everyone's "lives and property" as Boortz puts it), so that if one person's house is burglarized or catches fire, that person can rely on the government for help. It's part of our social contract, we take care of each other for things that happen which are beyond our control. We cannot control whether or not a certain exposed wire is going to spark the insulation into a fire anymore than we can control whether or not a criminal will choose to burglarize our home.

The same is true of most diseases, we cannot control, and diabetes is included, even type 2 adult-onset, which doesn't just happen to fat people.

Anyway, this is rather moot because their is no comparison between the fire and police departments and health insurance, precisely because health insurance is not a government program (not yet, at least, and not anytime soon). No one is going to take Mr. Boortz's "life and property" by insuring someone with a disease that is expensive to manage. The problem is not, as Boortz seems to think, with people who want insurance to give them a free ride on someone else's dime, but rather that people who would like to be able to buy into the system, to contribute what they can for their own health.

Sure, such people do cost more to insure, but Boortz is far off-base from the reality. If someone with, say, cystic fibrosis, were to try and buy into a large health giant like one of the BC/BS "non-profits," I doubt the rest of everyone else's premiums would change. Of course, add a whole bunch and the picture changes, but as long as those with the pre-existing conditions are paying their fair share, no-one has any right to complain, because the alternative, already a reality, is that those people are left out in the cold, either to live in misery or, just as likely, die in misery. And if the measure of a society is how well it takes care of the least of its members, then ours falls far short of even being called "decent."

But let's let Boortz finish his point (here's where he alludes to the "fat pig" with diabetes from his radio show):

Second point: Your medical misfortune does not constitute a lien on my life or property unless I have voluntarily entered into a contract with you. Yes .. if you have diabetes or some disease that is going to cost you $20,000 a year, or more .. that's sad. Less sad if you ate yourself into that situation .. but sad nonetheless. As sad as it is your medical condition gives you no claim on my bank account. You can rely on your own resources, your family, your church, a charity or the voluntary goodness of strangers all you want; but to use the government as an instrument of plunder to seize the property of another for your health care needs is immoral .. no matter how grave your condition may be.

This is libertarianism at it's most vacuous, because the logic applied here also can be applied to the aforementioned fire and police departments. The fact is that we all must sacrifice something for the benefit of all (including Mr. Boortz, whether he likes it or not) when it comes to issues that affect us all.

We all contribute to taxes that pay for fire departments, because we want the benefit of our community's protection in case our house catches fire.

We all contribute to taxes that pay for police departments, because we want the benefit of our community's protection in case we're robbed.

We do this not only to protect ourselves, but because we value our neighbors and countrymen. We value their lives and happiness, which is why we protect their safety, so why wouldn't we want to protect their heath?

What Boortz is trying to claim smacks of Jane Fonda's ill-advised attempt to not pay her taxes during the Vietnam War, her reasoning being that because she did not support the war, she should not have to see her tax money used to pay for it. Of course, that argument failed because, as the judge pointed out, she benefits from national defense regardless of whether she agrees with what the military does or does not do. She lives in safety and enjoys her rights because of the protection afforded by the military through her taxes.

The same can be true of health insurance. It won't, of course, as a national health plan will not pass congress, not in its current state of partisan gridlock where lies, rumours, and hearless "logic" like Boortz's tend to get the most attention. But a small justice can be done by requiring that insurers accommodate those with pre-existing conditions. Because we value our fellow citizens enough to bring them in from the cold, even if it means we have to spare a few cents extra overall on our insurance premiums. To do otherwise is downright inhuman.

Update: I noticed that Boortz also writes a column for the WorldNetDaily, which if I recall, is run by fundamentalist Christian Joseph Farah. How "Christian" is Boortz if he advocates letting people suffer and die to save his own bottom line? Well, no one ever accused the WorldNetDaily of being consistent...or honest...or accurate...or fair...or, well, you get the idea.

Resurrection and Rededication

2010-02-17T16:57:00.005-06:00

It's been a long time since I blogged, since I wrote anything in fact. The past year has been...interesting to say the least: marriage, moving, unemployment, depression and despair, agony and ecstasy, blah blah blah, etc.

I want to start writing again, and I've been putting it off far too long, obsessing over details of what to write about and how. A gridlock of my own creation, I could see no way out until I chanced upon an essay in the AHA's "Perspectives" weekly newsletter titled "How Writing Leads to Thinking (and not the other way around)." I felt kind of stupid when I read the title, the simple truth of it illustrated for myself in the way that I used to do freewriting to jumpstart my brain.

Like I said, I stopped writing, and now I regret having done so. I also regret the way I was writing in the past on this blog, it seems like I was trying to sound like every other blogger out there instead of myself, which itself may have contributed to my stopping.

To thine own self be true.

So, in the interest of saving what little sanity I have left, and to follow DaVinci's exhortation to exercise the most important "muscle" in my body (lest it atrophy from disuse), I'm going to write about any and everything that engages my mind. There will be fluff, of course, but important fluff I promise. Well, important to me anyway. :P

So here is my rededication: this blog will be a forum for expression of my thoughts and opinions, my musings and meanderings, my beliefs and hopes. Though it always was thus, I have not always been the best writer, nor have I been as charitable or as nice as I know I am in person. Well, it is the internet...but no, the discourse in this nation, indeed the world, is already too rancorous. It's time that I went back to being the civil, rational human being on the internet as well as in real life, because such people are becoming an endangered species. So that's my rededication: to express myself and add my voice to the chorus, but to do so in a way that reflects well upon myself and shows a respect for the discourse.

No other word for it: This is fucked up.

2008-09-02T07:48:00.004-05:00

So it's been roughly a month since I posted, and a lot has happened in that time: I got engaged, then my fiancee's mother died of lung cancer, then I started the new semester. I might post about some of that stuff; seeing my fiancee's mother pass away before my eyes is an experience that I will never forget.

But for now, I'd like to jump right back into things. First off: Minneapolis Police at the RNC. What are they doing?

Well, it seems that the Republican Nat'l Convention is going on and they don't want the rabble (i.e. ordinary Americans) to be heard voicing their dissatisfaction with the last eight years during which the Republicans have run this country into the ground.

So here's what we've come to:

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

[via Pharyngula]

Fundies get rick-rolled in real life!

2008-07-14T11:08:00.006-05:00

From Friendly Atheist we have the video evidence of a real-life rick-rolling outside a gay club in Florida...

It's almost as good as the Anonymous protest against Scientology in London earlier this year. LONG CAT IS LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!

Short take with a Facebook fundie

2008-07-07T10:56:00.005-05:00

I like to go on the Christian groups on Facebook from time to time. It's fun to discuss things like morality and the history of early Christianity (one of my favourite subjects as an undergrad). There are some Christians who are amenable to discussing things rationally without automatically resorting to scripture. But occasionally it's also fun to tease the fundies who also prowl these boards.

So I posted the video from my previous blog entry (see it here). And sure enough, my bear-baiting snagged a fundie.

Fundie: "Why try and convince believers that God is bad? All you're doing is trying to convince yourself there is no God so that you can go through life without fear of being punished for evil acts. Kind of gives you a license to do whatever you like, huh?"

Me: "Yep, in fact I'm eating an aborted fetus while we speak. Mmmmmm....it's like eating an omelette!!!"

Fundie: "God rebuke you, Satan!!"

Me:

Fundie: "God says not to be drug into endless debates by satan. We are to love and worship God."

Me: "Yep, you wouldn't want to end up in Hell simply for not believing in the right God."

I love it when he called me "satan." I rarely get that and it just gives me constant giggles when I do! Hehehehe! Fundies are so clueless!

Believe in me....OR ELSE!!!

2008-07-07T09:07:00.005-05:00

Here's a fun little video that pretty accurately depicts how petty and capricious the Christian God must be if all those fundamentalist nutbars are right. Ever heard anything like this?

"If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God Almighty through the authority of Christ and His blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket."
-John Hageee, 6/11/06

Enjoy.

[via Pharyngula]

An excellent peek into how the rest of the world views US policial life

2008-07-06T11:55:00.003-05:00

Here's a REALLY good short-take from the BBC on the art of the "U-Turn," or flip-flopping as it's commonly known here in the states. The article gives a nice run-down on the major "about faces" that both Barack Obama and John McCain have done on specific issues life campaign finance, immigration, as well as the one flip-flop that means I will very likely NOT be voting for John McCain this year.

Another McCain, quote, shift was in his relationship with the religious right of his party.
During his 2000 bid for the Republican nomination, relations between Mr McCain and Christian Coalition founder Jerry Falwell were notoriously fractious.
The Arizona senator memorably described Mr Falwell and fellow members of the religious right as "agents of intolerance".
But in 2006, ahead of his second presidential run, Mr McCain delivered the commencement address at Mr Falwell's Liberty University, after which he attended a small private party hosted by his former political adversary.

He's simply changed too much since 2000 when I wrote his name in on my ballot.

I say we help them out

2008-07-02T09:06:00.005-05:00

Ok, sit down for this one.

Seriously, sit down, I'm not paying for your ER visit when you split your head open from the *headdesk* that I'm about to lay on you.

Some people want to write-in George W. Bush in the 2008 election, they want four more years of "God's president."

Stay the Course
Under the strong leadership of God's President we've been safe for 7 years. But if we abandon God now, we could be hit again.
We don't need to worry about the details, we just trust in God and vote our faith. When we step out in faith and leave the details to God, there's no limit to what can be accomplished.

There is a lot of Poe's Law-induced confusion with this; it could be a clever attempt at satire, and it most likely is, but let's say for the moment it's real.

So what should we do about this? I say we help them out.

I'm being completely serious. Even if Bush was actually running, and even if there wasn't that pesky little 22nd Amendment, there is no way Bush could get elected again. These morons seem to think that there's enough latent support (through evangelical dissatisfaction with McCain and a screeching fear of the "Islamic-Atheistic-Hindu" Barack Obama) for Dubya to get a write-in campaign going and re-elect the Decider.

So I say let them throw away their votes, because it's assholes like these who subjected the rest of us to 8 years of failed policies.

Bush is a failure in so many ways, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are only the most visible. The environment, the economy, civil liberties and human rights, health care, and on and on and on.

So yeah, let's help these poor folks out. Print out a couple copies and post them on the bulletin board of your local Baptist church, maybe we'll be able to keep a few rubes from fucking up yet another election.

[H/T to Dispatches from the Culture Wars]

Oh, this is too rich...

2008-07-01T08:55:00.003-05:00

So there's a another new "marriage protection" amendment that's been introduced in the Senate, and the hypocrisy parade is in full swing. Just have a guess at who two of the Republican sponsors are...

Yep. It's the two Senators who have shown the LEAST concern for the "sanctity" of marriage: Sen. Bob "Dress me up in Diapers" Vitter and Sen. Larry "Tap Dancing Daisy" Craig.

Jesus' General has already lampooned them thoroughly:

"If we allow homosexuals to marry, who's going to take care of the needs of the many straight, married men who like to blow guys in public restrooms?"
---Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)

"Being diapered by a prostitute didn't end my marriage. But if my wife knew homosexuals were marrying each other, she'd divorce me in a minute."
--- Sen. Bob Vitter (R-LA)

Ya gotta love the transparent, unabashed crassness of this bill. It's 2004 all over again, and the Republicans are once again trying to mobilize all the bible-thumping, gay-hating, slack-jawed yokels which make up their base. "Da Gayz R gettin married! Oh noes!"

On a related note, someone tried to convince me that James Dobson, one of the consummate Liars for Jesus, doesn't have anything against gays, even after I showed him this quote:

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth."
---On gay marriage, from The Daily Oklahoman, Oct. 23rd, 2004

Apparently, accusing your opponent of being bent on the willful destruction of the whole world doesn't mean you hate them. Yeah right, and I'm supposed to believe that Hitler didn't really hate the Jews, even though he accused them of, well, pretty much the same thing Dobson is saying of homosexuals.

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.
---Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

For Hitler, Jews were interested only in money and domination through political power, and that would lead to the destruction of civilization. For Dobson, the homosexuals are only interested in sex, though they only seek power insofar as it allows them to have more sex, as Dobson implies here:

"The state legislature here in Colorado has frankly become just about as radical and extreme as the California Legislature, in an effort that was designed to obviously appease the homosexual community give access to all public restrooms by people of the opposite gender," Dr. Dobson said on his radio program last week.

It's all part of a huge conspiracy. The homosexuals want to control everything so they can destroy civilization.

Sorry to have broken Godwin's Law, but they're just too similar. Not that Dobson is advocating the wholesale murder of homosexuals, though his opposition to anti-discruminatory and hate-crime legislation which includes protections for homosexuals suggests that he doesn't mind if other people take the task on their own. He's perfectly content to play his role as a Julius Streicher with his own verson of Der Sturmer in the form of his daily radio broadcasts.

Seriously, it's nuts like Dobson that enable Republican hypocrites like Vitter and Craig to mobilize the legions of the ignorant so that they can continue to treat America like their own personal ATM. But it's not the nuts like Dobson or the Republican shills who parrot his shit, it's the credulous fools who vote for those shills.

We can't let 2004 happen again.

[H/T to Dispatches for the Culture Wars]

EPIC WIN!

2008-06-25T20:06:00.002-05:00

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

It would seem that Dobson isn't as relevant as he used to be! A group of Christian pastors has repudiated James Dobson over his remarks on Obama, and what's more, they started a website with a title that just too rich not to type out in full caps:

JAMESDOBSONDOESNTSPEAKFORME.COM

And just LOOK at their statement! It's so much win!

James Dobson doesn't speak for me.

He doesn't speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide;

He doesn't speak for me when he speaks as the final arbiter on the meaning of the Bible;

James Dobson doesn't speak for me when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of attack;

He doesn't speak for me when he denigrates his neighbor's views when they don't line up with his;

He doesn't speak for me when he seeks to confine the values of my faith to two or three issues alone;

What does speak for me is David's psalm celebrating how good and pleasant it is when we come together in unity;

Micah speaks for me in reminding us that the Lord requires us to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with Him;

The prophet Isaiah speaks for me in his call for all to come and reason together and also to seek justice, encourage the oppressed and to defend the cause of the vulnerable;

The book of Nehemiah speaks for me in its example to work with our neighbors, not against them, to restore what was broken in our communities;

The book of Matthew speaks for me in saying to bless those that curse you and pray for those who persecute you;

The words of the apostle Paul speak for me in saying that words spoken and deeds done without love amount to nothing.

The apostle John speaks for me in reminding us of Jesus' command to love one another. The world will know His disciples by that love.

These words speak for me. But when James Dobson attacks Barack Obama, James Dobson doesn't speak for me.

In addition, there's a run-down of what Barack has said in comparison with the distortions of Dobson.

Finally, people of faith are starting to wake up and smell the bullshit of these bigoted asshats.

(H/T to The Friendly Atheist)

lolphilosophers: Schrodinger's retort

2008-06-25T10:37:00.001-05:00

Hehehehehehehehe!!! Although Schrodinger's kitteh looks more like Basement Cat! Oh noes!!!

Hello Pot? This is Kettle...YOU'RE BLACK!!!

2008-06-25T10:12:00.003-05:00

Hehehe, ya gotta love the irony of sectarian bickering.

It was only a matter of time before one of the fundies-in-chief, this time the "reverend" James Dobson (head of a mass organization of religious bigots known as Focus on the Family), to formally attack Barack Obama as not being "Christian" enough. He's taking issue with a speech Obama made two years ago about the role of faith in democracy.

Now, Obama takes a very rational, pragmatic view of Biblical scripture, taking into account that we live in a secular, pluralistic nation and that in order for us to co-exist, we have to translate religion-specific morals and values into universals so that they are, in Obama's words, "subject to argument and amenable to reason." Further, Obama had the audacity to point out that using "god told me" as a justification for anything is totally unacceptable in our democracy.

But as is the case with most fundies, this painfully obvious fact flies clear over Dobson's head. Whatever, he said he wouldn't vote for McCain anyway, so he's just flailing about trying to still look relevant.

lolphilosophers: Nietzche

2008-06-24T15:23:00.003-05:00

Oh noes!

