I am constantly amazed at the depth of my ignorance related to the general irrationalness of American society. I keep running into things where my immediate reaction is “you have got to be kidding me!”
This time around it was a passing reference on the game show “Wheel of Fortune” which I will confess I sometimes watch while wolfing down dinner. By way of introducing herself a contestant said that she was pursuing a degree in “Biblical Counseling.” I looked at my wife and asked “what the hell is biblical counseling?” But she didn’t know either. So I fired up my trusty PC and looked it up on the web.
It appears to be psychological counseling encumbered by biblical correctness and, as far as I can tell, looks very, very, dangerous. Essentially these people toss out all of modern psychology and psychiatry where it conflicts with biblical interpretation.
Allow me to quote from the covenant of the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (NANC), an organization that certifies biblical counselors.
“We deny that secular theories and practices are manifestations of General Revelation or Common Grace. We affirm that they are, in fact, attempts to substitute the “discoveries” of rebellious human thought for the truths revealed in Scripture, and are, therefore, in competition with a proper interpretation of General Revelation and with biblical counseling. They cannot be integrated with the Faith once for all delivered to the saints.”
I don’t know much about psychology but I think I would hesitate tossing out Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner and Carl Rogers wholesale. The word “Nouthetic,” by the way, comes from the Greek verb “noutheteo” often used by Paul and interpreted as either to admonish, to correct or to instruct.
I found some of the justifications for tossing out modern psychology illuminating. So here are some quotes from a page on “Biblical Counseling.”
“Conventional psychiatry believes that mental illness exists.”
Yeah, are you saying that it doesn’t? Actually, that’s precisely what they seem to be saying.
“Most problems stem from a faulty relationship with God.”
Really? So does that mean that you can predict the existence or absence of mental problems based upon someone’s relationship with God? How does one determine what someone’s relationship with God happens to be? Is there a database of God’s relationships that I’ve overlooked?
“Man is not a higher form of animal but rather a creation of God.”
Oh well, so much for the sciences of biology, paleontology, zoology, astronomy, cosmology and geology.
“According to the Scriptures man is responsible for his behavior.”
In general this is accurate as long as one is competent to understand the potential consequences of that behavior and the difference between right and wrong. Biblical counseling however appears to accept this as an unconditional statement. The last I looked, that wasn’t the accepted medical opinion.
“Mankind at the core is sinful, inherently evil.”
This is total bullfeathers. Mankind is nothing at the core other than an advanced form of animal bred by natural selection to have strong survival and reproductive instincts. The instincts are good; the available paths one may follow to satisfy those instincts are labeled by society as either good or evil. These definitions are enforced by sanctions that are essentially the behavior modification strategy talked about by Skinner.
Then we go into what are called “presuppositions” critical to biblical counseling. This is what they’re calling them and not me so first let’s consider the definition of “presupposition” which is “to believe that a particular thing is true before there is any evidence of it.”
This means that these people are counseling mentally disturbed individuals based upon axioms that have absolutely no evidence of being correct. Freud and Skinner may have been wrong but at least their theories had some basis in evidence and experimentation. If you don’t consider this dangerous I’d like to know why?
“The Bible is the inspired, inherent Word of God, the final authority regarding faith and practice (II Timothy 3:16,17). It thoroughly equips for living.”
Let’s start with the fact that the authorship of II Timothy, one of the three pastorals, is open to debate. While traditions, and most conservative Christians, firmly attribute the authorship of the letter to Paul, critical scholarship places the authorship in doubt.
Then let’s consider what the quote actually says.
II Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
I don’t see the conclusion following from this quote. The passage is simply saying that scripture is useful for moral instruction and even I wouldn’t debate that. Note that “useful” does not in any way imply complete or “final authority” regarding practice. Nor does the passage in any way imply that scripture “thoroughly equips for living.” This is another example of heroic eisegesis forcing the text to say what one wants it to say.
“Man's basic problem is a sin problem (Romans 1, Jeremiah 17:9, Isaiah 53:6, Psalm 51)”
No man’s basic problem is not a sin problem. That has got to be the single stupidest idea in all of Christianity. The concept of “sin” has undoubtedly caused more grief for mankind than all other causes put together. What defines sin anyway? Paul said that sin was defined by the law but righteousness was defined by faith and grace rather than simple obedience to the law. In other words, if you broke the law you sinned, but if you obeyed the law you got absolutely nothing unless you also had faith.
Paul, in Romans, spins a complex, at times downright illucid, tapestry trying to explain the relationship of sin, the law and faith. Paul does take the position that man is by nature corrupt. Of course Paul also takes the position that sexual relations are a bad thing and that marriage should only be for those that can’t control themselves. That sort of leaves any and all of Paul’s opinions more than a little suspect.
As for Jeremiah, Isaiah and Psalm 51, we have more heroic eisegesis. Psalm 51 is David’s lament over committing adultery with Bathsheba and addresses his own personal corruption. It has absolutely nothing to do with mankind in general.
Isaiah 53:6 is in the middle of the Suffering Servant passages and simply laments that all of the people have turned away from God and as a result God has laid upon the Suffering Servant of Israel punishment for the unfaithfulness of the people. Specifically this probably refers to the siege of Jerusalem and capture of King Manassah by the Babylonians.
Isaiah 53:6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Jeremiah 17 is a lament, and a threat, because the people of Judah have turned away from God and established altars to false gods. This is a specific, and not a general, indictment about acts that are about to be rectified by King Josiah so, again, I don’t see this as leading to the supposed conclusion.
“Man was created for God's pleasure, as a morally responsible being.”
You mean I’m a toy? Gee whiz, imagine that? If God exists, and is responsible for the creation of the universe, then I am indebted to him for the gift of life. But I am not obligated to exist merely for his amusement nor do I think that would be his purpose. Again I find the pettiness of the deity assumed by fundamentalist Christianity absolutely appalling. If I were God I’d be terribly insulted, or, perhaps more likely, highly amused.
I find the entire concept of people attempting to treat folks in mental distress based upon biblical presuppositions while disregarding all of modern psychology and psychiatry absolutely horrifying. This strikes me as the psychological equivalent of faith healing. The fact that these people actually believe in this approach doesn’t excuse the harm that they may be doing. A faith healer merely betrays the individual he claims to heal. It’s unlikely that person’s infirmity is going to endanger someone else. This however is a whole different kettle of fish. Someone with mental problems may very well be a danger to people other than himself.
Hopefully I’m over reacting here, but I’m really afraid that I’m not.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
God in America
I’m a member of the Counsel for Secular Humanism. The last newsletter I received from the counsel was advertising a debate schedule for November 2 in Chicago on “whether believing in the existence of a god affects the nation in any moral, social or political sense. “
The main participants will be Edwin Kagin, the legal director of American Atheists, and William Lane Craig. I’m familiar with William Lane Craig and I suspect that Kagin is about to get his clock cleaned. You see Kagin probably expects an honest exchange and I'm not all that sure that Craig will let himself be shackled by little things like truth and honesty.
I remember one lecture by Craig, where he reeled off the handful of documents providing possible historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, and then declared that all historians accepted them as incontrovertible proof that Jesus of Nazareth lived, taught and died in Palestine in the first century. This was a statement which I knew to be untrue and which I was pretty sure Craig knew was untrue as well. If Craig didn't simply mispeak, then it was a lie that he was hoping his audience would accept as fact.
This is the Eusebius approach to theology and evangelicalism which believes that lying for the benefit of the faith is ok. In other words, the end justifies the means. This only works if the flock never learns, or never accepts, that you lied to them. With modern communications, more, and more, religion has to rely on the latter to keep the faithful in line. It’s really too bad that humans are so good at self delusion. If they weren’t, religion would be an endangered species. But would that be a good thing?
