History: UR DOIN RONG!!! pt. 2

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!

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...

This is brilliant...

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?"

"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"

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]

An Open Letter to Rabbi Schmuley Boteach

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.

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

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.

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

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.