I get email

2008-06-24T08:29:00.011-05:00

So imagine my surprise when I get an email in my box this morning with the subject heading "Press Release for the Reckoner."

Eh? Who's making press releases for my blog?

Well, no one, it's just someone named Victor Senchenko plugging their own thing, but wait til you see what it is.

Looking over your website, you seem to present yourself as a rational thinker with liberal, humanist views. It is for this reason that the following Press Release may be of interest to you.

Ok, it seems to start off innocently enough...I like to think I'm rational, somewhat liberal on some issues, and definitely humanist (though in the traditional sense of the word, not the strawman definition from the 1970s that fundies still mistakenly use today as a term of derision).

In your personal pursuit of knowledge, you may have come across an interesting phenomena: every year there are millions of children born, of whom many parents become aware that their children are very intelligent. These smart children are often given the chance – by either their parents or the society in which they live – to develop that intelligence, so that it could be used to enhance and improve human existence. This has been occurring, more or less, throughout human existence. Currently we find that never before in human existence has literacy been so wide spread. Never before in human existence have humans possess so much knowledge on how to communicate, heal, and duplicate. Never before in human existence have humans achieved feats of intellectual brilliance and physical endeavors, such as that of a space program, and sending of probes to other planets, so as to learn exactly what our Solar System comprises of. And yet, for all the widespread literacy, numeracy, and vast range of intellectual application advances in all forms of industries and fields of research, a simple but irrefutable fact remains: that humans, as a species, are no more humanely civilized today than they were thousands of years ago.

Ok, he contradicts himself in the first paragraph...not good. If we've "never before" seen such advancements as those he lists, how can he claim that we are still "no more humanely civilized today than [we] were thousands of years ago"? We are definitely more humane than we were 1000 years ago, and this guy is being silly. Are we still keeping slaves? Do we not fight for human rights on daily basis? Do we not have a worldwide organization whose mission is to promote peace and human rights between and within all the nations of the world? It is true that we are still violent and can be generally horrible to each other, but to say we haven't made any progress is just stupid. Moving on...

Human species, made up of races and societies, remains divisive, unjust and ignorant – prone to inflict suffering both on humans and other species – due to human selfishness, greed, and love of brutality. Take a random look at any part of this planet today, and there shall be a presence of human misery: death from hunger; suppressions and oppressions by military juntas and dictators; revolutions; mindless wars waged by bully nations – including those that claim to be democracies – and other military aggressions; retaliatory terrorism; crime with or without violence; degradation and theft of natural resources by desperate or greedy individuals; destruction and pollution of environment by uncaring populations and business companies. Lately, such human behavior has been so bad it has resulted in a vast and rapid degradation of living conditions on this planet, not just for humans but for all life forms.

Yes, all this may be true, but, again, in order for his previous claim to be true, we have to ignore all the good things that have improved life dramatically for human beings. One metric to consider is life expectancy. Do you think it nearly doubled in the last 150 years just on accident? But he's identified his target problem, let's see how he goes about suggesting a solution.

So how can it be that at the period of being so intellectually advanced in knowledge of technical and chemical applications, this, the very brightest and the most educated generation of humans have brought upon themselves the most dangerous situation concerning their existence, the likes of which had never occurred to any earlier human generations?

Ok, I'll bite: how?

The reason for this current human dilemma is that humans replicate the behavior and thinking of those before them. A younger generation accepts the teachings of the older generations, who teach the younger generation what they themselves had experienced at the hands of their own older generation who taught them. In this way, a perpetuation of the ideals held by older generation is guaranteed, so that when an older generation embraces lies, prejudices, and delusions, these lies, prejudices, and delusions are certain to be passed on to the younger generation, who then shall pass the very same lies, prejudices, and delusions onto their own offsprings. In this way, no matter how clever, smart, or intelligent the young generation may be, they are sure to be no wiser than their predecessors.

Ah. He thinks we're all indoctrinated with lies, which is true enough: most of us are raised to believe some pretty crazy shit. But the problem with his argument is that it's too simplistic. Not only does he ignore that not everyone is raised in the same culture with the same beliefs, but he also ignores that there have always been revolutionaries and rebels who continuously challenge the status quo. Besides, it's almost like this guy somehow got through childhood without actually being a teenager! Did he go straight from 12 to 20 and skip his entire adolescence? Viva la revolucion! :P

Needless to say, there are many well-intentioned humans who claim to seek the truth through reason, by exposing human misguided notions of superstition and other delusions connected with religions. The irony is that these individuals are also participants in delusions, without even being aware of this. This occurs because current humans, irrespective of their intellectual pursuits and endeavors, continue to accept the erroneous notions they were taught by their teachers; the very same erroneous notions their teachers were taught by those before them: notion based on misconceptions and fabrications rather than physical reality, but which they all accepted as being factual, and therefore, presumably requiring no examination. This is exactly how science became, and remains flawed: where principles invented by someone, continue to be accepted with no authentication by others.

Uh oh. It would seem he's not just after superstitious religious beliefs, he's after science. So what exactly is it that he thinks are the "misconceptions and fabrications" that have invaded modern science? Evolution? Abiogenesis? What is he after?

Take ‘time’, for example. ‘Time’ was, and remains, an early human invention: a notion intending to explain the physical process of change, which inevitably includes a deterioration – or ‘dispersal’ – of every physical object or body. This includes a physical process that can be observed in humans as an aging of the body, leading to death. This physical process of change can also be witnessed in the continuous rotation of Earth on its axis (by that producing a day and night effect), and the planet’s ongoing orbit of the Sun (producing seasons on Earth’s surface). But instead of understanding that change physically occurs from all the surrounding physical influences of all the surrounding objects and bodies, early humans gave in to a presumption that change was caused by an unseen and unfelt force of mysterious ‘time’. A supposedly, powerful, mysterious entity very much like those of gods; an entity capable of manifesting itself in all that it influences to age and deteriorate.

If you just did a jaw-agape double-take, you're not alone! Time is an entity???? Are you fucking kidding me?? It's almost enough to call "Poe's Law" on this guy, if he wasn't arguing against religion at the same time. But still, let's roll with it and see if there aren't some lulz to be had...

With the development of science, scientists did not bother to examine the notion of ‘time’ seriously. They simply accepted it blindly. After all, were they not taught to accept ‘time’ to be an integral companion of space: a togetherness of time-space continuum? From that blind acceptance, the non-existent entity of ‘time’ had become a valuable commodity to aid the expanding imaginations of scientists and academics. So instead of ‘time’ being simply a ‘measure’ of any duration of the physical process of change, (not unlike a mile or kilometer being merely a measure of distance between two separate points in space, or on Earth’s surface) ‘time’ had been awarded flexible qualities, making it supposedly capable, in its own mysterious way, of fracturing, warping, accelerating and slowing.

Oh, yes, there have been some paltry experiments conducted to establish the physical existence of ‘time’, by examining the effects produced on some elements with a constant rate of decay. But all that these experiments could show, if examined properly, is that physical change can and does occur according to the levels of physical influence imposed upon the decaying elements, causing a speeding-up or slowing-down of decay. This does not, in any way, shape, or form, provide any physical proof to existence of ‘time’, but mere that physical change occurs from other physical change.

Were ‘time’ to physically exist, then, a simple experiment would have long ago provided physical proof to physical existence of ‘time’. That experiment would consist of a refrigerating unit standing exposed to the Sun and the elements of the weather, and of two leaves being removed from the same branch of a tree. One of the two leaves would be placed on top of the refrigerating unit, exposed to the Sun and the elements. The other leaf would be placed inside the refrigerating unit. Were ‘time’ to exist, then the two leaves, few centimeters or inches apart (one on the outside and one on the inside) would be affected at a similar rate by the surrounding-them same speed of ‘time’. As ‘time’ does not exist, but the physical process of change does, the exposed leaf on top of the refrigerating unit would soon disintegrate – disperse – while the leaf incased in the refrigerating unit would remain virtually unchanged indefinitely, for as long as the refrigerating unit continues to function, despite that the refrigerating unit itself is exposed to the Sun and the elements.

Wow. Just let that soak in. It's like bathing in pure inanity, isn't it? I especially love the setup for his proposed "experiment!" ROFL! Apparently, this guy read a little bit on wikipedia about the theory of relativity and the accompanying principle of spacetime, but failed to grasp that spacetime itself doesn't exist, but rather everything exists within spacetime. Things exists in a certain space during a certain time, and no two objects can exist in the same space at the same time. Spacetime is a context for existence, it is not an object in existence nor is it existence itself. It's not a hard concept to grasp, but this guy just took it in a whole new direction it was never supposed to go.

There are other such flaws to the current understanding of science. But despite them being flaws, delusions, or simply lies, it will not be easy for current humans – be they also scientists and academics or not – to acknowledge them as such. Having based their sciences on such delusions, the full scope of human knowledge depends for those non-existent entities to exist. So much like theists depending on their non-existent gods to exist. For that reason, blinded by their faith – despite proclaiming their allegiance to logic and reason – those in sciences shall (and do), belligerently refuse to admit their delusions, just like theists who refuse to acknowledge the non-existence of their gods.

Despite such opposition to physical reality, sooner or later humans will have to recognize and admit that their current delusions apply not just to religions, but to sciences as well. They shall also be required to admit that the reason why they find themselves, as a species, in such dire straits, is totally due to them structuring ABSOLUTELY ALL of their societies on their flawed, erroneous, and deluded perceptions of themselves and all that surrounds them, despite of their individual high intelligence. Humans had devised their societies according to their own, flawed perceptions of physical existence, rather than doing so based on absolute rational of reason.

Ugh, he just compared science to a religious belief, with time as its "god." Notice how he also set it up so that he can call you "delusional" if you don't agree with him? Classic denialism. So then what, pray tell, is the "absolute rational [sic] of reason" we should be following?

There is, however, an alternative to this situation. It is now possible for anyone to learn all there is to know about humans, the reasons for their behavior, and all that physically surrounds them. A book, “Revelations of a Human Space Navigator", by Victor Senchenko, discloses all the human delusions, which continue to afflict human existence. This book reveals the very basics of who and what humans actually are, and why they behave as they do. It explains exactly from what all that is physical is physically made of, and why in the process of being they produce resultant physical functions, such as gravity and electromagnetic fields. By providing all this information, it becomes quite simple to understand exactly why ‘time’ and gods not only do not physically exist, but exactly why they cannot physically exist.

Aha! Finally we cut to the chase! He's plugging a book! Let's just let get that title by itself so we can have a proper look at it:

Revelations of a Human Space Navigator

Oh my. So he's proving that something which we already know doesn't exist physically, doesn't exist physically? Wow. Not only that, but he claims he can explain everything! Did he come across this knowledge while he was "navigating" through "space?" ROFL!

Of course, there is no compulsion for you to either accept the claims made in the book, or to purchase the book. The only important factor is that of your awareness: should you ever choose to acquire the knowledge humans had always claimed to want, without any illusions, delusions, fabrications and lies, then you should know that such information is available to you.

Oh, don't worry, I won't purchase it. And it's not because I'm not without "illusions, delusion, fabrications and lies," but rather because I'm not without incredulity when it comes to the claims of cranks who don't understand the first thing about what it is they're arguing against. Time is an "entity?" LMAO!!!

But now we're coming to the really funny part...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Furthermore, in defending the uniqueness and originality of the information presented in the book, the author issues a challenge to Any and Every person on the planet who purchases this book: were that person to provide the author with a physical proof that his revelations
had already existed at any period of the Human Age, (as knowledge not derived or sourced from this book), then the author, himself, will refund that person the full purchase price of the book.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! He's already shown how fucked up his understanding of spacetime is, so how much you wanna bet he wouldn't know it if anyone actually bothered to refute any of his other "claims?" It's just put there to give the credulous fools who do end up buying his book the illusion that his positions are intellectually defensible. But judging just from the content of this "press release," I'd say anyone who bought the book and decided to challenge it should be guaranteed to get his money back...that's if this guy not only understands how he's wrong but actually admits it, which is exactly what these guys DON'T do. Remember Kent Hovind's $250,000 Challenge? Yeah, it's like that, only not as big.

Anyway, here's the guy's website for those of you who are actually interested in pwning this crank. www.victorsenchenko.com

That whole site earns Victor his own special cap. Thanks for the lulz Vic! :P

Rest in Peace: George Carlin

2008-06-23T08:21:00.003-05:00

It was the first thing I saw this morning when I logged on. George Carlin is dead at 71.

One of the funniest, and smartest men of the last generation has passed. I'm really going to miss his incisive mocking of religion, among other issues that American go crazy over for the wrong the reasons.

I'll never forget this one...

"The God excuse: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, 'It came from God! Anything we can't describe must've come from God!'"

He had religion nailed a long time ago. He'll be missed.

Update on Freshwater: FINALLY DOIN IT RITE

2008-06-21T10:41:00.003-05:00

Well, finally sanity prevails over the town of Mt. Vernon, as we receive word from Ed over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars that the school board voted UNAMINOUSLY to terminate John Freshwater from his teaching position at the middle school.

Hooray.

I know there should normally an exclamation point after that "hooray" but I just feel like this isn't a victory for reason. This guy was able to spew his bullshit in students' minds for TWENTY-ONE FUCKING YEARS!!!

Why? Why so long to fire such a blatantly obvious religious ideologue who had no business whatsoever being in a position of authority over children?

What's more, John is probably going to be taken care of by one of the nutjob creationist/dominionist groups out there who are looking to help him "sell" his story of being fired for merely "keeping a Bible on his desk," which is the lie his local defenders are telling right now.

Such a waste.

Update on Freshwater: It's worse than we thought

2008-06-20T10:48:00.005-05:00

How this mother fucker wasn't fired YEARS ago I'll never understand. Apparently, he's been burning crosses into his students' arms for almost two decades, and his colleagues at the high school level have complained about having to "re-educate" his students after they've had him for 8th grade science, so thorough have his methods of indoctrination in naked creationism been.

The complete summary of the investigation is out. You can read it here.

There's word that the board is going to fire him soon. They should add a few more names to that list, like whoever shielded Freshwater from criticism over his 21 years of "teaching." Seriously, the damage that he's done over the years...outrageous!!! Of course, prepare for the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth from the religious right for "viewpoint discrimination" or some such non-sense.

(H/T to Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

History: UR DOIN RONG!!! pt. 2

2008-06-19T16:44:00.006-05:00

Ok, so apparently the religious right went digging around and they finally found what they were looking for: a 150 year old tome that purports to “prove” that the United States actually was founded as a Christian nation.

Is anyone else laughing at this? Instead of doing there own research into primary source material, doing their own analysis and work, what do they do? They go to an ancient tome! Sound eerily familiar?

Anyway, it’s available online both at Google books and ScienceBlogs has a downloadable pdf of it if you care to look, just head over to Greg Laden’s blog for the link. (H/T to Greg for the lulz!)

BURNING WITH CHRIST'S LOVE!

2008-06-18T10:25:00.003-05:00

Literally! At least, John Freshwater's Electro-Technics Products Inc. model BD-10A is burning with Christ's love. Apparently, the high school teacher was behaving a bit naughty, what with handing out Bibles on school time and, get this, burning the cross into student's flesh!!

How fucked up does a teacher have to be in order for the school board to kick them to the curb? We don't know what the limits of dingbattery the Mount Vernon City School District of Ohio is willing to put up with, because they didn't really do anything to correct this problem.

So now, predictably, there's a lawsuit.

I swear, this is insane. What was the board thinking? It's even worse when considering that the principal and superintendent of the school actually worked against the complainants! Check out this bullshit and then try not to vomit:

White also, according to the court documents, disclosed the identity of the plaintiffs to Freshwater, although Short had promised them anonymity. After the parents raised concerns of retaliation against their son, a field trip was scheduled, with their son assigned to a certain group and chaperone. The suit claims that once the child’s identity was revealed, his group assignment was changed to the one led by Freshwater. As a result, the parents “were forced to prohibit their son from attending the school field trip.” That caused injury by depriving the son of a valuable educational experience and discouraging the plaintiffs from continuing to exercise their right to free speech.