That gets us back to the original question; does believing in God affect the nation in any moral, social or political sense? I don’t see how anyone in his right mind could answer that question in the negative. Of course it affects the country morally, socially and politically.
The easiest one is socially. The local church is still a focus of social activities in many places and there is nothing wrong with this. Humans are social animals and contact with other humans is something that most people need and relish. Of course a secular social club would work just as well, but sometimes you just can’t fight tradition. Are the social activities used to foster church dogma? Maybe, but I doubt that’s the objective. In other words I don’t think there are ulterior motives here.
As for politically, DUH, do you think that we would be fighting as much over things like abortion access, stem cell research and gay marriage if there wasn’t a belief in God? I’ll grant you that one can believe in God without getting all wrapped up in religion, and the claims of religion to speak for God, but that’s usually not the case. Most people equate their religion with God. I would say that right about now the belief in God, and religion, is one of the driving factors in the political spectrum of the United States.
That brings us to morally. The faithful would argue that it is morality that defines the political position. The faithful would say that they take the political positions they take because they’re concerned about “moral values.” I’ll concede that, but I want to talk about something else, I want to talk about the question of whether the removal of the belief in God would affect the moral behavior of the country.
Unfortunately I have to say yes, I believe that it would. I’m well aware that there is no current difference in the morality of religious folks and secular folks; as a matter of fact some surveys indicate that secular individuals are MORE moral and ethical than religious people. However I’m also aware that the current pool of secular individuals represents the highest strata of education and intelligence in the population.
Most of the intelligent and educated are people who would probably adhere to the philosophy of Diogenes and Plato that virtue is its own reward. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule but it clearly applies in general. But what about the lower portion of the bell curve? I don’t think it’s unfair to say that, even today, most crime is associated with that portion of the population that has the lowest intelligence and the least education. Much of the reason for this is economic rather than moral philosophy but the overwhelming majority of people that are economically deprived (that’s a euphemism for poor) are also morally beyond reproach. I’m willing to bet that most of them are strong people of faith too. If you removed their faith, would they still be moral?
Seneca the Younger said “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Napoleon observed that “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” Both are implying that religion helps hold the lower orders in check and therefore provides a benefit to society. If one removed the belief in the authority of God and the fear of punishment after death what would happen? I’m not sure that I can answer that question completely but I suspect that it would remove the constraints that are currently holding a portion of the population in check.
One more quote, this one from Polybius.
"Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death."
It’s rather a depressing thought that something as irrational as religion may have a value to society that we can’t do without isn’t it?
The main participants will be Edwin Kagin, the legal director of American Atheists, and William Lane Craig. I’m familiar with William Lane Craig and I suspect that Kagin is about to get his clock cleaned. You see Kagin probably expects an honest exchange and I'm not all that sure that Craig will let himself be shackled by little things like truth and honesty.
I remember one lecture by Craig, where he reeled off the handful of documents providing possible historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, and then declared that all historians accepted them as incontrovertible proof that Jesus of Nazareth lived, taught and died in Palestine in the first century. This was a statement which I knew to be untrue and which I was pretty sure Craig knew was untrue as well. If Craig didn't simply mispeak, then it was a lie that he was hoping his audience would accept as fact.
This is the Eusebius approach to theology and evangelicalism which believes that lying for the benefit of the faith is ok. In other words, the end justifies the means. This only works if the flock never learns, or never accepts, that you lied to them. With modern communications, more, and more, religion has to rely on the latter to keep the faithful in line. It’s really too bad that humans are so good at self delusion. If they weren’t, religion would be an endangered species. But would that be a good thing?
That gets us back to the original question; does believing in God affect the nation in any moral, social or political sense? I don’t see how anyone in his right mind could answer that question in the negative. Of course it affects the country morally, socially and politically.
The easiest one is socially. The local church is still a focus of social activities in many places and there is nothing wrong with this. Humans are social animals and contact with other humans is something that most people need and relish. Of course a secular social club would work just as well, but sometimes you just can’t fight tradition. Are the social activities used to foster church dogma? Maybe, but I doubt that’s the objective. In other words I don’t think there are ulterior motives here.
As for politically, DUH, do you think that we would be fighting as much over things like abortion access, stem cell research and gay marriage if there wasn’t a belief in God? I’ll grant you that one can believe in God without getting all wrapped up in religion, and the claims of religion to speak for God, but that’s usually not the case. Most people equate their religion with God. I would say that right about now the belief in God, and religion, is one of the driving factors in the political spectrum of the United States.
That brings us to morally. The faithful would argue that it is morality that defines the political position. The faithful would say that they take the political positions they take because they’re concerned about “moral values.” I’ll concede that, but I want to talk about something else, I want to talk about the question of whether the removal of the belief in God would affect the moral behavior of the country.
Unfortunately I have to say yes, I believe that it would. I’m well aware that there is no current difference in the morality of religious folks and secular folks; as a matter of fact some surveys indicate that secular individuals are MORE moral and ethical than religious people. However I’m also aware that the current pool of secular individuals represents the highest strata of education and intelligence in the population.
Most of the intelligent and educated are people who would probably adhere to the philosophy of Diogenes and Plato that virtue is its own reward. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule but it clearly applies in general. But what about the lower portion of the bell curve? I don’t think it’s unfair to say that, even today, most crime is associated with that portion of the population that has the lowest intelligence and the least education. Much of the reason for this is economic rather than moral philosophy but the overwhelming majority of people that are economically deprived (that’s a euphemism for poor) are also morally beyond reproach. I’m willing to bet that most of them are strong people of faith too. If you removed their faith, would they still be moral?
Seneca the Younger said “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Napoleon observed that “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” Both are implying that religion helps hold the lower orders in check and therefore provides a benefit to society. If one removed the belief in the authority of God and the fear of punishment after death what would happen? I’m not sure that I can answer that question completely but I suspect that it would remove the constraints that are currently holding a portion of the population in check.
One more quote, this one from Polybius.
"Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death."
It’s rather a depressing thought that something as irrational as religion may have a value to society that we can’t do without isn’t it?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Judicial Restraint?
As predicted, Republicans and assorted right wing demogagues are crying loudly about the New Jersey Supreme Court decision giving equal protection under the law to same sex couples.
The court stopped short of declaring gay marriage legal in New Jersey and left it up to the legislature to decide what to label this new legally equal arrangement. A minority of the court, including the retiring Chief Justice, did want to declare it marriage but the majority, by 4-3, decided to strike a compromise.
One set of comments I read was by Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council. In what appeared to be an editorial written for USA Today Sprigg manages to demonstrate his ignorance. This is one article but it’s pretty typical of what I’ve heard.
The title of the editorial is “Where’s Judicial Restraint?” Judicial Restraint is what the right wing complains about whenever the court satisfies its charter to protect the rights of the minority by ruling against the conservative position. Courts never have to protect the rights of the minority from the liberal position because liberals don’t stomp on minority rights!
Anyway, some quotes from the editorial with commentary.
“The New Jersey Supreme Court has professed respect for judicial restraint by refusing to change the definition of ‘marriage.’ But they have imperiously commanded the state Legislature to either redefine marriage itself, or create a ‘statutory structure’ (such as ‘civil unions’) to grant 100% of the legal rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.”
Actually what the court has done is order the legislature to redress what it has declared a violation of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey State Constitution which states:
“All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”
The court said:
“Article I, Paragraph 1 protects not only the rights of the majority but also the rights of the disfavored and the disadvantaged; they too are promised a fair opportunity for ‘pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.’"
This is equal protection under the law for “ALL PERSONS” and, in the state of New Jersey, that includes gays and lesbians. The New Jersey Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of New Jersey law and especially the interpretation of the New Jersey State Constitution and it certainly can direct the legislature to redress a violation of that law or that constitution. Note that most folks in New Jersey just sort of nodded their heads and went, “yeah, makes sense to me.”
“This is not judicial restraint. Courts have no power to command the legislative branch to enact a particular law.”
The court didn’t order the legislature to “enact a particular law.” It directed the legislature to redress a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens of the state of New Jersey and this is clearly within the scope of the court's authority. This is typical of the kind of misinformation that the right wing throws out constantly. I’m certain Sprigg understands the difference, he’s just hoping those reading his article don’t.
“The New Jersey Legislature should therefore simply ignore this command. Indeed, we urge them to go further and follow the lead set by 19 other states, by amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”
LOL!! The New Jersey Legislature should simply violate the law and disregard the court? How long do you think they’d be the legislature if they did that? About until the next election which will be in 2007.
As for a constitutional amendment, the people of the state of New Jersey are overwhelmingly opposed to such an amendment so I guess the legislature should ignore the will of the people too? I wonder if Sprigg is one of those Evangelical Christians that think the bible should take precedence over the will of the people. Yo Sprigg, go perform a reproductive biological function on yourself.
“…the burden of proof must rest upon the advocates of homosexual unions to demonstrate that such unions (gay marriage, civil unions etc.) benefit society.”
Wrong again Spriggy baby. It is not the roll of the individual to benefit society or the government; it is the roll of government to benefit the individual. Allow me to quote the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Get it? Governments are instituted to secure the rights of the individual. Men are endowed with unalienable rights and governments exist to secure those rights. Among those rights are the pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of happiness often consists of tying the right bond with the right life partner.
“Because homosexual unions never result in natural procreation and never provide children with both a mother and a father, this is a burden (provide a benefit to society) they simply cannot meet.”
Aside from the fact, as pointed out above, that homosexual unions in our democracy have no need to provide a benefit to society, many marriages don’t produce children, nor could they ever have been expected to produce children.
Older folks, often in their 70’s or 80’s, marry for companionship and financial tax benefits. Would you want to call these unions something other than marriage? Some people are physically incapable of producing children yet they marry, often with plans to adopt children. Would you want to call these unions something other than marriage?
To be honest with you I’ve not surprised at the blithering idiocy coming out of the right wing. I am disappointed in USA Today and Yahoo for publishing this tripe. There may in fact be valid arguments against gay marriage or valid arguments against a court decision in favor of equal rights for gay couples but there aren’t any in this article. Come to think of it, I’ve never heard of any, anywhere, at anytime.
The court stopped short of declaring gay marriage legal in New Jersey and left it up to the legislature to decide what to label this new legally equal arrangement. A minority of the court, including the retiring Chief Justice, did want to declare it marriage but the majority, by 4-3, decided to strike a compromise.
One set of comments I read was by Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council. In what appeared to be an editorial written for USA Today Sprigg manages to demonstrate his ignorance. This is one article but it’s pretty typical of what I’ve heard.
The title of the editorial is “Where’s Judicial Restraint?” Judicial Restraint is what the right wing complains about whenever the court satisfies its charter to protect the rights of the minority by ruling against the conservative position. Courts never have to protect the rights of the minority from the liberal position because liberals don’t stomp on minority rights!
Anyway, some quotes from the editorial with commentary.
“The New Jersey Supreme Court has professed respect for judicial restraint by refusing to change the definition of ‘marriage.’ But they have imperiously commanded the state Legislature to either redefine marriage itself, or create a ‘statutory structure’ (such as ‘civil unions’) to grant 100% of the legal rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.”
Actually what the court has done is order the legislature to redress what it has declared a violation of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey State Constitution which states:
“All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”
The court said:
“Article I, Paragraph 1 protects not only the rights of the majority but also the rights of the disfavored and the disadvantaged; they too are promised a fair opportunity for ‘pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.’"
This is equal protection under the law for “ALL PERSONS” and, in the state of New Jersey, that includes gays and lesbians. The New Jersey Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of New Jersey law and especially the interpretation of the New Jersey State Constitution and it certainly can direct the legislature to redress a violation of that law or that constitution. Note that most folks in New Jersey just sort of nodded their heads and went, “yeah, makes sense to me.”
“This is not judicial restraint. Courts have no power to command the legislative branch to enact a particular law.”
The court didn’t order the legislature to “enact a particular law.” It directed the legislature to redress a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens of the state of New Jersey and this is clearly within the scope of the court's authority. This is typical of the kind of misinformation that the right wing throws out constantly. I’m certain Sprigg understands the difference, he’s just hoping those reading his article don’t.
“The New Jersey Legislature should therefore simply ignore this command. Indeed, we urge them to go further and follow the lead set by 19 other states, by amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”
LOL!! The New Jersey Legislature should simply violate the law and disregard the court? How long do you think they’d be the legislature if they did that? About until the next election which will be in 2007.
As for a constitutional amendment, the people of the state of New Jersey are overwhelmingly opposed to such an amendment so I guess the legislature should ignore the will of the people too? I wonder if Sprigg is one of those Evangelical Christians that think the bible should take precedence over the will of the people. Yo Sprigg, go perform a reproductive biological function on yourself.
“…the burden of proof must rest upon the advocates of homosexual unions to demonstrate that such unions (gay marriage, civil unions etc.) benefit society.”
Wrong again Spriggy baby. It is not the roll of the individual to benefit society or the government; it is the roll of government to benefit the individual. Allow me to quote the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Get it? Governments are instituted to secure the rights of the individual. Men are endowed with unalienable rights and governments exist to secure those rights. Among those rights are the pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of happiness often consists of tying the right bond with the right life partner.
“Because homosexual unions never result in natural procreation and never provide children with both a mother and a father, this is a burden (provide a benefit to society) they simply cannot meet.”
Aside from the fact, as pointed out above, that homosexual unions in our democracy have no need to provide a benefit to society, many marriages don’t produce children, nor could they ever have been expected to produce children.
Older folks, often in their 70’s or 80’s, marry for companionship and financial tax benefits. Would you want to call these unions something other than marriage? Some people are physically incapable of producing children yet they marry, often with plans to adopt children. Would you want to call these unions something other than marriage?
To be honest with you I’ve not surprised at the blithering idiocy coming out of the right wing. I am disappointed in USA Today and Yahoo for publishing this tripe. There may in fact be valid arguments against gay marriage or valid arguments against a court decision in favor of equal rights for gay couples but there aren’t any in this article. Come to think of it, I’ve never heard of any, anywhere, at anytime.
The Giants and Buccaneers
Finally we had a home game last Sunday at a wild and windy Giants Stadium. I don’t know how strong the wind actually was, supposedly there were gusts up to 50 mph, but I can tell you it was hard walking through it.
The wind also played havoc with passes, punts and kick-offs. It looked like they were throwing knuckleballs out there. The result was not a very strong performance by either quarterback but the Giant’s defense was way too much for the Bucs to handle and Bruce Gradkowski spent a miserable afternoon trying to stay in one piece. He was only sacked twice but was under constant pressure and it showed in a 20-48 for 139 yards performance. Manning wasn’t much better going 16-31 and 154 yards but it was more than enough as the Giant’s defense kept Tampa out of the end zone 17-3.
At halftime they had a ceremony commemorating the 1956 Giants Championship team which 50 years ago beat the Bears at Yankee Stadium 47-7. There were a half a dozen members of that team, including Frank Gifford, Harland Svare and a very overweight Alex Webster, along with about 40 other Giant’s alumni including Otis Anderson, Harry Carson, Bob Tucker, Brad Van Pelt, Ernie Koy and Zeke Mowatt. Like Wellington Mara always said, once a Giant, always a Giant.