As Abbie over at ERV astutely asked, "what was Freshwater planning on doing to this child?" It chills the bones to think that the group assignments were changed so that Freshwater could again be in power over this kid.

Anyway, this is a loser for the district and for Freshwater, but don't be surprised if you start seeing this case put forward by kooks and cranks as evidence of secular oppression. "ZOMG! CRISTAINS R BEIN PURSEQUTID!!!" So stupid...

Introducing Cato the Elder...lolphilosopher

2008-06-18T09:49:00.002-05:00

"The Happening"

2008-06-18T09:41:00.005-05:00

So I took my dad to go see it on Father's Day (he and I always liked Shyamalan's movies). But after seeing it, I can't help but thinking that I should've paid more attention to reviews.

Here's the review that I think best expresses my opinion of Shyamalan's latest work.

"Religulous"

2008-06-17T19:40:00.004-05:00

Oh my...Bill Maher made a documentary.

It looks good, no?

History: UR DOIN IT RONG!!!

2008-06-17T14:04:00.008-05:00

So Christopher Hitchens has an essay in the latest edition of Newsweek in which he rightly takes Pat Buchanan to task over his new revisionist history of World War II speciously titled Churchill, Hitler and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.

World War II? THAT war was unnecessary??? I haven't read it, but already I can see Pat is once again wearing his daffy isolationism on his sleeve. Thankfully, Hitchens has summed up Pat's main points for quick refutation:

That Germany was faced with encirclement and injustice in both 1914 and 1939.
Britain in both years ought to have stayed out of quarrels on the European mainland.
That Winston Churchill was the principal British warmonger on both occasions.
The United States was needlessly dragged into war on both occasions.
That the principal beneficiaries of this were Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.
That the Holocaust of European Jewry was as much the consequence of an avoidable war as it was of Nazi racism.

Point one is obviously ludicrous: it wasn't as if Germany hadn't ALREADY taken over two of its neighbours (Austria in 1937-8, and Czechoslovakia in 1938-39) and intervened in another country's bloody civil war to help install another fascist dictator (Spain, 1936-39). No, it's not like Germany wasn't aggressive all across the board. True, the Versailles Treaty was a raw deal for the Germans, but not in 1914!! Anyway, Hitchens does pretty well taking Pat apart on this one.

Point two is also ridiculous, and simply reflects Buchanan's dangerous belief that countries should mind their own business, apparently even when the business of that other country is to take over yours...

Point three is partially correct, ol' Winston was as gung ho as they came, but as Hitchens remarks, that he was unwilling to even be in the same room as the Nazis is a point in his favour, not against.

Point four is just plain stupid, old-fashioned, head-in-the-sand, isolationism. 'Nuff said.

Point five is confusing at first look, because Hitler had talked about invading the Soviet Union for years before he actually did it (as part of his push for more lebensraum or "living space"). But according to Hitchen's reading of the book, Buchanan apparently makes the case that Hitler invaded Russia to impress the British and show them that he was on their side. I don't think anymore needs to be said, that's batshit crazy enough. As for China, I think that Buchanan is forgetting that the Nationalists lost China, and had started to lose it as early as the 1920s, but hey, it wouldn't be a book by Pat Buchanan if it didn't include at least one old cold-warrior trope about losing China to the Reds.

The sixth point is not wrong, rather it's a distortion. It's true that without the war, the Holocaust could not have happened as it did. But even before the war started, the Nazis had already been imprisoning Jews and other "enemies" in concentration camps since 1933, and had been quietly murdering their handicapped at least a year before the war began. So much for point six...

Anyway, the REAL reason I wanted to write this is because I caught Hitchens in an error. It's a common error, and not a big deal, but because it's Hitchens, I HAVE to do it! How often does one get to correct one of the top intellectuals in the world today? :D

So here's the statement:

This might perhaps have worked if Germany had been governed by a right-wing nationalist party that had won a democratic vote. However, in point of fact Germany was governed by an ultra-rightist, homicidal, paranoid maniac who had begun by demolishing democracy in Germany itself, who believed that his fellow countrymen were a superior race and who attributed all the evils in the world to a Jewish conspiracy.

Ok, so we have two sentences, and only the first is wrong. It's true. The Nazis were ELECTED to power, they didn't seize it like so many think they did. It's easy to think they did, I know, because COME ON!! They're Nazis, after all, right? Yeah, but they were still elected by the German people in 1932-33, and Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the democratically elected President Paul Hindenberg in January 1933, following the previous July and November elections, and his cabinet was subsequently approved by the Reichstag. These two elections were both before the famous Reichstag Fire, which preceded the March 5, 1933 election that saw the Nazis achieve their greatest democratic gains and gave impetus to the Enabling Act which gave Hitler unfettered power over Germany.

The second sentence is correct: the Nazis wasted no time in dismantling the Weimar Republic with the Ennabling Act, and they believed unequivocally that they were the superior race on Earth.

So w00t for me! I got to correct Christopher Hitchens on something! I feel so empowered! :P

Atheist Q&A meme

2008-06-17T12:10:00.006-05:00

So Abbie over at erv got tagged with this little meme and invited her readers (that would include me, and it should include you) to answer them. Here's mine:

Q1. How would you define "atheism"?

Atheism isn't a positive belief, it is simply a lack of belief in a deity. That's all. This non-sense that it's a "religious belief that takes faith" would be laughable if so many Christians didn't think it was a serious argument. The reason that's it's laughable is because it's a distortion of mainstream non-belief, as only a very few non-believers actively deny any possibility of a god or gods (yes, even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that god "X" is possible), otherwise known colloquially as "strong atheists." The vast majority of non-believers, in my experience, treat God as possible, but in the same sense that it's possible that the Earth was sneezed into existence by a chimera, i.e. not likely enough to even begin justifying a belief.

So atheism is just a lack of belief, not a belief in non-belief.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
I was raised in a "dual-faith" household, if you could call it that. Both my parents are Christian, but my mother is Catholic while my father comes from an evangelical protestant family. I say dual-faith because while my parents love each other very much, they have never, in their 36 years of marriage, agreed on the Christian doctrine. My mother secretly baptized me herself because my father forbade a Catholic baptism, and my father's mother used to worry that her son and grandchildren (my dad, my sister, and myself) would be drawn into Hell with my Catholic mother.

So how did they approach faith with my sister and I? Well, compromise mostly. Both my father and mother talked to me about their different faiths, and we attended Episcopal churches as our usual (Catholic rites pleased my mother, while the C of E's independence from Rome pleased my dad). I was read to out of a comic bible when I was 3, and got my first real Bible at age 7. I was encouraged by both my parents to explore the Christian faith in all its forms, which led to me attending many different denominational churches: Catholic, evangelical, methodist, unitarian, even a Jewish synagogue. (I never went to a Baptist church, though, my parents were pretty clear about not hanging out with them, and it wasn't until later on in my life that I figured our why: they're fuckin' crazy!!!)

Anyway, in addition to my parents, both sides of my extended family are very religious in their own respects. My mom's brother is a Catholic priest in Cincinatti, and the whole family is devout Catholic. On my dad's side, my grandfather was a minister for a time back in the 50s and 60s, and I have a cousin who started his own congregation, also in Cincinatti. The rest of my dad's family is mostly evangelical protestant. Thankfully none of them seems to be a creationist or dominionist, though the usual craziness over abortion and gay rights is alive and well.

I was a Christian for well over 20 years, before I realized that there really isn't much to Christianity at all aside from superstitions and wishful thinking.

Q3. How would you describe "Intelligent Design", using only one word?

Inane. See also: meaningless.

Q4. What scientific endeavor really excites you?

I love history, but I have a hard time considering it science, even as a "soft science." History is just too muddled by differing disciplines that it's impossible to really consider it scientific (I have to be a philosopher, a psychologist, a sociologist, an anthropologist, and a political scientist all at once in order to be a historian.)

So I'll pick my favourite "hard science," which has to be geology (Sorry Abbie!). I spend too much time climbing on all the wonderful ridges, cliffs, boulders, and rock outcroppings in southern Illinois for it NOT to be my favourite. Oh, and I love finding fossils at the roadcut on IL-146! I still have yet to find a coveted trilobite, but I'm sure I will someday!

So I like fossils, but geology is also the study of VOLCANOES!!! And I'm sorry, but forces of nature don't come any sexier than that! One of my fondest memories is the times I went tromping through the San Francisco Volcanic Field in central Arizona with my dad and best friend from high school Matt: the San Francisco Peaks, Sunset Crater, SP Crater, walking the lava flows...so much w00t it should be illegal!

Plate tectonics is fascinating to me and every time I've been in an earthquake (3 so far) instead of running for the nearest doorframe like a sane person should, what do I do? I go outside to watch the world shake!

Anthropology was my first major, but I'll admit that I only got into it because I loved the idea of working with fossils. Biology continues to awe me, and I love getting into discussions of science regardless of the discipline, but I have to say that geology is what gets me excited.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the "atheist community", what would it be and why?

I think it would be to get the ones who try to argue that science disproves god. These are usually the high schoolers who are just now discovering life without religion and are in rebellion against their upbringing. I went through a bit of it, but I was never so naive to believe that science definitively disproves any god. It can disprove a literal interpretation of holy scripture, but then, this was never a problem for me when I was a Christian. I was lucky enough to not have been so indoctrinated that I thought Genesis was a play-by-play for creation, and not the metaphor for creation it so obviously is.

Anyway, I think the effect this has is to further polarize the debate. I don't think that people who claim science disproves all gods are looking for a debate, they're looking to provoke an argument for the sake of argument, or to satisfy some juvenile need for validation.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said "I'm joining the clergy", what would be your first response?

"If you wanted to lie to people on a regular basis, why don't you just become a politician? At least that PAYS!"

Q7. What's your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Them: does that fossil have a date printed on it?
Me: Yes, only denialists and morons are unable to read the isotopes that say "OH HAI! I'z 1.3 billyun yeers olde!!1!!1"

I also like this one:

Them: The US was founded as a Christian nation!
Me: Then why isn't god or Christ mentioned anywhere in the Constitution? Article VI anyone? Establishment Clause? Treaty of Tripoli of 1793? Hello????

And the latest one, courtesy of "Expelled:"

Them: Science caused the Holocaust!!!
Me: Yes, it also caused the massacres and pogroms throughout Europe for 2000 years prior to the 20th century horror. Oh wait! No it didn't, that was CHRISTIANITY! My bad! (Then I begin by listing the many organized massacres, beginning with the Rhine Valley in 1096.)

Q8. What's your most "controversial" (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

I dunno. I've gotten a bit of flak from being a pantheist, but it's mostly just 13 year olds (in mind if not in body) who go after me. Other than that, I don't think I'm that controversial.

Q9. Of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

I think Sam Harris. He seems to be the most appealing to me, mainly because he believes that there is still a place for the ineffable in life, as evidenced by his fascination with Eastern mysticism, which I share. I'd like to meet Dawkins just so I can say I did, but I'm not that enamored of him. Hitchens would be a riot, and we both like scotch a lot, so that would probably be fun. I've honestly never read anything by Dennet, though I did see part of his "debate" with Dinesh D'Souza, if you could call his smackdown of Di-know-nothing a "debate."

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Abbie said the President, and I can't think of a better answer. Maybe the Pope, but just for the lulz. :P

I R SMART!!!

2008-06-12T20:27:00.002-05:00

So there's a new study out that claims that the smarter people are, the less likely they are to believe in God. Personally, I don't think it has as much to do with intelligence as it does with the ability to think critically, especially when it comes to one's own cherished beliefs.

Check it out.

lolphilosophers...

2008-06-11T11:02:00.004-05:00

I'm sure I needn't explain the well-known internet meme of lolcats, so without further ado, I give you lolphilosophers! I made the first example myself. Not bad, eh? Cool points to those who can correctly identify each thinker!

The most idiotic "I told you so" I think I've ever heard...

2008-06-09T12:14:00.004-05:00

And it's from Charles Krauthammer, who had the solution to our current gas crisis 25 years ago. And what is that solution?

Why, it's a gas tax of course!

Some things, like renal physiology, are difficult. Some things, like Arab-Israeli peace, are impossible. And some things are preternaturally simple. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don't regulate. Don't mandate. Don't scold. Don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.

Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us -- and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.

Oh, he's serious, I assure you. But wait, he's only getting started. Apparently, completely unbeknownst to the rest of the world but knownst to Krauthammer, oil prices will fall if we cut back on our consumption.

Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand -- and bring down world crude oil prices -- the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.

Yeah, it's not like we have a dwindling supply of oil, or that India and China are drinking up more and more as they're economies modernize, or that a big chunk of our oil comes from volatile regions with bad people, or that speculators on the market tend to artificially inflate the price of commodities.

Yeah, let's tax it, that'll drive down costs. Who needs to develop alternative fuels? Conservation and reducing consumption? Hogwash!

Sorry Charlie, but you're just fucking stupid.

...and the cycle begins again

2008-06-06T11:56:00.005-05:00

As if the diplomatic situation with Iran wasn't precarious enough, here comes the Israeli deputy prime minister stating in no uncertain terms that Israel will be forced to attack Iran if it doesn't halt its nuclear program.

We already all knew Israel would act in its own security interests, and so did the Iranians, no doubt. Does Ahmadinejad really think Israel wouldn't strike Iran, especially with their blitz of Lebanon and Hezbollah, who didn't have nuclear weapons? So what is the significance of having it stated so publicly and unequivocally?

Personally, I think the Israelis just handed the Iranians a powerful propaganda tool. I could see the Ayatollahs using this as a excuse to drum up nationalistic fervor: "The Israelis want to attack us! So we MUST have a nuclear capability!"

It doesn't matter that the Israelis said hostilities would be conditional upon Iran abandoning its nukes; do you really think a totalitarian regime like Iran's really cares about context when quoting its enemies?

This was a diplomatic blunder. Not to mention the fact that such an increase in tensions also artificially increases the price of oil, but hey, at least we'll only have to deal with a recession, surely not an out and out energy crisis plunging us into a full-on depression, right? RIGHT?

But what's done is done. Bush's plan for peace in the Middle East marches on inexorably towards what I'm sure will be a stunning success. :\

My cynicism is once again in ascendance

2008-06-05T13:28:00.005-05:00

Yeah, so I got canned after my first night alone canvassing for GCI. It was kind of surreal. We were in Lincoln Park, where I knocked on 186 doors, talked to 46 people yet only raised $25. My goal was $100.

I've worked in sales a long time. I know the pitch, I know how to read people, and I knew their script and stuck to it. In short, I know how to get people to hand over their money if I want them to buy something from me. In this case, I was selling democracy, so to speak, but you get what I mean.

So why so bad? Because even good salesmen have lousy days, and this was just a lousy day. That it happened to be my first day was unfortunate, and I wasn't asked back.

But not because I only met 25% of my goal, no. The Ass't director, a valley-girl who just graduated college, apparently didn't think I fit in with her clique of young, idealistic, world-changers. Or she just didn't "love my face off" like she said to the other 5 team members, two of whom raised less than me.

Whatever, I've been fired before over personality conflicts. But this was just stupid.

I didn't meet my quota, but neither did half the team. One girl, who was on her second training day, only made two dollars! But she was young and bubbly like the AD, as her face must've been worth "loving off." (I swear, she said it all the fucking time).

So from my point of view, they dumped an experienced and motivated person from their ranks because a petty and judgmental bitch didn't think I would fit in with the clique. Seriously, I would tell a joke and everyone else but her would laugh. She even called me rude when I related a story of how one door I knocked on revealed a Republican who accused me of the old "tax & spend" trope that conservatives love to bandy about; to which I replied that it was better than the "spend and spend" of the Republican congress of the previous 14 years.

Yeah, she though I was rude to him! That the other team members were nodding at me in approval and smiling at me apparently didn't enthuse her.