Elsewhere the Eagles came out flat and lost one at home to Jacksonville 13-6 and after spotting the Panthers a 14-0 lead Tony Romo and the Cowboys went wild and whipped Carolina 35-14. Romo went 24-36 for 270 yards, 1 TD and 1 Int. which ain’t bad at all especially against Carolina. I guess Drew Bledsoe better get used to the bench. Sort of makes my questioning the wisdom of giving Romo the starting job look a little dumb doesn’t it? I guess that’s why Parcells is on the sidelines and I’m watching from the stands.
The wind also played havoc with passes, punts and kick-offs. It looked like they were throwing knuckleballs out there. The result was not a very strong performance by either quarterback but the Giant’s defense was way too much for the Bucs to handle and Bruce Gradkowski spent a miserable afternoon trying to stay in one piece. He was only sacked twice but was under constant pressure and it showed in a 20-48 for 139 yards performance. Manning wasn’t much better going 16-31 and 154 yards but it was more than enough as the Giant’s defense kept Tampa out of the end zone 17-3.
At halftime they had a ceremony commemorating the 1956 Giants Championship team which 50 years ago beat the Bears at Yankee Stadium 47-7. There were a half a dozen members of that team, including Frank Gifford, Harland Svare and a very overweight Alex Webster, along with about 40 other Giant’s alumni including Otis Anderson, Harry Carson, Bob Tucker, Brad Van Pelt, Ernie Koy and Zeke Mowatt. Like Wellington Mara always said, once a Giant, always a Giant.
Elsewhere the Eagles came out flat and lost one at home to Jacksonville 13-6 and after spotting the Panthers a 14-0 lead Tony Romo and the Cowboys went wild and whipped Carolina 35-14. Romo went 24-36 for 270 yards, 1 TD and 1 Int. which ain’t bad at all especially against Carolina. I guess Drew Bledsoe better get used to the bench. Sort of makes my questioning the wisdom of giving Romo the starting job look a little dumb doesn’t it? I guess that’s why Parcells is on the sidelines and I’m watching from the stands.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Gay Marriage Wins a Big One in New Jersey
Allow me to quote from the Syllabus prepared by the Court Clerk of the Supreme Court of the sovereign state of New Jersey.
“The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.
The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.”
In other words, equal protection under the law for same sex couples and the legal term to be used for that protection is left to the legislature. The legislature has six months to enforce the ruling of the court.
I’m surprised the court went this far. I fully expected it to simply leave the ball in the legislature’s court. The legislature can now either amend the marriage laws to extend marriage to same sex couples or create some other legal state with equal provisions and protections. Some additional quotes from the Syllabus, with commentary.
“There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State.”
That’s the Blue State of New Jersey folks. No matter how you twist and turn the argument against gay marriage it’s discrimination. The fact that this discrimination has a religious source is irrelevant. They quoted Genesis 9:27 as a justification for slavery and segregation too.
“…the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude.”
Creating a different legal state smacks a bit of “separate but equal” doesn’t it? We all know how well that worked out don’t we? Separate, or different, is inherently unequal. If the legislature goes this way, then I expect it to be challenged on the basis that a difference in name is a difference of constitutional magnitude.
“However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship.”
Regardless of what the legislature chooses to call it, it will be called marriage. If “different but equal” somehow manages to be stable then 10 or 20 years from now the fact that there are in fact two separate, but equal, legal states will probably become little more than an oddball bit of trivia.
“Article I, Paragraph 1 protects not only the rights of the majority but also the rights of the disfavored and the disadvantaged; they too are promised a fair opportunity for ‘pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.’"
Some U.S. Supreme Court justices may have forgotten that the charter of the courts is to protect the minority as well as the majority but the New Jersey Supreme Court hasn’t forgotten it.
“Plaintiffs' quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives.”
Let the games begin! We all know that words and labels have meaning. New Jersey should become an absolute circus over the next six months while everyone tries to sort this one out. I can’t think of a better battlefield to fight the battle. Let’s see if we can get gay marriage legalized as well as dump the death penalty in New Jersey.
New Jersey, like Massachusetts before it, will need to take into account the issue of out of state residents. I suspect that a rule, similar to the rule in Massachusetts, limiting whatever the legislature comes up with to state residents only will be enacted.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. Just as the country couldn’t sustain remaining half slave and half free, it’s not going to be able to sustain two different de facto definitions of marriage.
I might also point out that the New Jersey decision opens the door for subverting even a constitutional amendment that prohibits gay marriage. Different but equal right? Equal protection under a different name is still the same. What did the man say, a rose by any other name? I think most people would draw the line at an amendment which prohibits equality under a legal state called something other than marriage.
By the way, don’t be confused by the statement that the decision was 4-3. The dissenting opinion concurred that the equal protection guarantee of Article I Paragraph 1 was being violated so the opinion there was 7-0. The dissent was “from the majority's distinguishing those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage.”
In other words, the three "dissenting" justices wanted to go for the whole enchilada.
Let’s hear it for the Blue State of New Jersey. I just wish the court would have waited a couple of weeks. I’m sure the Republicans will start spouting misinformation about what this decision means in order to rally voters of the Religious Right who might otherwise have passed up this election due to disillusionment with the Republican’s performance in office.
“The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.
The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.”
In other words, equal protection under the law for same sex couples and the legal term to be used for that protection is left to the legislature. The legislature has six months to enforce the ruling of the court.
I’m surprised the court went this far. I fully expected it to simply leave the ball in the legislature’s court. The legislature can now either amend the marriage laws to extend marriage to same sex couples or create some other legal state with equal provisions and protections. Some additional quotes from the Syllabus, with commentary.
“There has been a developing understanding that discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in this State.”
That’s the Blue State of New Jersey folks. No matter how you twist and turn the argument against gay marriage it’s discrimination. The fact that this discrimination has a religious source is irrelevant. They quoted Genesis 9:27 as a justification for slavery and segregation too.
“…the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude.”
Creating a different legal state smacks a bit of “separate but equal” doesn’t it? We all know how well that worked out don’t we? Separate, or different, is inherently unequal. If the legislature goes this way, then I expect it to be challenged on the basis that a difference in name is a difference of constitutional magnitude.
“However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship.”
Regardless of what the legislature chooses to call it, it will be called marriage. If “different but equal” somehow manages to be stable then 10 or 20 years from now the fact that there are in fact two separate, but equal, legal states will probably become little more than an oddball bit of trivia.
“Article I, Paragraph 1 protects not only the rights of the majority but also the rights of the disfavored and the disadvantaged; they too are promised a fair opportunity for ‘pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.’"
Some U.S. Supreme Court justices may have forgotten that the charter of the courts is to protect the minority as well as the majority but the New Jersey Supreme Court hasn’t forgotten it.
“Plaintiffs' quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives.”
Let the games begin! We all know that words and labels have meaning. New Jersey should become an absolute circus over the next six months while everyone tries to sort this one out. I can’t think of a better battlefield to fight the battle. Let’s see if we can get gay marriage legalized as well as dump the death penalty in New Jersey.
New Jersey, like Massachusetts before it, will need to take into account the issue of out of state residents. I suspect that a rule, similar to the rule in Massachusetts, limiting whatever the legislature comes up with to state residents only will be enacted.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. Just as the country couldn’t sustain remaining half slave and half free, it’s not going to be able to sustain two different de facto definitions of marriage.
I might also point out that the New Jersey decision opens the door for subverting even a constitutional amendment that prohibits gay marriage. Different but equal right? Equal protection under a different name is still the same. What did the man say, a rose by any other name? I think most people would draw the line at an amendment which prohibits equality under a legal state called something other than marriage.
By the way, don’t be confused by the statement that the decision was 4-3. The dissenting opinion concurred that the equal protection guarantee of Article I Paragraph 1 was being violated so the opinion there was 7-0. The dissent was “from the majority's distinguishing those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage.”
In other words, the three "dissenting" justices wanted to go for the whole enchilada.