So I guess I had to be removed. Oh well, petty valley girls area dime a dozen these days (why can't we shoot Paris Hilton into space? Please?). Doesn't make it suck any less.

So much for working for democracy, I guess. Back to the comfortable confines of cranky cynicism. (Does it count as alliteration even though "cyncism" isn't a hard C? I think I should get the points anyway. :P)

New summer job

2008-06-04T10:08:00.003-05:00

It's been a busy two weeks. I finally got a job, and it's a good thing too. The temp agencies that I had left my resume with probably never would've gotten back to me, and some of the other places I sent it to probably wouldn't either (how many students are there in Chicago looking for summer work?).

So what job is it?

I'm working as a canvasser for Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. representing the Democratic National Committee.

I hate political parties, normally. Well, lemme rephrase, I hate the polarization that our two-party system has created in this country, especially in recent times thanks to quintessential douchebag Karl Rove.

But still, this election is too important to leave to chance...and I need the money. They gave me an interview and sent me out with a canvassing team to evaluate me and today I'm supposed to go out by myself canvassing and if I raise something like $100 then I'm automatically on staff.

So no waiting, that's good. I only have 8 weeks to work anyway, and I need to make the most of it. I move back to Carbondale in August.

Plus, this beats working some lame office job (I've done enough of those anyway), because I'm actually getting PAID to talk to people about politics!!! w00t!

I do have a script that I'm supposed to follow, though they explained to me that it's fine to personalize what I say to people, just so long as I stay "on the outskirts of the script."

Anyway, I'm a little apprehensive because on Monday, my "observation day," one of the team members I went with got a gun pulled on her when she knocked on someone's door. I wasn't with her, but she was freaked out, understandably. I realize that this doesn't happen often, and that it probably shouldn't have happened (we were in Evanston for pity's sake!). But still, it's a little scary to think about.

Anyway, I'll be campaigning for the Democrats this year. I usually support the dems anyway, but I've never worked for them. It's kind of weird, to be honest. The people are awesome, they're very energetic and enthusiastic, full of idealism. And it shows, sometimes in awkward ways. I've heard more than a few crazy ideas around that office, lemme tell ya. But the staff is young, on average I'd say about 5-8 years younger than me. The gap might not seem very large, but that 5-8 years means I remember more of what the Dems did when they were in power. I remember a lot of the things Clinton did pissed me off, and when I met Dick Durbin two years ago in Carbondale he pissed me off too with his lame answer to my question about why Dems weren't confronting the Bush Administration's denialism on global climate change (he claimed that nothing would get done by people in Washington, that change had to come from the people, starting at the local level, the grassroots. To which I reminded him that he was in Washington, and the way we little people change things is by changing the people in Washington. He seemed non-plussed by my response, but it's his own damn fault.)

Anyway, this should be an interesting job to say the least. I may even grow to like it. I just don't want to be one the sidelines this year. As much as I respect John McCain, a lot has happened since the 2000 election. I can't stand with him on foreign policy, much less domestic. I'm not totally happy with Barack's stated positions either, but he seems to have a much better grasp of the nuance of different situations. Plus, he talks to people like adults, unlike the Republican spin machine which only tells people who to hate and why, the truth be damned. So that's why I took this job.

Oh, and I need the money too. :P

If only there was a Scarlet P...

2008-05-21T13:30:00.002-05:00

So I've been meaning to write this for a few months now, ever since I put up the Scarlet "A" for atheism but got sidetracked by assignments and other pursuits to write what needed to be written.

Why write anything, you ask? Aren't I an atheist? I write a lot about it, so what gives?

Well, technically, I'm not an atheist. I'm a pantheist.

So I do believe in something as opposed to just plain old non-belief. I'm not saying atheism is nihilism, it's just lack of a belief in the supernatural/spiritual/etc. Atheists hold many beliefs, like everyone, they just happen to lack one belief that most other people seem to have.

But wait, you say! Aren't I describing a line of demarcation between my pantheism and atheism, so why do I have the "A"? Well, hold on, I'm getting to that.

I do possess a spiritual belief in the inherent "being" of everything. Just the fact that everything in existence actually exists shows that, at base, existence or the state of "being" is the common denominator of all things. I think there is a spiritual kinship between all things, and the only "will" (if you could call it that) behind this common spirit is the single-minded will to exist.

Nothing beyond that, though. No design. No plan. No intent beyond simply existing.

I know it may smack of teleology and even perhaps a bit of ontology, but it's only my own poor definitions that may make it seem that way. But even when I considered myself an agnostic atheist I still at least believed in the human spirit, so it's not so different. It's just where my explorations into science, philosophy, and history have taken me so far. Right now, it makes the most sense to me, even if I can't describe very well the abstractions of it I conceive in my head.

But what does this have to do with atheism?

Well, pantheism is no more or less rational than agnostic atheism. I don't parade my beliefs as science, or even as an absolute truth. It's just what *I* think. And it may change someday. There is still the possibility, however remote, that something could bring me back round to Christianity, even though I have absolutely no clue what could possibly bring me round again.

Anyway, when it comes to religion, I don't see it as conducive to modern civilization. I see the acceptance of any absolutist position as the first step toward totalitarianism, and there are few things more absolutist than organized religions.

In this, the atheists and I are one. It is also a fact that, becuase I do not believe in a divine will or distinct personality when I talk about "god", the believers consider me in pretty much the same way they considers atheists. Not always, but most Christians I've talked to about my beliefs treat me the same as what they would call an atheist, e.g. I'm attacked for materialism, nihilism, moral relativism, etc. the same as when I was an atheist. They like that I don't call myself an atheist, but I get all the same flak that I got when actually identified as an atheist. So I'm really just another non-believer to those kind of people.

The bottom line is, I support Richard Dawkins' initiative to get people to talk more about non-belief, or at least belief without religious dogma. I think if we can get people to think more independently, more intelligently, then things will continue to improve in the world. Absolutist religion is an impediment to progress, to the betterment of humanity.

...that reminds me, I was also attacked for being a humanist, which is apparently a throwback to the 1970s fundamentalist term for the "New Atheism" of that era.

So I'm all for more people talking, more people thinking, and more people questioning. Doubt is necessary for improvement. Doubt is hope, hope for something better. It's not settling for the "good enough"-type answers provided for by ancient superstitions. Question! Question! QUESTION! It's the only way we move forward. The Scarlet "A" is a symbol of that, and so I sport it on my blog.

I need to rethink my escape plan...

2008-05-21T13:09:00.006-05:00

Ever since Bu$h was first ~~appointed~~ elected in 2000, I had always taken comfort in the thought that, if things ever really got bad, I could always go back to the land of my birth, where surely it would remain a haven of sanity. I thought even harder about going back when I lost my faith in Christianity a few years later. The English, after all, are supposed to be the paragon of what constitutes a civilized society. No way could religious zealots take hold again as they did in Cromwell's time.

Well, turns out they're gaining more power than I had thought.

Check out this recent episode of "Dispatches" titled "In God's Name" on YouTube.

(It's broken up into five parts, here's the playlist with all the videos included.)

So I'd heard about the faith schools, and the anti-Muslim nuts, but seeing it on video really brought it home. Where am I supposed to go now if the US really does become JesusLand? Truly it's just like Tears for Fears said: "It's a Mad World..."

This is funny...

2008-05-13T22:45:00.003-05:00

From a Christian group that sometimes has some interesting debates...but not in this case!!!

The following is the first three posts from a topic titled "Christians if you honestly want even a chance at converting."

David wrote 5 hours ago

Do what I do and don't EVER preach the punishment of hell because people feel as though you are just trying to scare them

If you truly want to have a chance preach the love and forgiveness of God and Jesus and show them the holy spirit

Van Davinci Gogh replied to David's post 5 hours ago

So basically, don't scare people. Tell them a more satisfying lie.

David Drennan wrote 5 hours ago

Wait what?

What was it that Einstein said? Something about man being in a poor way if he believed for promises of reward or fear of punishment? Was it something like that?

My historiographical paper on "Expelled" and the misuse of the Holocaust

2008-05-09T11:20:00.006-05:00

So for my final paper for History 444 (The Holocaust) I was so intrigued at the controversy over "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and its accusation that science is responsible for the Holocaust that I just had to write about it. I had started out thinking I would write just a simple historiography about the current debate over the inter-relationship between Christians and the Nazi party politically, culturally, and especially ideologically. The recent controversy over "Expelled" provided the perfect backdrop to this study, so I couldn't resist.

It was touch and go for a while there, mainly because the controversy was still unfolding as I was writing. Indeed, it still is, though it has wound down considerably in the last week or so. Also, writing this and another historiography on the Holocaust (for a different class) is why I haven't been posting at all for the past month and a half, so I hope you'll understand that why it's only now that I'm able to finally come up for air. Phew! Thank goodness the semester is OVER!!!

Anyway, I decided I would post there for people to see and comment on (for the dozen or so people who actually read this blog).

Cheers!

[Cross-posted at The Second Enlightenment]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Leper Messiah: Conceptions of Science, Christianity, and the Legacy of the Holocaust

by William Cowan

On April 18, 2008, a new documentary was released in theatres throughout the United States which purported to explore the alleged “persecution” of proponents of Intelligent Design-creationism by a cabal of materialistic/atheistic Darwinists bent on squelching any criticism of the theory of evolution in their desire to eliminate religion completely in public life. Expelled!: No Intelligence Allowed refrained from exploring the specific merits of Intelligent Design (ID) “theory” against that of evolution, instead preferring to focus on this alleged discrimination supposedly so pervasive in academia that it leads the producers and front-man Ben Stein to draw a direct parallel between the current oppression at the hands of scientists with that of the Jews during the Holocaust. In the course of the film, a direct line is drawn from Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf with scenes of goose-stepping Nazis interposed between interviews of “evil” scientists, and, to underline the point, Stein visits the Dachau concentration camp to ruminate on the implications Darwinism had for his fellow Jews during the Holocaust. And if that wasn’t enough, Stein himself made it abundantly clear in an interview on the Trinity Broadcasting Network what the film’s main argument was: “...love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.”[1] That only a deeply deluded person could believe such a claim should be self-evident; the problem is that Stein, a well-known actor, economist, presidential speech-writer, and pundit can hardly be considered as such. In addition, this kind of claim has a particular resonance with a sizable bloc of the American public. So what is going on here, exactly?

The apparent antagonism between religion and science is nothing new: from the Catholic Church’s silencing of Galileo to the Scopes “monkey” trial, religious fundamentalists have been fighting what they perceive to be a threat to the moral and cultural absolutes revealed by God through the Bible. In the course of this “culture war,” the association of science, and specifically evolutionary theory, with the crimes of the Nazis has been a common trope among religious fundamentalists for years. But in so doing, this attempt at revisionist history ignores any other factors and contingencies that also contributed to the Holocaust; antisemitism, nationalism, totalitarianism, and especially religious-based prejudice are all given a pass. This latest attempt at co-opting the Holocaust for political ends led me to wonder how pervasive this revisionism has been in both mainstream and scholarly circles in the last decade. In this paper, I will examine the controversy caused by Expelled in relation to other recent attempts by revisionists to assign blame for the Holocaust solely to science; in addition, I will juxtapose this with the most recent historiography regarding the issue of Christianity’s relationship to Nazism.[2]

Expelled represents yet another front in the culture war that has been ongoing in the U.S. for the past several years, and in particular it is part of a new tactic being used in the battle over the teaching of evolution in schools versus “alternative theories” such as ID, which has been described as “creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo.”[3] This new tactic, by presenting proponents of ID as being persecuted by “Big Science,” appeals to traditional American notions of fairness and justice. By presenting the opposition as not only dogmatically intransigent to anything that might contradict evolution but also as sinister agents of a totalitarian-style effort to suppress free thought and religious beliefs, the producers hope to shift public opinion in their favor. This is part of a larger effort by the film’s chief ideological backer the Discovery Institute (DI), a Seattle-based think-tank that advocates the teaching of ID. Since its humiliating defeat in 2005 at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, in which attempts to inject ID textbooks and curriculum into public schools resulted in a damning judgment from the bench calling ID “breathtaking inanity,”[4] the DI has shifted its focus to the passage of individual “academic freedom” bills by state assemblies meant to shield school teachers who teach ID/creationism from prosecution.[5] This has extended to giving private exhibitions of Expelled for state legislators in order to impress upon them the need to protect educators from “persecution” by godless Darwinists such as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, National Center for Science Education (NCSE) director Eugenie Scott, and Univ. of Minnesota-Morris biologist PZ Myers, all of whom are interviewed in the film.[6] It also extended to selective screenings for Christian church and advocacy groups, screenings that were heavily vetted to bar potential critics.[7]

But if the production of documentaries about the creationism vs. evolution controversy is new, the linkage of science to the Nazi genocide by groups like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis (which runs the “Creation Museum” in Kentucky, opened in the spring of 2007) is certainly not new. The DI itself has promoted several books published by its fellows on the corrosive effect they believe science has on morality and culture. A sampling of titles should suffice to illustrate the tendentious nature of DI fellows when writing about science: Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil; Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism; Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists; Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science.[8] More pertinent to the specific charge of direct responsibility for the Holocaust is the book by DI fellow and professor of European history at California State University-Stanislaus Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany.[9]

This book appears to be the only volume put forth by a DI fellow who is a professional historian. Just from the title, it is obvious that Weikart is employing the same kind of teleology, indeed almost the same title that William McGovern’s From Luther to Hitler: The History of Fascist-Nazi Political Philosophy did in 1941, as historian Andrew Zimmerman alluded to in his review of the book for The American Historical Review.[10] Even from the very first chapter, it is clear that Weikart is setting up his argument as a contest between amoral Darwinism and the traditional morality grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics, the implication being that only Nazis subscribed to Darwinism while Christians stood in stark opposition.[11] Most reviews of Weikart’s book, including Zimmerman’s, actually had an eerie resemblance to how some scholars viewed Daniel J. Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners in 1996: great research, but bad conclusions.[12] But Zimmerman went a step further by accusing Weikart, rightly, of attempting a “political sleight of hand” which, despite the book’s “fine research” that contributed greatly to the knowledge of Darwinian influences on Nazi policy, seeks to “distort the history of Darwinism and anti-Darwinism in Germany in ways that reflect theocratic agendas in present-day American politics.”[13] Given Weikart’s tendency to cast evolutionary theory and Christianity as morally opposed, as well as his fellowship at the Discovery Institute, there is little mistaking that agenda has everything to do with the DI’s attempts at undermining science education in America in the interest of promoting Christian religious beliefs.

In contrast to the Discovery Institute’s veneer of scholarly credibility and their tacit acknowledgement of some aspects of evolutionary theory such as common descent, the fundamentalist organization Answers in Genesis follows a literal interpretation of the Bible. Their “Creation Museum” in northern Kentucky is the penultimate expression of a religious rejection of scientific findings. In this, they go beyond simply criticizing evolutionary theory as the DI does, expanding their denialism to include any scientific discipline which contradicts a literal Genesis such as geology, cosmology, anthropology and archeology. We are told, for instance, that the light of distant stars and galaxies, which takes millions or billions of years to reach Earth and thus suggests an old universe, was created by God “en route,” part of their reasoning being that since Adam was “created a mature adult” so too must the universe have been formed in a mature state; the other part of their rationale consists mainly of trying to accuse astronomers of making baseless “assumptions.”[14] But while the creationist doctrine of Answers in Genesis differs markedly from that of the Discovery Institute, their denunciation of science’s influence upon morality and culture is basically the same: Darwinism preaches an inherent “inequality” between races and was thus the primary inspiration for the Nazis to slaughter Jews in order to protect their own “superior race.”[15] The agenda is also the same as the Discovery Institute’s, as is made clear here:

If the Nazi party had fully embraced and consistently acted on the belief that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator God, as taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the holocaust would never have occurred.[16]

Although it lacks the sophistication and scholarship of Weikart’s book, the ideological argument is nearly identical: science is amoral and encourages genocide whereas Christianity is the only defense against such mass murder.

Outrageous as these efforts at blaming science as the primary cause of the Holocaust may seem, they failed to generate much controversy outside academic and professional circles. Indeed, only the Discovery Institute seems to have had much of an academic impact, with most of the publications from Answers in Genesis being simply ignored and their “Creation Museum” regarded mainly as a freakish curiosity. Expelled, on the other hand, has generated an enormous negative response both in the academic world and in society at large. This is obviously due to the fact that Expelled is a professionally produced film with a highly recognizable star in the person of Ben Stein. In addition to the response from biologists over the specific issue of ID vs. evolution, there have been many people, representing a wide range of political, professional, and religious backgrounds, who have taken particular offense to the explicit charge against science as having directly caused the Holocaust. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan called the film “a toxic mish-mash of persecution fantasies” and accused Stein and his cohorts of “a very repugnant form of Holocaust denial.”[17] Conservative commentator John Derbyshire called it a “blood libel on our civilization,” arguing that Stein’s movie undermines everything that science has made possible, citing not only advancements in technology and medicine, but also the rich intellectual life that has developed as a result of scientific endeavors.[18] The Anti-Defamation League issued a terse press release saying that Stein had “misappropriated the Holocaust” for political ends, further asserting that “evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.”[19] These examples are typical of the vast majority of reviews and commentary on the film, including the overwhelmingly negative response from film critics.[20] They contrast sharply with the few positive reviews, mainly from Christian churches and special interest groups such as James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, which unequivocally accepted Stein’s arguments at face value.[21] The reason they support it so unquestioningly is because it is entirely consistent with their ideology: science erodes morality while Christianity reinforces it.

We have seen the arguments from ID/creationism advocates drawing a direct line from Darwin to Hitler, and the near-total rejection of such teleology by scientists, scholars, and much of the public at large. We have also seen the corollary argument that Christianity was diametrically opposed to Nazism, and could not have contributed to the Holocaust. This begs the question: if Christianity was opposed to Nazism, why were so many European Christians complicit in the Holocaust as either perpetrators or indifferent spectators? Obviously, something is wrong with this line of argument. To what extent did Christians support or oppose the Nazis and in what ways? How much of Nazi ideology was borrowed from Christianity? A brief look at recent historiography on the subject will provide illumination on these questions.

Recent works have challenged the long-held notion that Christianity and Nazism were inherently incompatible, that Nazism was bent on destroying Christianity altogether, and that Christians heroically strove to save Jews whenever and wherever they could. John Cornwell’s book, provocatively titled Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII,[22] and Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 1919-1945[23] shall serve as the basis for this examination.

Hitler’s Pope is John Cornwell’s attempt at a reckoning of wartime papal history, sparked by his own interests as a Catholic to examine critically the reasons behind Pope Pius XII’s (Eugenio Pacelli) controversial relationship with the Nazis in Germany, particularly his negotiation of the Reich Concordat in 1933 which eliminated Catholicism as a political entity in Germany (the last obstacle to Hitler’s achievement of dictatorial powers), and his notorious “silence” on the persecution and mass murder of the Jews in Europe. The conclusions he draws from his study are, to say the least, damning. But far from simply resorting to the common tropes that Pacelli was as antisemitic as the Nazis were (he wasn’t, though that did play a role) or that he was more interested in halting the spread of Communism (also a factor), Cornwell locates Pius’ motivations primarily in his interest in centralizing Catholic authority in not only the office, but also in the person of the Holy Father.

He provides an excellent examination of the context in which this attitude developed beginning with its origins in the 19^th century and the doctrine of “papal infallibility” declared by the First Vatican Council in 1870;[24] continuing with the “anti-modernism” campaign of Pope Pius X;[25] and ending with Pacelli’s own efforts first as a Vatican lawyer responsible for codifying the 1917 Code of Canon Law expanding papal authority within the Church;[26] then as papal nuncio to Munich and Berlin in the 1920s and as Cardinal Secretary of State in the 1930s to expand papal power and influence in Europe and around the world;[27] and finally culminating in his own autocratic tenure as Pope from 1939 to 1958. The pursuit of absolute papal power by Pacelli bears an eerie resemblance at times to current arguments regarding the supreme morality of Christianity, especially as expressed in Pacelli’s famous Christmas Broadcast of 1942 in which “he declared that what the world lacked was the peaceful ordering of society offered by allegiance to the Holy Mother Church.”[28]

Cornwell essentially argues that, rather than simple avarice, Pacelli was motivated by his conception of the Pope as the spiritual conduit through which God’s will was communicated to the world. As such, the Pope was in the world but not of the world, and therefore must give priority to the overall spiritual welfare of mankind over Earthly matters such as social justice, individual freedom, or political oppression. Thus it was, as Cornwell shows, that the Vatican under Pacelli provided ideological, moral, and political support to the Nazi-backed Ustashe regime in Croatia in 1941, even as the Ustashe went about slaughtering Jews and Orthodox Serbs in a massive campaign bent on eliminating “enemies” of Catholicism through forced conversion and, more often, deportation and annihilation; it was so violent that it caused even some Nazi observers to express disgust and dismay.[29] Because Pacelli viewed Catholicism as the only means to truly achieve world peace, the wanton displacement and destruction of peoples of other faiths was seen as a small price to pay in the pursuit of a Catholic world at peace. The Vatican viewed the welfare of individuals or individual communities and even nations as wholly subordinate to the Church, which complemented the Nazi view of the supremacy of the volksgemeinschaft, the Aryan racial community, whose interests always superseded those of the individual and could only be achieved through absolute state control. But above all, the aloofness and lack of emotional engagement with the rest of humanity meant that Pacelli, as a spiritual leader who was in the world but not of it, was the ideal Pope for Hitler to work with.[30]

In The Holy Reich, Richard Steigmann-Gall takes a new approach to the question of Christianity’s role in the development of Nazi ideology. Prior historians who have addressed this question have approached it from the point of view of Christian conceptions of Nazism; Steigmann-Gall approaches it from the opposite perspective, examining the opinions of Nazis, both Christians and “paganists” (such as Alfred Rosenberg and Heinrich Himmler), towards Christianity.[31] As result, he finds that the received wisdom which holds that the Nazis were completely adversarial to Christianity is far more complicated in reality, and that in fact Nazis drew inspiration from “positive” Christian teachings which envisioned a sort of “reformation” of Christianity that would eliminate sectarian confessions/denominations and unite all humanity under the divinely ordained “order of creation” (schöpfungsglaube).[32] Under this newly conceived theology, Christian Nazis were able to reconcile their faith with Nazi policies, as Steigmann-Gall illustrates by examining the specific attitudes towards eugenics, women, and youth movements.[33] Finally, he shows that “paganist” elements within the Nazi party were never as anti-Christian as has been believed. Rather, non-Christians such as Rosenberg and Himmler were more ambivalent towards Christianity than overtly hostile, and in the expression of party policy, actually encouraged Christian faith among Germans, though a clear preference was shown for Protestantism rather than Catholicism, an indication of the widespread anti-clericalism among Nazis which Steigmann-Gall argues is often mistaken for being simply anti-Christian.[34] The anti-clericalism of the Nazis was expressed in many ways. Their belief that the Christian religion had been contaminated by or was beholden to Judaism led to proposals that the Old Testament be removed from the Bible, as well as calls to a return to the “true” teachings of Christ, who was held up by the Nazis, both Christian and pagan alike, as the ultimate antisemite and supreme model of Aryan moral and racial purity.[35]

Steigmann-Gall’s book was also the subject of a symposium conducted in the pages of The Journal of Contemporary History in early 2007. Several scholars from across the discipline were asked to comment on the book and its arguments. Of particular interest to the historiography of this issue was Stanley Stowers’ examination of what he sees as the fallacious conceptions of “religion” and “political religion” employed by most scholars when studying the Third Reich.[36] In his view, scholars are hamstrung by an Enlightenment intellectual heritage which asserts that religion and politics are necessarily incompatible in modern, secular societies. Further, most historians identify religions through a “expressive-symbolist” conception of religion that focuses on ritual behavior as nothing more than an expression of “the sacred,” as opposed to the “rational-cognitivist” conception that takes spiritual belief at face value and distinguishes religious practices “from other categories of practices by referring to a class or agents and beings, e.g. gods, ancestors and other ordinarily non-observable entities.”[37] The distinction is critical for the concept of “political religion,” because the rational-cognitivist approach is based on belief in the supernatural, whereas the expressive-symbolist approach, by employing a vague notion of “the sacred” in ritual behavior, essentially allows for any social behavior to be defined as “religious” regardless of whether or not spiritual belief in the supernatural is involved. Stowers does not comment on Steigmann-Galls book until the conclusion, and even then only to mention that Holy Reich utilizes the proper conceptual model, namely rational-cognitivist.[38]

In contrast to Steigmann-Gall’s “proper” methodology, the articles following Stowers’ are an example of the persistence of the expressive-symbolist approach. With the exception of Doris Bergen,[39] both Manfred Gailus[40] and Ernst Piper[41] argue from the standpoint that Steigmann-Gall was wrong based on this expressive-symbolist conception that states that Nazi ritual expressions and slogans that echoed Christianity were merely a façade meant to lend the credibility of Christian beliefs to Nazi policies. Steigmann-Gall, in reply,[42] points out that essentially what Gailus and Piper are reduced to is arguments over what constitutes “true” Christianity, an impossible endeavor if there ever was one, and which can only lead to partisan bickering (e.g. “Catholics and Protestants are quite different, so which would be the “true” Christianity?”). It leaves unaddressed the reality that many self-described Christians saw Nazism as compatible with their faith, and further that many non-Christian Nazis favored many specific aspects of Christianity. Clearly, this is unacceptable, and Steigmann-Gall has made a major contribution to this issue.

The debate over whether or not science and religion are compatible will continue to rage, as it has, for a long time to come. Similarly, the historiographical debate over the origins of Nazi genocidal policy will also no doubt continue. In both cases, this is as it should be. There is nothing wrong with questioning beliefs, dogma, doctrine, theory, or faith; in fact it is necessary in order to move forward. The problem is that these issues are particularly volatile, and due to their complexities and emotional nature are therefore easily distorted, leading to the abuse of these issues in pursuit of partisan or sectarian political ends. The dangers inherent in the arguments put forth by advocates of religious belief like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis, which blame science for the horrors of the Holocaust, lie in the lessons that remain seemingly unlearned from the history of the Holocaust itself. The idea of an absolute ideal to which all must necessarily adhere is the very essence of totalitarianism, and in this, there is no qualitative difference between the authoritarianism of the Nazis, the Catholic Church under Pope Pius XII, and the ambitions of present-day religious fundamentalists to make the United States, both in name and fact, “one nation under God.” Ben Stein’s naïve assertion that “love of God” leads you to a “glorious place” is belied by the fact that such a blind faith in absolutes is precisely what allowed the Holocaust to occur, and it is thus imperative upon all people, both religious and non-religious, to take the words of Oliver Cromwell to heart: “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken!” If this warning from history is not heeded, then indeed we may see the day when history will repeat itself, and it will only be a question of who will build the next gas chambers, and who will be consigned to them.

[1] Ben Stein, interview with Paul Crouch, TBN broadcast 21 April, 2008. Video available at http://tbn.org/video_portal (accessed 6 May 2008).

[2] It must be noted that I am not insisting that science did not play a role in the Holocaust, but rather I would argue that it was a necessary, but certainly not sufficient, factor in the genocide. This is in opposition to the argument posed by creationists who assert that not only was it sufficient alone to have caused the genocide, but that Christianity was in all ways and at all times opposed to Nazism.

[3] Adrian L. Melott, “Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo,” Physics Today, June 2002, 48.

[4] Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688 (2005).

[5] Stephanie Simon, “Evolution Critics Shift Tactics With Schools,” The Wall Street Journal, 2 May 2008, A10.

[6] All three, as well as others interviewed for the film, have complained that they were interviewed under false pretenses, having been told that the film was supposed to be about the “intersection of science and religion” rather than about persecution of ID proponents. For a full reckoning of this and other alleged dishonest practices and claims related to the film, see the NCSE-sponsored website http://www.expelledexposed.com.

[7] John Metcalf, “Disinvited to a Screening, a Critic Ends Up in a Faith-Based Crossfire,” The New York Times, 10 March 2008; see also: PZ Myers, “EXPELLED!” Pharyngula, posted 20 March 2008, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php (accessed 6 May 2008).

[8] “Center for Society and Culture – Books,” Discovery Institute, http://www.discovery.org/csc/books (accessed 6 May, 2008).

[9] Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

[10] Andrew Zimmerman, review of From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart, The American Historical Review, Vol. 110, No. 2 (April 2005), 566-567.

[11] Weikart, 1.

[12] There were many scholars who weighed in on Goldhagen’s work, and not all of them praised his scholarship if not his conclusions. For example see: Norman G. Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1998).

[13] Zimmerman, Response to Richard Weikart, in “Communications,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 110 No. 4 (October 2005), 1322-1323.

[14] Jason Lisle, “Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe is Old?” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove (accessed 6 May, 2008).

[15] Jerry Bergman, “Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust,” Technical Journal: The In-depth Journal of Creation, Vol. 13 No. 2 (Nov.1999) 101-111. At: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp (accessed 6 May 2008).

[16] Ibid, 101.

[17] Arthur Caplan, “Intelligent design film far worse than stupid,” Opinion, MSNBC, posted 23 April 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755 (accessed 6 May 2008).

[18] John Derbyshire, “A Blood Libel on Our Civilization,” National Review Online, posted 28 April 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755 (accessed 6 May 2008).

[19] “Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust,” Anti-Defamation League press release, 29 April 2008, http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm (accessed 6 May 2008).

[20] See for example: Richard Roeper, “Ben Stein Deserves to be ‘Expelled,’” Chicago Sun-Times, 1 May 2008, http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/925734,CST-NWS-roep01.article (accessed 6 May 2008).

[21] Tom Neven, “Ben Stein: Expelled,” Focus on the Family, http://www.family.org/entertainment/A000004568.cfm (accessed 6 May 2008).

[22] New York, 1999.

[23] Cambridge, 2003.

[24] Cornwell, 10-14.

[25] Ibid, 35-40.

[26] Ibid, 41-45.

[27] Ibid, 59-104, 130-178.

[28] Ibid, 292.

[29] Ibid, 248-260.

[30] Ibid, 296-297.

[31] Steigmann-Gall, 3-6.

[32] Ibid, 34-5, 51, 155.

[33] Ibid, 190-217.

[34] Ibid, 21.

[35] Ibid, 49-50.

[36] Stanley Stowers, “The Concepts of ‘Religion’, ‘Political Religion’ and the Study of Nazism,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 42 No. 1, (February 2007) 9-24.

[37] Ibid, 12.

[38] Ibid, 24.

[39] Doris L. Bergen “Nazism and Christianity: Partners and Rivals?” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 42 No. 1 (February 2007) 25-33.

[40] Manfred Gailus, “A Strange Obsession with Nazi Christianity,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 42 No. 1 (February 2007) 35-46.

[41] Ernst Piper, “Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 42 No. 1 (February 2007) 47-57.

[42] Richard Steigmann-Gall, “Christianity and the Nazi Movement: A Response,” Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 42 No, 2 (April 2007) 185-211.

This is brilliant...

2008-03-24T10:30:00.001-06:00

A Facebook friend of mine invited me to join a new group in support of a dazzlingly brilliant new theory! It's the theory of Comical Design (CD):

What is Comical Design?

The theory of Comical Design (CD theory) holds that certain amusing features of the universe, of living things and even the mechanical world are best explained by a cause with a sense of humour, not by natural means. Through the study and analysis of an entity’s appearance, a CD theorist is able to determine whether various natural entities are the product of chance, natural law, comical design, or some combination thereof. Such research involves observing the types of laughter produced when comical agents are viewed. Comical design has applied this scientific method to detect design in irreducibly hilarious biological structures, with prime examples in nature being the infamous duck-billed platypus of the animal kingdom and natural organic phallic entities (NOPEs) such as trees shaped like penises. In the mechanical world the same applies, with the Robin Reliant being undeniably irreducibly hilarious.