Let’s hear it for the Blue State of New Jersey. I just wish the court would have waited a couple of weeks. I’m sure the Republicans will start spouting misinformation about what this decision means in order to rally voters of the Religious Right who might otherwise have passed up this election due to disillusionment with the Republican’s performance in office.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Sometimes it’s Hard to Hold Your Ground
I’m opposed to the death penalty. I don’t believe that as a species we’re smart enough to administer something that requires perfection. It requires perfection because when a man’s life is at stake any error rate, be it as small as 1 in a million, is too great when it can so easily be avoided by the substitution of Life without Parole.
That’s an intellectual position and a position held in the abstract. Unfortunately life isn’t an abstraction. I will be the first to admit that when I read about the specifics of many capital cases emotionally I’m ready to chuck my so-called intellectual position out the window and advocate the application of extremely cruel and unusual punishments.
Last night Ohio executed one Jeffrey Lundgren. Lundgren was convicted in 1990 of murdering, execution style, an entire family of five including three young girls aged 15, 13 and 7. Apparently, after dinner one night, he took them one by one to a barn and shot them using the noise of a power saw to cover the sound of the shots from other folks in the house cleaning up after dinner. His motive was what he considered to be their lack of faith in the teachings of the religious cult that he founded.
You see Lundgren thought that God talked to him. At his trial Lundgren argued that he didn’t deserve the death penalty because “I am a prophet of God. I am even more than a prophet.”
According to Lundgren God commanded him to kill the family, including the 7 year old, through the interpretation of scripture. The words were plainly there in the bible for all to see, but only Lundgren could interpret the meaning of the words.
This is an extreme case of the delusion held by some (many? most?) religious people that somehow, somewhere, in “the book,” is the answer to all life’s questions and that God’s direction on literally anything can be discovered by the proper interpretation of the scriptures. Of course the identity of “the book” changes from religion to religion so either God produced redundant but different sets of instructions (why?) or, since the books contradict each other, it is mathematically provable that all but at most one religion must be false. To paraphrase a very smart man, when you truly understand why you reject all religions but your own, you will understand why I must reject yours as well.
Even if it were true that “the book” held all the answers, and it’s clearly not, the degree of arrogance required to believe that you, and you alone, are capable of interpreting the words properly and discovering the instructions from God is beyond imagination.
The death penalty, intellectually, in the abstract, is a bad deal and should be abolished, but I’m not going to shed any tears for Lundgren. I might shed some tears for the three young girls that were betrayed by their parents and sacrificed that night to a religious delusion. I’ll also hope that these will be the last although I know they won’t. I thought about praying but, if Sky Daddy exists, he didn’t lift a finger to save those three young girls and I’m sure they were praying that night for all they were worth. If he didn’t listen to them, why should he listen to me?
It has been proposed, as a matter of moral rectitude (is that redundant?), that those that have the capacity to act also have the obligation to act. If there is a final judgment then it is upon this principle, and our myriad failures to stand by it, that we will most likely be judged. But doesn’t this same principle apply to God? Given his infinite capacity to act how is his failure to act in cases like this one justified?
At this point I usually get a horrified reaction to the effect of “how dare you question God?” I dare because God, if he exists, appears to have given me the capacity to frame the question, and if I have the capacity to frame the question, then I have the obligation to ask the question.
That’s an intellectual position and a position held in the abstract. Unfortunately life isn’t an abstraction. I will be the first to admit that when I read about the specifics of many capital cases emotionally I’m ready to chuck my so-called intellectual position out the window and advocate the application of extremely cruel and unusual punishments.
Last night Ohio executed one Jeffrey Lundgren. Lundgren was convicted in 1990 of murdering, execution style, an entire family of five including three young girls aged 15, 13 and 7. Apparently, after dinner one night, he took them one by one to a barn and shot them using the noise of a power saw to cover the sound of the shots from other folks in the house cleaning up after dinner. His motive was what he considered to be their lack of faith in the teachings of the religious cult that he founded.
You see Lundgren thought that God talked to him. At his trial Lundgren argued that he didn’t deserve the death penalty because “I am a prophet of God. I am even more than a prophet.”
According to Lundgren God commanded him to kill the family, including the 7 year old, through the interpretation of scripture. The words were plainly there in the bible for all to see, but only Lundgren could interpret the meaning of the words.
This is an extreme case of the delusion held by some (many? most?) religious people that somehow, somewhere, in “the book,” is the answer to all life’s questions and that God’s direction on literally anything can be discovered by the proper interpretation of the scriptures. Of course the identity of “the book” changes from religion to religion so either God produced redundant but different sets of instructions (why?) or, since the books contradict each other, it is mathematically provable that all but at most one religion must be false. To paraphrase a very smart man, when you truly understand why you reject all religions but your own, you will understand why I must reject yours as well.
Even if it were true that “the book” held all the answers, and it’s clearly not, the degree of arrogance required to believe that you, and you alone, are capable of interpreting the words properly and discovering the instructions from God is beyond imagination.
The death penalty, intellectually, in the abstract, is a bad deal and should be abolished, but I’m not going to shed any tears for Lundgren. I might shed some tears for the three young girls that were betrayed by their parents and sacrificed that night to a religious delusion. I’ll also hope that these will be the last although I know they won’t. I thought about praying but, if Sky Daddy exists, he didn’t lift a finger to save those three young girls and I’m sure they were praying that night for all they were worth. If he didn’t listen to them, why should he listen to me?
It has been proposed, as a matter of moral rectitude (is that redundant?), that those that have the capacity to act also have the obligation to act. If there is a final judgment then it is upon this principle, and our myriad failures to stand by it, that we will most likely be judged. But doesn’t this same principle apply to God? Given his infinite capacity to act how is his failure to act in cases like this one justified?
At this point I usually get a horrified reaction to the effect of “how dare you question God?” I dare because God, if he exists, appears to have given me the capacity to frame the question, and if I have the capacity to frame the question, then I have the obligation to ask the question.
A Strange One in Dallas
The Giants are the worst Monday Night team in football and the Cowboys are one of the best. Scheduling the Giants against the Cowboys on Monday night, especially in Dallas, is roughly the equivalent of dropping a lamb into a den of hungry lions. So what happened last night?
The answer is I’m not really sure. Near the end of the 1st half it looked like the Cowboys were going to take advantage of a Tiki Barber fumble deep in Giants territory, erase a 12-0 early deficit and go up 14-12. But then Drew Bledsoe threw a pass that was picked off at the 1 yard line and the Giants managed to run out the 1st half.
Then, wonder of wonders, Tony Romo comes out at the quarterback spot for Dallas in the 3rd quarter. On the first snap he’s intercepted by Antonio Pierce and three plays after that it’s the Giants up by 19-7. Two Romo TD passes and two Romo interceptions later, including one returned 96 yards for a touchdown, the Giants were running like thieves to get out of town with a 36-22 win and the Dallas season was up in the air.
This is the NFC East and I fully expected another four way scramble trying to get into the playoffs but the drama is never what you expect. Going in I figured that the Eagles had the best team, and I still think that’s the case, but that Dallas had the best shot at upsetting Philadelphia’s apple cart. I figured the Giants and Redskins as primarily spoilers.
Now who the heck knows. Like I said, looks like another four way scramble. I certainly wouldn’t rule out Dallas. You never rule out a Bill Parcells team, but who plays quarterback next week at Carolina?
I don’t think the expectations in Big D were for a rebuilding year at the quarterback spot even if Romo is the wave of the future for the Cowboys. By the way, is he the future? The interception by Pierce was the first pass ever thrown by Romo in his four year NFL career. The Cowboys don’t have a third quarterback so unless they go find one it’s either return the helm to Bledsoe or go with Romo. I find it hard to believe that Parcells is going to place the Cowboys season in the hands of Tony Romo. I’m betting that Bledsoe will be back at quarterback next Sunday (of course given my track record on NFL predictions that sort of guarantees that Romo will be starting doesn’t it?).