Is comical design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Comical design begins with the observation that hysterical agents produce complex and specified humour (CASH). CD theorists hypothesize that if a natural or mechanical object was comically designed, it will contain high levels of CASH. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon these objects to determine if they contain complex and specified humour. One easily testable form of CASH is irreducible hilarity, which can be discovered by experimentally watching the aforementioned entities and other observers to see if any form of side-splitting takes place. When CD researchers find irreducible hilarity in biology or machinery, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Who supports CD theory?

Here at the centre of comical knowledge (COCK) we are looking for scientists to aid in our research. A PhD is not necessary, nor a Masters or any form of degree or qualification. Break away from the fear of supporting the obviously flawed and humourless Darwinism. This group has been created to spread the theory of comical design so that all may become aware of the hilarity which is so obviously caused only by design. Donations in the form of pictures or videos pertaining to entities befitting of the descriptions above will be appreciated muchly.

Upon reading this, I erupted into uncontrollable fits of laughter, thus proving Comical Design is a valid theory! Surely it deserves to be taught in schools alongside Darwinism!

Kudos to Jason Sherburn for his revolutionary theory!

[Cross-posted at The Second Enlightenment]

An Islamic "Reformation?"

2008-02-26T10:36:00.004-06:00

"All religions evolve." This idea was the crux of Karen Armstrong's thesis in her seminal book "A History of God: The 4,000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."

Well, it looks like Islam, which has perhaps the broadest opposition among adherents to the idea of any kind of evolution whatsoever, is undergoing its own little bit of adaptation.

Theologians at Ankara University are finally putting some of Islam's founding texts under the microscope, submitting them to rigorous textual criticism. Their focus is on the Hadith, however, and not the Koran itself, which I don't think they can realistically touch without getting lynched. I'd be surprised if they didn't get death threats by the bushel just for messing with the Hadith, which is supposed to be a collection of Muhammad's sayings and is used as an authority in interpreting the Koran.

It's about time, too, because things seem to be getting crazier than usual, what with women being punished in Saudi Arabia for suspected witchcraft or for allowing themselves to be gang-raped, not to mention the divine ordinances concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions. Finally, some Muslims are taking responsibility for their religion and the actions it is used to justify, like murder, rape, and the general subjugation of women in Islamic societies.

A few choice parts from the BBC article.

...the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam. It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.

Indeed, not just reinterpreted, some parts need to be thrown out all together, and that's part of what they're doing, thankfully:

An adviser to the project, Felix Koerner, says some of the sayings - also known individually as "hadiths" - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.

Now if only we could get some of those hard-core Bible-thumpers to realize the same thing about the New Testament....but one thing at a time, I suppose

Perhaps the most encouraging part about this "reformation" is the fact that not only are they including women in this endeavour, but they're also sending them out to communicate the new revisions to the masses:

As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes".

They have been given the task of explaining the original spirit of Islam to remote communities in Turkey's vast interior.

One of the women, Hulya Koc, looked out over a sea of headscarves at a town meeting in central Turkey and told the women of the equality, justice and human rights guaranteed by an accurate interpretation of the Koran - one guided and confirmed by the revised Hadith.

She says that, at the moment, Islam is being widely used to justify the violent suppression of women.

"There are honour killings," she explains.

"We hear that some women are being killed when they marry the wrong person or run away with someone they love.

"There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment by uncles and others. This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them."

Of course, I'd rather that they do away with the whole thing altogether, and be done with it, but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth: this is good news! It's progressive, and women are finally being allowed to join the discussion, instead of being beaten, mutilated, and raped into submission for having the temerity to assert their own humanity as thinking individuals.

While we still have a long way to go, it's encouraging that at least one significant portion of the Islamic world is taking bold steps to bring their people out of the 14th century. Keep in mind though , it really couldn't have happened anywhere else but Turkey, with it's unique brand of secularism, and it likely will face determined resistance both within Turkey's own borders but especially in other nations abroad, and a good chunk of that resistance is likely to be violent. Because of this, I think the secular world at large should be encouraging and supportive of this endeavour in the hopes that it will spawn a new rationalism within Islam itself. Of course, let's just hope that this new reformation of Islam doesn't produce any new antisemitism, like Martin Luther's did almost 500 years before, but at least they're taking a progressive step forward, and I'll take that any day.

[Via Charlayne at AANR]

The Muslim "Index"

2008-02-24T08:12:00.005-06:00

The Catholic Church is famous for its proscription against certain books it deems offensive, known as the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books). Over the years, the list has included many, many important books and authors that Catholics weren't allowed to read, like all of Galileo's books on astronomy, the satire of Erasmus, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, the history of Edward Gibbon, and pretty much anything else that didn't completely gibe with Catholic dogma (guess how many Protestant authors have been on it).

But at least the Catholics pretty much limited themselves to books, unlike most Muslims. So now we have an unofficial compilation of the Islamic version of the infamous Index: let's call it the Index Panton Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited EVERYTHING).

Yep, someone actually took the time to compile a list of everything that has pissed off Muslims over the past few years. And it's growing.

Have a look at the categories:

Flags
Buildings
Christians
Jews
Hindus/Buddhists/other religions
Movies/TV/Theatre/Radio
Food
Music
Humor/Satire
Public Figures
Women (no surprise that this is one of the longer lists)
Books, Publications, and Writers
Art/Artists
Grooming
And finally, a miscellaneous category for everything else Muslims don't like.

Now ask yourself as you look over the list: are you really that surprised?

[via The Friendly Atheist]

Another reason to avoid beachfront property..

2008-02-23T21:15:00.009-06:00

Some important glaciers in Antarctica are accelerating at an alarming rate.

So what?

We've heard about glaciers accelerating in Greenland, likely as a result of global climate change, but there's something else interesting in the works on the other side of the world, and what makes it somewhat scarier is two things.

The first is this part, which is just a set up really, for the knockdown which is to follow:

The reason does not seem to be warming in the surrounding air.
One possible culprit could be a deep ocean current that is channeled onto the continental shelf close to the mouth of the glacier. There is not much sea ice to protect it from the warm water, which seems to be undercutting the ice and lubricating its flow.

If you're like me, you knotted your forehead in confusion: surely the warm water can't be doing it all alone, even if that in itself is a factor from global climate change. So what else is there?

Julian Scott, however, thinks there may be other forces at work as well.
Much higher up the course of the glacier there is evidence of a volcano that erupted through the ice about 2,000 years ago and the whole region could be volcanically active, releasing geothermal heat to melt the base of the ice and help its slide towards the sea.

Oh snap! You mean we don't even need global warming to be true for this to be a problem?

Yep. Volcanism is a bitch.

You may already know about the appropriately named Mt. Erebus. (A volcano at the end of the world? It just has to be named after the realm of the dead in Hades in Greek mythology! Is there another Antarctic volcano we can name for the other half of Hades, where the Titans were imprisoned? Yes, we need a Mt. Tartarus!) Did I mention it has its own literal lake of LAVA? How cool it that!

Yeah, well it's not alone.

The entire western coast is literally peppered with volcanoes, and Erebus is only one of them. Check it out, the red triangles are identified volcanoes (from Global Volcanism Program):

Keep in mind that this only represents those volcanoes we've been able to identify. There may be more entombed beneath the ice like the one under the Pine Island Glacier. But so far that one is the only one we know of which might cause a catastrophic infusion of ice into the ocean.

How catastrophic? Well...

If the glacier does continue to surge and discharge most of it ice into the sea, say the researchers, the Pine Island Glacier alone could raise global sea level by 25cm.
That might take decades or a century, but neighbouring glaciers are accelerating too and if the entire region were to lose its ice, the sea would rise by 1.5m worldwide.

It's true that, in the last paragraph, he's only saying how bad it would be if, theoretically, it all were to melt at once, but the loss of just the Pine Island Glacier would be bad enough, That's almost ONE FOOT of water in increase.

To put that in perspective, look at this article about the Marshall Islands, an archipelago in the Pacific.

The scientists on the advisory panel said that, depending on several assumptions, ocean levels are likely to rise by a little over a foot during the next century, or perhaps by as much as three feet.
Taking the lower assumption, the study says, the population of the 29 atolls and 5 islands of the Marshall Islands would need to be rehoused in high-rise buildings near the highest points on the archipelago by 2022.
If ocean levels rise by the upper estimate of three feet a century, the study concludes, the entire population would be forced to abandon the islands, "the only realistic option.

OK, so if just the glacier goes, it'll make the Islanders head for high ground. Remember, the glacier is moving fast enough to already be a problem, but if the volcano that is suspected of being behind it actually erupts like it did 2,000 years ago, then who knows how quickly things could flood? Of courses I'm not suggesting a tsunami-like inundation, nothing that quick, but how long does it take a volcano to melt a glacier? (According to the team, in a separate news article, the volcano's last eruption was only slightly less powerful than that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980.)

And then there's the rest of the ice sheet, which is more than enough to make the Marshall Islands non-existent. And of course the Marshalls aren't alone. There are lots of islands around the world that are under similar threat. And let's not forget some prime coastline on the Gulf Coast...

Like I said, maybe that beach house wouldn't be the best place to live after all.

See? SEE?

2008-02-23T09:18:00.004-06:00

God wants Iran to have nuclear capabilities.

How do I know?

Because the Ayatollah says so:

""The Iranian people openly announce that they will defend their rights [to nuclear power]... God will reprimand them if they do not do so," state radio quoted Khamenei as saying.

Naturally, he makes it clear after saying this that, of course Iran isn't going for nuclear weapons.

Yeah, I'll believe that one.

After all, God also wants Israel "wiped off the map," and we all know what God expects of his children in carrying out that divine ordinance:

Would she herself become a suicide bomber? "If God wills it," she says in a low, serious voice. "If I had the means, I would have done it yesterday."

So forgive me if I see this as being only one step away from "God wants Iran to have nuclear weapons," and an even shorter step to "God wants Iran to use the weapons to destroy the Zionists and the Great Satan (i.e. the West)."

Just add it to the list of reasons why religion is dangerous and should be relegated to the historical scrap heap of failed human ideas.

A very reassuring price of news

2008-02-22T10:00:00.001-06:00

Whaddya know? Apparently the guys who run Wikipedia decided to take a stand for free speech and expression by rejecting over 180,000 emails from Muslims to remove images of the prophet Muhammad.

Keep in mind, these aren't the iconoclastic images of the Danish cartoonists, but rather they are images of miniatures from the 14th century that feature the painted face of Muhammad. I should also mention that these were made by Muslims.

Apparently, these idiots are so dogmatic that they'll deny even their own cultural heritage! The only word I can think to describe such behaviour is "tragic."

[Via Charlayne over at AANR. Thanks again girlfriend!]

How about "NO?" Does "NO" work for you?

2008-02-21T11:14:00.007-06:00

The UN's new secretary general, Ban Ki-moon is following his predecessor's lead in asking that religion should be respected.

This is in reference to the latest developments in the row over the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Last month, a concrete plot was discovered to murder one of the cartoonists, and five people, all Muslims, were arrested on terrorism charges. The cartoonist in question, Kurt Westergaard, who drew the cartoon of Muhammad with a lit bomb in his turban, is now homeless because the hotel where he had been placed under police protection has evicted him because he is too much of a security risk.

But this brings the issue of the cartoons back, and Secretary General Ki-moon is, like Kofi Annan before him, trying to assuage the Muslim world by insisting that religious beliefs must be respected.

Well, fuck that.

Excuse me, but if you believe that you have a divine warrant to commit murder, then I will not respect that. It's time we stop pussy-footing around. Religion in general, not just Islam, promotes violence and oppression with an authority that cannot be appealed to, much less questioned. It's dangerous, nay, DEADLY, and those beliefs that encourage or justify this kind of malicious behaviour should be denounced and condemned from all sides.

Free speech isn't free if you have to worry about being lynched just for voicing a criticism. If Muslims don't like having the mirror held up to their faces so they can see the ugliness and depravity that is allowed under the tenets of the Koran, well...that's just too fucking bad!

Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other theists should take note too: if there's something unseemly or offensive about your religious beliefs (and rest assured, there is), don't go crying about disrespect or intolerance when people call a spade a spade.

Religion is too rooted in the dark ages of our primitive past to provide us with a way forward, because no matter how "moderate" or "peaceful" a majority of believers in a particular faith may be, there will ALWAYS be a violent and despotic fringe that will violently promote a narrow and fundamentalist view of the faith. And when the faithful number into the billions, that translates into several hundred thousand, if not millions of those "fringe" kooks who think that murder and discrimination are a divine mandate. And actually, "kooks" is not the right word; these people are not insane, delusional maybe, but they are deadly serious when it comes to their religious beliefs. And that's what makes them so terrifyingly dangerous.

We cannot ignore this problem. It MUST be confronted with the same vehemence with which we confront apologists for Nazism or Stalinism. Put simply, how can we possibly respect something which is the PRIMARY impetus to violence for so many terrorists and murderers throughout the world, both today and in the past?

The answer is we shouldn't. We can't. And, at least for my part, we won't. If a belief promotes violence, it MUST be repudiated and condemned, not respected.

[Thanks to Charlayne Bozak over at AANR on Facebook for posting these two news stories.]

These people are redefinig "warped"

2008-02-19T09:08:00.003-06:00

So there's this article about how a youth pastor in Texas has confessed to a murder he committed 14 years ago in California, in which he stabbed a 64 year old convenience store clerk with a kitchen knife.

And how is his congregation taking the horrifying news that their children were being tutored by a murderer? By praising him of course.

"The debt he's paying to our society is teaching our young people to do the right thing," said Cheryl Ellis, a member of the church's youth staff. "To lock him away someplace and say he owes it to society is robbing the next generation of a mentor."

Robin Thac said her 17-year-old son was active in the youth group that Inman led.

"I am thrilled my son has a role model to accept responsibility the way Calvin has," Thac said. "There are way too many men who don't accept responsibility."

Seriously...how messed up is that? They'd prefer that he not be locked away for killing another human being? They want him to continue teaching their kids? They think he's a role model just because he confessed...TO MURDER??? I can understand pointing to him as an example of taking responsibility for your actions, but if I were a parent, I wouldn't want my kids anywhere NEAR this guy.

Maybe they don't think too much of the man he killed. After all, his name sounds possibly Islamic, so they probably don't think too much about it since he's a non-Christian.

But perhaps that's a bit unfair, they're most likely nice people, it's just that this is completely and totally FUBAR. But then, that's religion.

Voter idiocy leads to idiots in public office

2008-02-18T18:40:00.009-06:00

I would think that's a pretty simple-to-understand truism, but apparently some people still haven't been paying attention.

Watch this quick video. It's of three women from Lynchburg, Tennessee commenting on election year politics...

Aside from the obvious stupidity of voting for a candidate based solely on their stated religious beliefs, did you also notice how the old woman never thought to question something she heard at church about Barack Obama? As if it had been God himself spewing that old lie about Obama being a Muslim--she never questioned it!

Ugh, then there's the old "we are a Christian nation" bullshit. I'm starting to get really sick of hearing it. But then, that's what usually happens in home-schooling.

But the irony of ironies is that young girl. Did you catch what she said about Bush? Watch it again.

Apparently, she realizes that voting for someone just because they say they'll "foilow the word" is bad because Bush is the penultimate example of that error...but her family has no problem giving Mike Huckabee the same free religious pass that gave us EIGHT FUCKING YEARS OF SHIT under Dubya.

Thanks ladies. You are living examples of why stupidity should be physically painful. Like shock collars or something.

An Open Letter to Rabbi Schmuley Boteach

2008-02-12T16:51:00.000-06:00

Before I get to the letter, the video of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Schmuley Boteach is below the fold, if you wish to watch it. I would advise you to watch it on an empty stomach, as fits of nausea and revulsion will most likely accompany the portions in which the good rabbi speaks his turn. My letter also begins below the fold, with the video at the end. Comments and constructive criticisms are welcome.