The answer is I’m not really sure. Near the end of the 1st half it looked like the Cowboys were going to take advantage of a Tiki Barber fumble deep in Giants territory, erase a 12-0 early deficit and go up 14-12. But then Drew Bledsoe threw a pass that was picked off at the 1 yard line and the Giants managed to run out the 1st half.
Then, wonder of wonders, Tony Romo comes out at the quarterback spot for Dallas in the 3rd quarter. On the first snap he’s intercepted by Antonio Pierce and three plays after that it’s the Giants up by 19-7. Two Romo TD passes and two Romo interceptions later, including one returned 96 yards for a touchdown, the Giants were running like thieves to get out of town with a 36-22 win and the Dallas season was up in the air.
This is the NFC East and I fully expected another four way scramble trying to get into the playoffs but the drama is never what you expect. Going in I figured that the Eagles had the best team, and I still think that’s the case, but that Dallas had the best shot at upsetting Philadelphia’s apple cart. I figured the Giants and Redskins as primarily spoilers.
Now who the heck knows. Like I said, looks like another four way scramble. I certainly wouldn’t rule out Dallas. You never rule out a Bill Parcells team, but who plays quarterback next week at Carolina?
I don’t think the expectations in Big D were for a rebuilding year at the quarterback spot even if Romo is the wave of the future for the Cowboys. By the way, is he the future? The interception by Pierce was the first pass ever thrown by Romo in his four year NFL career. The Cowboys don’t have a third quarterback so unless they go find one it’s either return the helm to Bledsoe or go with Romo. I find it hard to believe that Parcells is going to place the Cowboys season in the hands of Tony Romo. I’m betting that Bledsoe will be back at quarterback next Sunday (of course given my track record on NFL predictions that sort of guarantees that Romo will be starting doesn’t it?).
Monday, October 23, 2006
I’m Having Trouble with this One
Every once in a while you read a news story, shake your head, read it again and then finally admit that you’re having trouble comprehending what the story seems to be telling you.
The story in question is the AP account of a congressional election race in Garden Grove California where the Republican candidate’s campaign is being investigated for sending intimidating letters to Hispanic immigrants warning them that they could be deported or jailed for voting in next month's election.
However, the focus of the story wasn’t on the letters or the investigation, it was on the Republican candidate’s tirade against his opponent implying that she was the instigation behind the probe into the letters.
Uh-huh, uh-huh, and this is a problem because? Note that he is NOT denying the allegations, rather he is, I think, criticizing his Democratic opponent, who I might add is the incumbent, for having the matter investigated. Personally I think the lady should get a medal. Isn’t this the kind of thing a Congressman should be doing for his or her constituents?
I’m also a little confused about the strategy here. Illegal immigrants can’t vote and neither can legal aliens. Only American citizens can vote and they can’t get deported without a very long process to revoke their citizenship. So what the hell is the threat here? Are you telling me that either illegal immigrants are voting in California or some people there are so dumb that they think they can get confused with illegal immigrants simply because they’re Hispanic? They think the INS might stake out the voting booths? Or is the Republican candidate’s campaign so ignorant of election law that it thinks illegal immigrants can vote and they sent the letters in an attempt to scare them away from the polls? How about the campaign is banking on the naturalized Hispanic voters being too dumb not to know that they can’t be deported for voting?
I don’t get it. Can somebody, anybody, please explain this one to me? I might also point out that if the Democratic opponent wasn’t Hispanic herself the Republicans would be doing everything they could to get Hispanics, legal, illegal and in between, to the polls since they tend to vote Republican. Another example that assuming that people will vote their self-interest only works with rational voters. The American electorate ceased being rational when it elected Ronald Reagan and hasn’t recovered since.
I became convinced a while back that universal suffrage is a really bad idea and this story isn’t doing anything to make me change my opinion on that one. I’m convinced that some sort of minimum educational level or the passing of some minimum knowledge test should be required before people are allowed to vote. I think voting should be a privilege that is earned and not something freely given simply based upon an accident of birth.
We ask people to take a test before they get a driver’s license and you can kill a lot more people by voting poorly than by driving poorly. Consider all the people that have died in Iraq because so much of the American electorate cast their votes based upon an illusionary concern about what queers do behind locked doors.
Try as I may I just haven’t been able to come up with something appropriate to wish on the voters that voted for George W. Bush in the last election based upon so-called “Moral Values.” It should be lingering and annoying but most important it should make them realize how tragically wrong that vote was. It’s that last part that makes it hard. Anybody can come up with something to just make them suffer. How do you make them realize that they were so, so wrong?
The story in question is the AP account of a congressional election race in Garden Grove California where the Republican candidate’s campaign is being investigated for sending intimidating letters to Hispanic immigrants warning them that they could be deported or jailed for voting in next month's election.
However, the focus of the story wasn’t on the letters or the investigation, it was on the Republican candidate’s tirade against his opponent implying that she was the instigation behind the probe into the letters.
Uh-huh, uh-huh, and this is a problem because? Note that he is NOT denying the allegations, rather he is, I think, criticizing his Democratic opponent, who I might add is the incumbent, for having the matter investigated. Personally I think the lady should get a medal. Isn’t this the kind of thing a Congressman should be doing for his or her constituents?
I’m also a little confused about the strategy here. Illegal immigrants can’t vote and neither can legal aliens. Only American citizens can vote and they can’t get deported without a very long process to revoke their citizenship. So what the hell is the threat here? Are you telling me that either illegal immigrants are voting in California or some people there are so dumb that they think they can get confused with illegal immigrants simply because they’re Hispanic? They think the INS might stake out the voting booths? Or is the Republican candidate’s campaign so ignorant of election law that it thinks illegal immigrants can vote and they sent the letters in an attempt to scare them away from the polls? How about the campaign is banking on the naturalized Hispanic voters being too dumb not to know that they can’t be deported for voting?
I don’t get it. Can somebody, anybody, please explain this one to me? I might also point out that if the Democratic opponent wasn’t Hispanic herself the Republicans would be doing everything they could to get Hispanics, legal, illegal and in between, to the polls since they tend to vote Republican. Another example that assuming that people will vote their self-interest only works with rational voters. The American electorate ceased being rational when it elected Ronald Reagan and hasn’t recovered since.
I became convinced a while back that universal suffrage is a really bad idea and this story isn’t doing anything to make me change my opinion on that one. I’m convinced that some sort of minimum educational level or the passing of some minimum knowledge test should be required before people are allowed to vote. I think voting should be a privilege that is earned and not something freely given simply based upon an accident of birth.
We ask people to take a test before they get a driver’s license and you can kill a lot more people by voting poorly than by driving poorly. Consider all the people that have died in Iraq because so much of the American electorate cast their votes based upon an illusionary concern about what queers do behind locked doors.
Try as I may I just haven’t been able to come up with something appropriate to wish on the voters that voted for George W. Bush in the last election based upon so-called “Moral Values.” It should be lingering and annoying but most important it should make them realize how tragically wrong that vote was. It’s that last part that makes it hard. Anybody can come up with something to just make them suffer. How do you make them realize that they were so, so wrong?
Monday, October 16, 2006
The End of Faith
I finally got around to finishing Sam Harris’s book “The End of Faith.” Harris’s fundamental hypothesis is that religion is an anachronism that the human race, given the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons, can no longer afford.
His primary concern is with Islam to which he devotes all of chapter four entitled “The Problem with Islam.” Harris contends that the West is “at war with Islam” and that, regardless of what the politicians would like us to think, this isn’t a case of “an otherwise peaceful religion that has been ‘hijacked’” but rather we are “at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran.”
To Harris a “future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon.”
This is strong stuff. I guess that it’s unnecessary to state that Harris doesn’t believe that religion should be accorded a special measure of respect simply because it’s religion.
Where Harris can scare the daylights out of you is when he contends that a cold war with Islam, similar to that between the West and the old Soviet Union, would be impossible since death and destruction are no deterrent to people with an eye on Paradise in the next world rather then living long and prosperous lives in this world.
Harris also contends that democracy wouldn’t be an answer because these people would probably vote in a theocracy given the chance.
I agree with Harris’s basic hypothesis but I have to give more thought to his position on Islam. If you agree with Harris then you have to believe that the so-called Islamic Leaders are as willing to die as they convince the flock to be, yet, I don’t see any of them strapping bombs onto themselves. They were the ones handing out plastic keys, made in Taiwan, to children about to clear mines with their bodies and telling them the keys would open the gates to Paradise. However they didn’t keep any keys and blow themselves up clearing a mine now did they? I think there is more than a little hypocrisy here.
I do agree that religion shouldn’t be respected simply because it’s religion and Harris is probably right that given a choice, at least at the moment, democracy in the Islamic world would collapse into theocracy. So I guess our best bet would be a strong secular dictator like, oh say, Saddam Hussein?
Along with Harris’s primary hypothesis are a number of other related but somewhat independent positions.
Harris is at odds with Noam Chomsky because he accuses Chomsky of ignoring the idea of intent. Harris gets into this discussion in a chapter related to the ethics of so-called “collateral damage” and torture.
I’m not so sure I can give Harris 100% of my support here. While I agree intent matters, or more generally motives matter, there are times when the price is to high to pay. Harris’s position on things like “collateral damage” and, shall we say, strong interrogation techniques, strikes me as coming dangerously close to “the end justifies the means.” Should we ever accept that then we’ve already lost.
Harris is in favor of legalizing and regulating recreational drugs rather than spending billions trying to enforce unenforceable laws. He specifically mentions marijuana but other than that doesn’t identify which drugs he’s talking about.
To my mind the legalization and regulation of recreational drugs is highly dependent upon which drugs. Marijuana certainly and perhaps cocaine but I would draw the line at meth and heroin I think.
At the outer fringes of the book Harris devotes a whole chapter to spirituality and mysticism which sort of had my left eyebrow arched. He also says that there “seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science.”
In support of his “psychic phenomena” statement Harris has an endnote referencing books by Dean Radin of the Parapsychological Association and Rupert Sheldrake of “Telephone Telepathy” fame.
For a man who spends a lot of time saying one shouldn’t accept things without adequate evidence I find his “psychic phenomena” statements puzzling. While I agree that one should keep an open mind and consider the evidence, I think Harris is way off base when he implies that there is any reputable evidence “attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena.”
Certainly I’m not aware of anything that either Radin or Sheldrake have come up with that comes even close to what would be considered reputable scientific evidence. I suspect that James Randi would be terribly upset with you Sam.
I think that The End of Faith would have made an excellent theoretical paper focusing on his primary hypothesis but Harris really didn’t have enough for a book, even one that ended up being one third endnotes, bibliography and index.
The key here however is the attack on religion. The idea that this is somehow impolite and should be avoided in polite company Harris flings out the window and stands shoulder to shoulder with Richard Dawkins. I also agree with Harris that either we figure out a way to eliminate religion or religion will lead to the elimination of us.
His primary concern is with Islam to which he devotes all of chapter four entitled “The Problem with Islam.” Harris contends that the West is “at war with Islam” and that, regardless of what the politicians would like us to think, this isn’t a case of “an otherwise peaceful religion that has been ‘hijacked’” but rather we are “at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran.”
To Harris a “future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon.”
This is strong stuff. I guess that it’s unnecessary to state that Harris doesn’t believe that religion should be accorded a special measure of respect simply because it’s religion.
Where Harris can scare the daylights out of you is when he contends that a cold war with Islam, similar to that between the West and the old Soviet Union, would be impossible since death and destruction are no deterrent to people with an eye on Paradise in the next world rather then living long and prosperous lives in this world.
Harris also contends that democracy wouldn’t be an answer because these people would probably vote in a theocracy given the chance.
I agree with Harris’s basic hypothesis but I have to give more thought to his position on Islam. If you agree with Harris then you have to believe that the so-called Islamic Leaders are as willing to die as they convince the flock to be, yet, I don’t see any of them strapping bombs onto themselves. They were the ones handing out plastic keys, made in Taiwan, to children about to clear mines with their bodies and telling them the keys would open the gates to Paradise. However they didn’t keep any keys and blow themselves up clearing a mine now did they? I think there is more than a little hypocrisy here.
I do agree that religion shouldn’t be respected simply because it’s religion and Harris is probably right that given a choice, at least at the moment, democracy in the Islamic world would collapse into theocracy. So I guess our best bet would be a strong secular dictator like, oh say, Saddam Hussein?
Along with Harris’s primary hypothesis are a number of other related but somewhat independent positions.
Harris is at odds with Noam Chomsky because he accuses Chomsky of ignoring the idea of intent. Harris gets into this discussion in a chapter related to the ethics of so-called “collateral damage” and torture.
I’m not so sure I can give Harris 100% of my support here. While I agree intent matters, or more generally motives matter, there are times when the price is to high to pay. Harris’s position on things like “collateral damage” and, shall we say, strong interrogation techniques, strikes me as coming dangerously close to “the end justifies the means.” Should we ever accept that then we’ve already lost.
Harris is in favor of legalizing and regulating recreational drugs rather than spending billions trying to enforce unenforceable laws. He specifically mentions marijuana but other than that doesn’t identify which drugs he’s talking about.
To my mind the legalization and regulation of recreational drugs is highly dependent upon which drugs. Marijuana certainly and perhaps cocaine but I would draw the line at meth and heroin I think.
At the outer fringes of the book Harris devotes a whole chapter to spirituality and mysticism which sort of had my left eyebrow arched. He also says that there “seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science.”
In support of his “psychic phenomena” statement Harris has an endnote referencing books by Dean Radin of the Parapsychological Association and Rupert Sheldrake of “Telephone Telepathy” fame.
For a man who spends a lot of time saying one shouldn’t accept things without adequate evidence I find his “psychic phenomena” statements puzzling. While I agree that one should keep an open mind and consider the evidence, I think Harris is way off base when he implies that there is any reputable evidence “attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena.”
Certainly I’m not aware of anything that either Radin or Sheldrake have come up with that comes even close to what would be considered reputable scientific evidence. I suspect that James Randi would be terribly upset with you Sam.
I think that The End of Faith would have made an excellent theoretical paper focusing on his primary hypothesis but Harris really didn’t have enough for a book, even one that ended up being one third endnotes, bibliography and index.
The key here however is the attack on religion. The idea that this is somehow impolite and should be avoided in polite company Harris flings out the window and stands shoulder to shoulder with Richard Dawkins. I also agree with Harris that either we figure out a way to eliminate religion or religion will lead to the elimination of us.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Tempting Faith
“Tempting Faith” is the name of the book written by David Kuo who worked for the Bush Administration as the number 2 man in the Faith Based Initiatives office. Kuo claims that the faith based office was never funded to the level promised and used taxpayer funds to hold events to rally Evangelical Christian support for Republican candidates.
Kuo blames a lack of commitment on the part of the administration in funding the planned charity work. In other words Bush and company “used” the Evangelical Christian community for political ends. DUH, no kidding, could this guy be that naïve?
I saw Mr. Kuo on 60 minutes and have since been reading some of his articles on the internet. I really have no intention of reading his book since I believe him. As a matter of fact it doesn’t surprise me at all.