Dear Rabbi Boteach,

I must say that I have not seen such a distasteful display in any intellectual debate in a long time. I wonder if you realize just how much of a farce you made of your position by, on the one hand accusing Mr. Hitchens of character assassination, while on the other hand using nearly EVERY opportunity you had to speak to deliberately quote Mr. Hitchens (and others as well) out of context for blanket ad hominem attacks. Essentially, all you did was build up a poorly-constructed strawman of him and proceed to try to tear it down.

I also found it distasteful that you deliberately quote distinguished scientists out of context, especially Stephen Jay Gould, who I had the honour to meet at Fermilab in Chicago a few years before his death. It's quite tragic that you so profoundly misunderstood Dr. Gould that you would make the ridiculous claim that he did not believe in evolution, even AFTER Mr. Hitchens had pointed out, quite correctly, that the contention over evolution between Dr. Gould and Dr. Dawkins was between the "how" of evolution, namely the debate between gradualism and Gould's own hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. Both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium still rely on natural selection and mutation, e.g. they are BOTH hypotheses within the context of the larger theory of evolution.

I also cried out vocally, even though I was alone while watching the debate on YouTube, when you trotted out the painfully old and tired argument about Darwin and the eye. Here, again, you deliberately and ignorantly quoted another scientist out of context. Is there no end to your dishonest quote-mining? Here is the quote you presented:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. "

Now, that was merely the setup Darwin made SO THAT HE COULD KNOCK IT DOWN. Here is the REST of his argument, which you FAILED SO CONSPICUOUSLY to mention:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

Darwin then spent the next three pages going over the evidence that supports his notion that the eye has evolved and is not, as you so ham-fistedly implied, irreducibly complex and therefore designed. Keep in mind that Darwin was writing this in 1872, and since that time we have only EXPANDED our knowledge of how the eye evolved. I'm not a biologist, but I can clearly remember a recent article in National Geographic Magazine (Nov. 2006) that gave an excellent overview of the current research involving how our different appendages and organs evolved, including the eye. I would suggest you at least look into that so next time you won't be so quick to make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

Finally, as a graduate student studying history, and since I wrote my undergraduate thesis on totalitarianism in Nazi Germany, which was published in my alma mater's history journal "Legacy" (2007, Southern Illinois University Press), I found it particularly outrageous that you would employ such absurd reductionism in making the claim that men like Hitler and Stalin were motivated primarily because they were atheists. Totalitarian ideology like Naizism and Stalinism was hostile to religion because totalitarian ideology is a form of religious ideology (and we all know how religions generally treat other religions, or even how denominations within a single religion treat each other). Given that, I find it very hypocritical of you to, in one breath, cite the 10 Commandments, while in the next breath you act indignant when all Hitler and Stalin were doing was appropriating the 1st Commandment for their own new religions of racist Aryanism and extreme Marxism/Leninism, respectively. That both totalitarian systems were centered around a cult of personality should make it obvious enough just how strikingly similar Nazism and Stalism were to organized religion. That Hitler used a "scientific" form of racism, itself based on a profound MISUNDERSTANDING of science, is really no different than when Christians used the idea the Jews being cursed by God. I'm sure you can appreciate the similarity, the only difference being that Christianity belief the Jews to be divinely cursed, while Hitler believed Jews to be biologically cursed. That BOTH types of racism have long been repudiated, much less supported by people like Mr. Hitchens or Dr. Dawkins, should have been enough to keep you from attempting to use the issue as a moral cudgel to try and beat your opponents down, but then, I realize that such desperation is all you have to resort to, having nothing substantive to argue in the first place.

That you also draw a direct line from Darwin to Hitler is another agonizingly obvious example of just how much you misunderstand science. In fact, I don't know who is more ignorant of science: yourself or Adolf Hitler. Both of you show such a prodigious LACK of understanding about science that the irony is almost tangible: A Jew who makes claims about Hitler's knowledge of science while having almost no understanding of science himself. Normally, such a farce would be comical, worthy of Neil Simon, but the context instead renders it particularly tragic and depressing.

For myself, I am not a theist, but nor am I a strict atheist. Like Albert Einstein (whom you also managed to sorely abuse by claiming he was a theist), I find my spirituality in Spinoza's God, the pantheist God. So while Mr. Hitchens and I agree on principle that organized religion can be dangerous, I find his materialism to be too reductionist and in denial of common human spirituality. I only mention this in the interest of full-disclosure, and to head off any underhanded attempts to dismiss my criticisms as "just another atheist" or as some kind of Hitchens acolyte. Given your uncouth behaviour during the debate, I don't think I'm being too careful in making sure I'm clear on that point: I am not a strict atheist, nor in any sense a materialist, but I AM a non-believer and I AM completely in opposition to organized religion.

I personally do not know how anyone could think you to be any kind of scholar, much less that you should be placed on the same intellectual level as someone like Mr. Hitchens or Dr. Gillman (whom I felt particularly sorry for in that, despite his patience and repeated chances given by him to you, you could not provide him with any kind of coherent answer when he asked you to briefly expound on "Who or what is God?").

You are a hack, in short. And unlike the charge you leveled at Mr. Hitchens, it is you who is the fundamentalist, you who is the dogmatist, you who is closed-minded. You are no scholar, and you clearly have no business engaging in debates of this kind...I don't think you would even survive at the level of "Model U.N." high school events.

But I suppose it doesn't matter much. Oprah likes you, for whatever reason, and you'll continue to ride her coat-tails to further riches, using the platform she's given you to continue to spout non-sense and vitriol to the masses.

I'm just glad I got to watch you get dismembered by someone who actually DID know what he was talking about (not to mention Dr. Gillman), and I will be sure to refer anyone who mentions your name to this debate, which was, to paraphrase Mr. Hitchens, a perfect example of your "character committing suicide."

I hope the next time you decide to enter the intellectual arena, you arm yourself with better information than your own prejudiced, dogmatic, incoherent, and internally inconsistent beliefs and opinions.

Sincerely,

William Cowan
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL

Ben Stein: was he born this ignorant, or does he have to put an effort into it?

2007-10-17T21:25:00.000-05:00

OK, so I'm wandering around some Christian discussion groups, when I came across a copypasta job of an internet chain letter written by Ben Stein. Immediately my lip began to curl and a low guttural sound started emanating from my throat. The sheer idiocy! Not only of Stein but of the person who posted this with the topic title "Read This!" like it was somehow profound or insightful! I was so angry, I just HAD to respond, and I'll let you guys share in my righteous indignation. The letter is presented from start to finish, with my comments interspersed. Enjoy!

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a crche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away .

OK. No problem, right? Right.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

No one is trying to create an "atheist America" in any sense, whatever that would look like. Rather, the problem is that America *is secular* and religious zealots are trying to change that. Being secular does not necessarily equate with atheism. Under the secular Constitution, the government is forbidden from sanctioning any particular religion *so that* it may ensure that no religion is prevented from being practiced freely by those who choose to do so.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

I actually join Ben in lamenting the apparent obsession with vapid celebrities in the US, but who is preventing him from being allowed to "worship God as we understand him?" What kind of bullshit is that?

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

Apparently no one ever told Anne Graham that there were devastating hurricanes long before we supposedly "told God to get out." Indeed, we told God to get out the minute our Constitution was ratified.

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Shall I count the number of false correlations in this paragraph? Or shall I just laugh at Ben's implication that the Bible is the only thing that makes people act kindly toward others and prevents them from killing or stealing? Hmmm...I think I'll just laugh, if you don't mind! XD

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Yeah, it's all Dr. Spock's fault. It couldn't possibly be indifferent parenting or poverty or any other number of cultural/socio-economic ills, could it?

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Am I supposed to be impressed by this common trope?

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.

There is no hell, and the world isn't actually all that bad if you really think about it. This is not to say that there aren't problems, but Stein here seems to think that everything was all hunky-dory before we "told god to get out." There will *always* be problems, and two hands working accomplishes more than a million clasped in prayer! So quit your idle bitching Ben!

Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

This is truly idiotic. I read newspapers with the same critical eye that I do with the Bible, as do most people.

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Maybe most people are courteous and know that, while I appreciate a good joke, I'd rather not be sent something I did not solicit, and that includes prayer chain mails.

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

This is a truly insidious statement. The reason that those pictures and articles can pass over the internet (and I would mention, briefly, that religious articles and pictures pass over this same internet unhindered as well) is because we have freedom of speech in this country. However, the reason we CANNOT allow Christianity or Judaism or any other religion in schools and the public square is because of a separate freedom: the freedom of religion If you promote one image of God in schools and the public square, you do so at the expense of all the others, essentially negating freedom of religion. Apparently, what Ben is saying here is that he does not like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, and that makes him a maliciously ignorant wretch.

Are you laughing?

Normally, I would be. But quite frankly, I'm too disgusted to laugh.

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

I can only hope they would be so courteous, but what I would really wish is that they would be smart enough to delete it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

It's a stupid statement, but I'll comment anyway: we should, to an extent, be worried about what others think of us. It is part of the metric by which we measure our own intelligence and character.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards .
Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

Amen

There was nothing honest or respectful about this ridiculous rant, and I hope people who are thinking of forwarding this will stop to consider just how stupid they would make themselves to do so.

No atheists in foxholes?

2007-09-26T15:56:00.000-05:00

Well, technically they're not in foxholes, but that could just be because they're bad-ass muthas who don't need to hunker down when the shooting starts. This was posted to the AANR picture board by Army Specialist Dustin Chalker, thanks go out to him for the picture.

From left to right: SGT Mike Aguilar, SPC Christopher Carr, SPC Jeremy Hall, SPC Tony Hernandez, and SPC Dustin Chalker.

The soldier in the middle, Jeremy Hall, is currently suing the Department of Defense for violating his right to religious freedom. The story can be found here, and has been blogged about by my partner in crime Dane Andrade over at Second Enlightenment.

One unfortunate consequence of this is that, according to SPC Chalker, SPC Hall has been receiving death threats, ostensibly from some of his fellow soldiers, and has been assigned a bodyguard because of it (the person behind the camera, accord to SPC Chalker). I guess the theistic asshats making the threats never understood the concept of "brothers in arms," because this sure isn't any way to treat a fellow soldier, regardless of what religion he follows (or doesn't as the case may be).

"Faith" in atheism?

2007-09-25T13:05:00.000-05:00

I get this a lot in discussions with theists, especially Christians, and while I'm sure most readers of Second Enlightenment have had it thrown at them so many times that every mention simply elicits a *headdesk*, I think it's worth going over. The argument goes something like this:

It requires just as much faith to NOT believe in God as it does to believe in him.

There are variations on this erroneous argument, the most common of which is that atheism is, in fact, just another religion.

Yeah, and NOT playing baseball is a cherished past-time; and NOT being a lawyer is a profession; and NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

The fact is that people of all stripes reject ridiculous things all the time, and it doesn't require any measure of "faith" to do so. It doesn't take faith to believe that 9/11 WAS NOT the result of a vast government conspiracy; or that the moon landings WERE NOT merely a Hollywood production. All it takes is a serious look at the evidence, and in the case of 9/11, there's no real evidence to suggest that the attacks were anything other than the product of, to use South Park's description, a "bunch of pissed-off Muslims."

Similarly, all it takes is a trip to places like the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago to see one of the actual command modules used in the Apollo moon missions (this one being Apollo 8, which carted Jim Lovell in his first trip around the moon, the second trip of his being the more famous Apollo 13), as well as some of the moon rocks the astronauts brought back, not to mention all the other great things the MSI has in its Henry Crown Space Center exhibit.

But I'm not here to talk about nutjob conspiracy theories, we're talking about why faith is not required for atheism. I suppose the main reason why atheism does not require faith is because it is, essentially, a null position. This is different from an outright negative position. Instead, it is an acknowledgment that the existence of any god or gods is infinitely improbable, and is not worth serious consideration without proper evidence or logic to back it up. Thus, because the Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Zoroastrian, and all other theistic gods share the same infinite improbability as such mythical ideas as unicorns, dragons, goblins, faeries, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the idea that Elvis is still alive (though, admittedly, it makes for a damn funny movie), they are consequently just as easy to reject. If atheism were a positive assertion (like theism), and did not have any reasonable arguments or evidence in its favour (also like theism), then yes, it would require a leap of faith (again, like theism) to accept it in whole or in part.

Simply because something is possible does not mean that anyone should give it serious consideration without adequate reason to do so. This is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is such a poignant example: it has just as much probability for being true as Yahweh. It takes the same amount of "faith" to dismiss the FSM as it does to dimiss Yahweh, which is to say, none at all. Richard Dawkins summed it up nicely in his most recent book The God Delusion. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." This is not faith, but rather HONEST COMMON SENSE! Insert the word "faeries" or "dragons" or "unicorns" in the place of "God" and this fact becomes clear. It's simple common sense NOT to believe in any of those things, because there is no good reason to do so; and admitting the fact that the thing in question can't be definitively said to NOT exist is not a case for faith, it is merely being intellectually honest. Any theist who claims otherwise is doomed to end up in the philosophical cul-du-sac of solipsism, usually without realizing that it is equally detrimental to their own beliefs as well as those they're attacking. Solipsism is, in a word, useless, worthless, irrelevant, or whatever other synonym you prefer.

Additionally, I think theists who claim that faith is required for atheism devalue their own faith, since it's definitely easier NOT to accept the improbable than to believe in it without reason (and that's speaking as a former believer). But as is usually the case, theists are so intent at winning an argument at any cost that they fail to realize just how ridiculous they've become in the process.

But then, that's the real tragedy of religious belief, isn't it?

"We stand for our right to be ignorant bigots."

2007-08-13T10:40:00.000-05:00

The Chicago Tribune published an article in today's edition on the new anti-hate crime law currently in consideration before the U.S. Congress. The new law would make it easier for federal law enforcement to prosecute hate crimes and extend hate crime protections beyond race, ethnicity, and religion "to include violent attacks against victims based on their gender identity or sexual orientation."

Anti-hate law shifts to debate on gays

Obviously, there is opposition in conservative and religious circles to extending protection to gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. Their latest argument is that the law would infringe on the free speech rights of religious leaders to speak out against homosexuality. They fear that if they go on another hellfire and brimstone sermon about gays and a parishioner acts on their exhortations and bible-thumping by committing a crime against gays, they would be liable under the new law.

Nevermind that there is no such provision in the law, but they really, REALLY don't want any infringement on their right to preach intolerance. Here's what Bishop Harry Jackson had to say:

"What I'm talking about is my right to preach what I believe," said Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., who joined three dozen black pastors to buy a full-page ad in USA Today denouncing the proposed federal hate crimes law. "We preach love and acceptance, but I don't believe the Bible condones gay lifestyles. Yet the way these laws would be invoked would be that whoever is a commander or director of this kind of action can be brought up on the same charges as the actual perpetrator of a crime."

While you're picking up your jaw off the floor, let me just repeat what the good bishop said about himself and others who preach against gays and lesbians:

"We preach love and acceptance, but I don't believe the Bible condones gay lifestyles. Yet the way these laws would be invoked would be that whoever is a commander or director of this kind of action can be brought up on the same charges as the actual perpetrator of a crime."

"Commander?" "Director?" What the fuck are they preaching at Hope Christian Church that they're "commanding" and "directing" against gays? Is this a misquote? Did he mistake himself? Surely he didn't mean that he actively "directs" and "commands" his parishioners on how to act toward gays (at best, with indifference; at worst...well)?

I don't think he misspoke, because let's face it, religious bigotry and hate is a primary motivator in speeches and actions against gays and lesbians. And, again, who is showing their persecution complex ad nauseum in reaction to this law? Yup, religious leaders. James Dobson. Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell would be, if he hadn't gone tits up (and I'm glad he did, by the way). Oh, and let's not forget our friends at the Westboro Baptist Church and the kindly pastor Fred Phelps. "Oh! Poor us! We're the overwhelming religious majority in the Western world but those mean gays keep oppressing us with their hopes for equal treatment under the law! How dare they demand recognition of our common humanity by asking for equal protection under the law?"

The persecution complex is more evident further on in the article, as Michael Marcavage, leader of the Christian conservative group Repent America, shows:

Marcavage and several followers were arrested in 2004 while staging a protest march outside a Philadelphia gay and lesbian street festival, charged with ethnic intimidation and violating Pennsylvania's hate crimes law.

Although a judge later dismissed the charges and cleared the group of any wrongdoing, Marcavage said he believes the incident foreshadows how zealous prosecutors could wield an expanded federal hate crimes law against religious leaders.

"The lawmakers in Pennsylvania said that the state hate crimes law would not apply to pastors, to people sharing their faith, but here we have an example of exactly that," Marcavage said. "People say these hate crimes laws only apply to violent acts against gays. Well, we committed no violent acts. This is how the abuse happens."

Yeah, the law is so bad he was convicted and sent to prison...wait, didn't the article say the judge dismissed the case? Huh, so I guess the law actually DOES work the way Marcavage wants it to. He was able to preach his hate and ignorance, got pinched for it, then after careful review, was found innocent. Funny how judicial review works, isn't it? But poor Michael and his ilk are afraid that they won't be able to "share their faith," as he put it (filth, I say), if the new law is passed. Oh, woe are they, that they can't exhort their fellow believers to discriminate against their fellow human beings based on the writings of bronze age sheep herders. Those poor Christians, who will help them cope with this new form of oppression?

What complete and utter rubbish. The law is needed, and it's past time for argument. It should have been enacted right after Matthew Sheppard was brutally tortured and left for dead tied to a barb wire fence in Laramie, Wyoming in 1998. But I guess it's more important that ignorant pricks like Jackson and Marcavage get to continue to preach hellfire and damnation against gays and lesbians like Matthew, who want nothing more than a simple acknowledgment of their dignity as human beings.

Fred Phelps, by the way, has a Cronkite-esqe counter of the days Matthew has "spent in Hell," which he and his vile family bring to every protest they stage...but no one has ever arrested them for having such signs (or the signs which say "God hates Fags," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and the like). Pies in the face, yes. Epithets hurled in their faces, of course (I personally called his daughter and son-in-law "bloody cowards" when they came to SIU). But never arrested for waving their horrible signs and shouting their equally horrible slogans. They're safe, and they will remain so.

But regardless of whether they are allowed to continue to preach ignorance and bigotry (whether it's in the extreme,like Phelps, or "moderate" like Jackson and Marcavage) they should not try to argue that they, or ANYONE for that matter, have the free speech right to "direct" or "command" others to commit any kind of crime, whether it be merely discriminatory (i.e "don't hire fags," etc.) or violent, against anyone based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or, yes, their sexual orientation/identity.

We need this law, and be damned to their bigoted sermons and lectures.

A different kind of summer camp

2007-06-27T11:58:00.000-05:00

I suppose it was only a matter of time before we would see the development of secular summer camps as a response to the growing number of religious camps for kids, some of which are nothing more than engines of indoctrination to create "faith warriors" out of kids as young as six or seven.

While I am pleased to see that kids are being encouraged to seek answers with an open mind (and to question the answers they find themselves), I can see the argument from opponents who believe that such a camp would be dangerous to kids, giving them a skewed grasp of morality and ethics, endangering their immortal souls, etc.

To those critics I would simply ask that they read the article, and in particular take a look at the photos featured in the Tribune article. Now, juxtapose those images with some taken from Becky Fischer's Kids on Fire (sponsored by Kids In Ministry International, also run by Fischer) which was featured on ABC News and in the 2006 documentary "Jesus Camp."

The images of children playing and interacting at the atheist Camp Quest contrast sharply with Fischer's brainwashed kids who are training to be literal "soldiers of Christ": they sing martial hymns while wearing camouflage paint, speak in jibberish (sorry, I mean they "speak in tongues"), and pray before a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush.

This nascent movement to give non-religious kids a summer camp of their own is heartening, especially given the rise of such brainwiping camps like Fischer's and Ron Luce's hypocritical "Battlecry" movement (which mixes elements of old-fashioned religious revivals and televangelist charlatanry in a rock concert-like setting). Both serve only to make unquestioning drones of children, a new generation of religious automatons ready to do the "will of God."

But the rise of atheist summer camps also betrays a darker side to the current culture over children: while it is indeed heartening to know that these kids have a place where they can be themselves and be with others like themselves, the separation of children into different camps (literally and figuratively) is hurtful. Summer camps for children should be open to all, regardless of belief or creed. Should it not be possible to have a summer camp that simply teaches kids skills and crafts in an encouraging community setting that encourages nothing more than human fellowship? Is it not possible to do that without addressing belief or non-belief? The current cultural climate is not very conducive to that at this moment, I know, which is why there is a need for camps like Camp Quest. I know that there will also continue to be Christian, Muslim, and other religious camps But I do hope that, in the future, instead of being "Christian" or "Atheist" or what have you, children will be able to go to summer camp and just be KIDS!

2007-06-23T11:59:00.000-05:00

I'm sure I need not remind anyone here about the uproar in 2005 over some Danish political cartoons that were perceived to be blasphemous depictions of the "prophet" Muhammad, so I won't bother to go through yet another telling of the sad, sordid affair. The only reason I bring this up again (regrettably so, because I'm rather tired of hearing about it myself) is to bring your attention to yet another example of the clamoring of unlettered mobs who live where the most backward of the monotheistic religions still hold considerable way.

I'm talking, of course, about Islam. And the uproar this time is over the honor of knighthood that has been bestowed upon author Salman Rushdie.

How fearful and ignorant do you have to be so that even the most mundane representations of your faith or creed's doctrines and dogmas result in violent acts of false indignation and pretended outrage? Why be afraid to let some critics make your flaws known so you can address them in a constructive way? Well, when you're dealing with the divine, it is necessary for it to be thought of as flawless so that it can keep the little people enthralled and pliable.

Only corrupt and tyrannic entities fear self-examination to the extent that it restricts others from examining it out of the fear it might have to confront itself. I hope Mr. Rushdie keeps writing, because its good for Muslims to be forced to look in the mirror a little more often.

God is dead...

2007-06-10T12:01:00.000-05:00

Happy Sunday Morning!

As funny as this classic Kids in the Hall sketch is, it's also quite poignant.

God is indeed small, and the sketch's portrayal of such a small deity is a metaphor for just how petty and parochial the God of Abraham truly is. Indeed, all deities placed at the heads of the great theistic religions, monotheistic and polytheistic alike, are credited with the creation of a vast universe but afterwards seem only concerned with that tiny corner of existence that happens to contain a certain "chosen" people.

The insignificance of God is further illustrated in the sketch by two other elements. First, the toddler-sized jacket with "GOD" embroidered on the back shows us that, were it not for the self-advertisement, we might forget that the tiny, seemingly innocuous person we're dealing with is the all-knowing, all-seeing creator of the cosmos. The second element comes at the end of the sketch, where the finality of God's insignificance is shown as the people of Earth go right on with their lives, where "it's business as usual on the streets and highways that God built."

"Yes, God did exist...he died...he was very small...mystery solved!" If only it were that simple.

Things move quickly...

2007-06-08T15:21:00.000-05:00

I started this no fewer than 4 days ago and already I've been cited over at Slate.com.

Check it out!

Stem Cells Get Lost in Politics

2007-06-07T11:08:00.001-05:00

Stem Cells are amazing things. They can be coaxed by medical researchers to assume the form of almost any tissue needed, leading to the hope that some of the most debilitating diseases could be ultimately cured. But the damned little things are so versatile that they seem to be able to conform to almost any political view as well:

The political fray has obscured quiet efforts in recent months to compare stem cells from many different sources. Experts doing the research say some cells may be best for treating certain diseases, while others are easier to grow in the lab. The upshot is likely to be an array of trade-offs that lack the clarity of the moral debate.

"You can't say one cell type is better than another," said Dr. Anthony Atala, director of Wake Forest's Institute for Regenerative Medicine, who is leading one stem cell comparison study. "Each cell has its own properties. We won't know what the properties are unless they're studied and we find out which cells do best for certain applications."

This reminds me of a paper I wrote on the controversy surrounding Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem. Commenting herself on the madness of the controversy, the great twentieth century sociologist and philosopher said that there are certain groups with "down-to-Earth interests...whose excitement is entirely concerned with factual matters and who therefore try to distort the facts." Too true.

The Tribune article also included a nice little graphic showing the different lines of stem cell research being pursued today. Have a look.

Hammerhead Jesus?

2007-06-06T20:46:00.000-05:00

And yea, unto you a savior shall be born of a virgin, and he will eat you...

Unnatural "Pipe Fittings"

2007-06-06T18:37:00.000-05:00

Apparently, we are to believe that homosexuality is a "choice" and can be "cured," so says the White House's nominee for Surgeon General.

From the article:

Sixteen years ago, [Dr. James Holsinger] wrote a paper for the church in which he likened the reproductive organs to male and female "pipe fittings" and argued that homosexuality is therefore biologically unnatural.

"When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur," Holsinger wrote, citing studies showing higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases among gay men and the risk of injury from anal sex.

Is anyone surprised to hear this kind of drivel from a Bush nominee? I'm not. Oh, and that whole thing about homosexuality being unnatural, here's a great little tidbit about homo dolphins!

"Relative" Speaking on Morals

2007-06-06T16:51:00.000-05:00

There is a double-standard that is inherent in any theist’s accusations against non-theists regarding the idea of “moral relativism.” I need not go too much into the argument itself, because it is particularly old hat. It argues in favor of the universality of religion-based morals, and is repeated ad nauseum by proponents of religious belief who, at most, read the Cliff notes for Plato’s Euthyphro and suddenly think themselves experts on moral philosophy.

Basically, the argument runs thusly: If you do not have God telling you what is morally right or wrong, and instead rely on society’s best efforts to enforce moral behavior, the relative difference from culture to culture and society to society creates an environment where potentially everything is permissible, to the extent that even the moral precepts against murder, theft, and child abuse (which are seemingly innate to every normal human being) can be sanctioned in some form or another.

But theists who foolishly put forward this trope walk blithely into the trap that illustrates the painfully obvious double-standard inherent in the argument. To be specific, religion is the best example of moral relativism that is ever to be found in the history of civilized culture. It is a fact that every religion legislates for its adherents what it declares to be “universal morality.” It is also a fact that every religion claims special exceptions to the very same universal, unbreakable moral code that everyone is supposed to follow.

Let me repeat: ALL of the major theistic religions claim exclusive declaratory rights to impose universal morality upon the whole of humankind while at the same time claiming special exceptions to or exemptions from truly universal adherence to its own supposedly universal morality.

I’ll go even further by stating unequivocally that it is religion, and not reasonable non-theistic beliefs, that have repeatedly justified exceptions to those innate human moral precepts I mentioned before. Namely, do not kill, do not steal, and do not hurt children.

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have committed atrocious acts of murder and genocide on each other as well as their own people so as to make even the paranoid-schizophrenic bloodlust of Ivan the Terrible seem positively benign. All have institutionalized torture in the past (as well as in contemporary times) in order to enforce each’s particular interpretation of the “Will of God.”

And all, too, have killed in the name of God’s will.

From the Crusades to the Inquisition, from Joshua's conquest of Canaan to David Ben-Gurion's Zion, and from Mohammed's sack of Mecca to the current (and numerous) fatwas calling for the destruction of Israel and the whole of western civilization, all of which point to the unbridled malice and wanton destruction wrought by religion’s callous disregard for any kind of universal proscription against murder, much less their own. Further, it is only by religion’s bloody hand that the innate biological proscription against murder (as well as theft and child abuse) is overcome. As physicist Steven Weinberg beautifully expressed it: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things; but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

A brief digression must be made to counter the arguments of those who would point out that it is sometimes necessary to kill in order to defend one’s self and others from aggression. The most contemporary expression of this maxim is the favourite of bumper-sticker philosophers across America: “Freedom isn’t Free.” The truth of this statement remains undiluted by its clichéd status, and I would not try to argue against it. However, I will argue with all of my conviction that the wars of religion are nearly always aggressive in nature. That is, it is only conquest, plunder, and fresh converts to add to the ranks of the faithful (and woe unto those who resist) which are on the mind of religious leaders who sound the tocsin of war in “defense of the faith.” The “freedom” that religion seeks is always at the expense of the civil liberties enjoyed by whatever society it inhabits; a religion must have dominance in its host society in order to survive, it cannot otherwise exist. From this perspective, the ideal of “freedom of religion” becomes a sad contradiction, because every religion is inherently and explicitly opposed to the idea that individuals can believe what they wish. So much for the notion that the U.S. was founded on “Christian” ideals. Had the founding fathers allowed religion to have an official place at the table of government, the United States would never have evolved into the beacon of freedom and justice that it has become since its inception in 1776. With that being said, I will move on.

All three religions, too, have stolen in the name of God, with the Roman Catholic Church undoubtedly claiming the crown of greediest and most methodical in its acquisition of purloined and extorted riches. But Jews and Muslims, too, have stolen their own great treasures and hoarded them away. Jews have (twice) claimed land occupied by others: the original settlement of the “promised land” (found in the Torah) and the current “re-settlement” that has been taking place in the Levant since the late nineteenth century. Islam is notorious for supporting some of the most heinous examples of organized piracy and extortion in history, and the most famous of these would undoubtedly be the Sultanate of the Ottoman Turks. The Sultans charged incredible ransoms from non-Muslim merchants for the privilege of not having their wares seized and themselves enslaved, while at the same time skimming the profits of similar enterprises from lesser Muslim caliphs, most notably the Barbary princes.

I don’t wish to linger too long on examples of institutionalized child abuse by religious authority, because my own sensibilities recoil in outrage at the discussion of them (one need only read the newspaper stories about forced female circumcision or watch Amy Berg’s disturbing documentary “Deliver Us From Evil,” which focuses acutely on the Catholic Church’s nefarious conduct during the recent scandals involving pedophile priests). However, I do wish to mention that child abuse is institutionalized in religion because religious belief is, by its very nature, something that must be indoctrinated into adherents in order to ensure its own enduring existence, and there is no more susceptible and vulnerable type of person than a child. Religious authorities know this, and so focus much of their attention on the young, frightening them into submission with tales of hellfire and death in order to craft them into ciphers; willing instruments of God’s will, fanatically devoted to carrying out whatever God (or, more appropriately, “God’s” self-proclaimed representatives i.e. bishops, imams, rabbis) instructs them to do, up to and including murdering others and themselves. I am reminded of my encounter with the Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church in 2005, where I found it remarkable that, while they held signs that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates Fags,” two of the young boys talked on about race cars. They were no different from any other pre-adolescent boys in America, aside from their indoctrinated religious hatred. Indoctrination into religion is the ultimate form of child abuse, and its virulence is omnipresent across the spectrum of contemporary civilization.

Religious morals are relative. They are relative not only to each other, as religions vary from culture to culture, but they are also relative in the context of each religion’s different iteration of declared universal morality. Don’t kill—unless they’re heathens or heretics. The maxim “Thou shalt not steal” has the same caveat. And the supposed “care” of the young that all three religions claim as among their chief responsibilities instead has led to the ritual mutilation of the body (particularly the genitals), the institutionalization of rape, and the enslavement of the mind. Given this, it will be only the most feeble-minded and willfully ignorant of theists who continue to argue for their respective dogmatic belief system’s exclusive claim on “universal” morality.

Morality is a human construction, just like religion. But unlike religion, morality does not suffer from the application of reason and rationality. As Sam Harris has repeatedly said, no society has ever suffered or committed evil because it was “too rational.” Rather, it is the absence or breakdown of reason and rationality that is often the chief cause of conflict and misery. And in all the breadth of human imagination and experience, there is nothing more unreasonable or irrational than organized religion.