While I sympathize with his disappointment that more wasn't done for the poor, allow me to suggest that the entire "Faith Based Initiatives" program is a really bad idea. It’s in violation of the principle of the separation of Church and State and should never have been funded at all. Mr. Kuo’s own observation that grant requests from non-Christian groups tended to be ignored underscores why. Whether, as Kuo claims, Al Gore proposed something similar is really sort of irrelevant.
In one article Mr. Kuo couldn’t understand why Liberal organizations got "upset" when Executive Orders are “issued permitting an organization to simply display a cross” using public funds. Allow me to explain, they, and I, get upset because that is using tax dollars to push a religious agenda.
Not all of us believe that Christianity is a good thing so we’re not at all happy about public tax dollars being used for its benefit.
There are two problems with this Faith-based initiatives nonsense. The first is that there is no evidence that so-called Faith-based charities do a better job than secular charities and the second is that often public dollars end up being allocated for religious purposes such as prayer sessions and Bible study. I find this totally unacceptable. Christianity is not a universally recognized benefit. As a matter of fact I could make an argument that it has been the source of more human pain and misery throughout history than all other causes combined.
I did find it amusing that Kuo claims, with indignation, that prominent religious leaders such as Robertson, Falwell and Dobson were dismissed behind their backs and described as “ridiculous,” “out of control,” and just plain ‘goofy.”
Well, maybe that’s because they are “ridiculous,” “out of control” and just plain “goofy.” Have you even listened to what these guys say? This is one of the few things that I and the Bush Administration agree on. Unfortunately they’re dangerous as well and using public funds to enhance their position just makes them more dangerous.
I’m sorry that you were disappointed Mr. Kuo as I do get the feeling that you honestly hoped that this program would do some good. Unfortunately you now know that hope was misplaced from the beginning.
Kuo blames a lack of commitment on the part of the administration in funding the planned charity work. In other words Bush and company “used” the Evangelical Christian community for political ends. DUH, no kidding, could this guy be that naïve?
I saw Mr. Kuo on 60 minutes and have since been reading some of his articles on the internet. I really have no intention of reading his book since I believe him. As a matter of fact it doesn’t surprise me at all.
While I sympathize with his disappointment that more wasn't done for the poor, allow me to suggest that the entire "Faith Based Initiatives" program is a really bad idea. It’s in violation of the principle of the separation of Church and State and should never have been funded at all. Mr. Kuo’s own observation that grant requests from non-Christian groups tended to be ignored underscores why. Whether, as Kuo claims, Al Gore proposed something similar is really sort of irrelevant.
In one article Mr. Kuo couldn’t understand why Liberal organizations got "upset" when Executive Orders are “issued permitting an organization to simply display a cross” using public funds. Allow me to explain, they, and I, get upset because that is using tax dollars to push a religious agenda.
Not all of us believe that Christianity is a good thing so we’re not at all happy about public tax dollars being used for its benefit.
There are two problems with this Faith-based initiatives nonsense. The first is that there is no evidence that so-called Faith-based charities do a better job than secular charities and the second is that often public dollars end up being allocated for religious purposes such as prayer sessions and Bible study. I find this totally unacceptable. Christianity is not a universally recognized benefit. As a matter of fact I could make an argument that it has been the source of more human pain and misery throughout history than all other causes combined.
I did find it amusing that Kuo claims, with indignation, that prominent religious leaders such as Robertson, Falwell and Dobson were dismissed behind their backs and described as “ridiculous,” “out of control,” and just plain ‘goofy.”
Well, maybe that’s because they are “ridiculous,” “out of control” and just plain “goofy.” Have you even listened to what these guys say? This is one of the few things that I and the Bush Administration agree on. Unfortunately they’re dangerous as well and using public funds to enhance their position just makes them more dangerous.
I’m sorry that you were disappointed Mr. Kuo as I do get the feeling that you honestly hoped that this program would do some good. Unfortunately you now know that hope was misplaced from the beginning.
Giants at Falcons
The Giants managed to take the Falcons 27-14 which means they somehow figured out a way to keep Michael Vick under control. That control translated into 7 sacks, 180+ yards on the ground by Tiki Barber and two touchdowns by Jeremy Shockey.
A 90 yard touchdown run by Warrick Dunn at the start of the second half put the boys behind 14-3 but from then on it was pretty much downhill for Atlanta. I wonder if there is some imperative in the psyche of this team that requires it to fall behind? I've been convinced for years that they had some kind of rule against doing anything the easy way but this penchant for spotting the other side a few touchdowns is taking things a bit too far in my humble opinion.
One really odd bit of trivia is that the last eleven games between the Giants and Falcons have been won by the visiting team which is really bizarre when you think about it.
Now on to a Monday night fiasco with Dallas. I say fiasco because the very idea of the Giants beating Dallas on a Monday night in Dallas is simply ludicrous.
A 90 yard touchdown run by Warrick Dunn at the start of the second half put the boys behind 14-3 but from then on it was pretty much downhill for Atlanta. I wonder if there is some imperative in the psyche of this team that requires it to fall behind? I've been convinced for years that they had some kind of rule against doing anything the easy way but this penchant for spotting the other side a few touchdowns is taking things a bit too far in my humble opinion.
One really odd bit of trivia is that the last eleven games between the Giants and Falcons have been won by the visiting team which is really bizarre when you think about it.
Now on to a Monday night fiasco with Dallas. I say fiasco because the very idea of the Giants beating Dallas on a Monday night in Dallas is simply ludicrous.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
A Laptop for Every Child!
What a fantastic idea! Provide a laptop computer with internet access for every schoolchild. This isn’t a dream. The plans are actually already in place to provide inexpensive laptops for each and every schoolchild.
But don’t get your kids all excited about this because it’s not happening here, it’s happening in Libya.
The non-profit One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project has as it’s objective supplying an inexpensive laptop, target about $100, for EVERY CHILD! The laptops will only be available through government ministries and not directly. Libya joins Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria and Thailand as countries with preliminary purchase agreements with OLPC. Libya has also indicated that it would be willing to pay for the laptops for poorer African countries including Chad, Niger and Rwanda.
The actual laptops, Linux based, with a color display, 500 mhz processor, 128 MB of DSRAM, 500 MB of Flash Ram but no hard drive, are being developed in Taiwan.
Wait a minute, what about the telecommunications infrastructure you ask? Not to worry, the OLPC laptop will also include ad-hoc networking software developed at MIT so the units will network right out of the box and the group is looking at low cost backbone network access techniques. OLPC is headquartered in Cambridge Massachusetts.
You notice anything missing in this picture? This is something that makes some sense. So, who’s the Senator working on the bill to buy a laptop for every American schoolchild? No one? Why the hell not!
Too expensive for a large country you say? Bullfeathers!. There are approximately 80 million school children in the U.S. That would be a cost of approximately 8 billion dollars. Well ducky we’ve spent 30 times that much in Iraq already. Current estimates place the cost of the war at more than 250 billion dollars. For that kind of money we could have bought $3,000 laptops for every schoolchild and I defy you to find a laptop that expensive. A top of the line unit, retail, goes for about $2,500.
Alternatively, rather than splurging on our own kids, we could have bought $100 laptops for every child in North and South America and maybe looked as good as Libya.
You can find out more at One Laptop Per Child.
But don’t get your kids all excited about this because it’s not happening here, it’s happening in Libya.
The non-profit One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project has as it’s objective supplying an inexpensive laptop, target about $100, for EVERY CHILD! The laptops will only be available through government ministries and not directly. Libya joins Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria and Thailand as countries with preliminary purchase agreements with OLPC. Libya has also indicated that it would be willing to pay for the laptops for poorer African countries including Chad, Niger and Rwanda.The actual laptops, Linux based, with a color display, 500 mhz processor, 128 MB of DSRAM, 500 MB of Flash Ram but no hard drive, are being developed in Taiwan.
Wait a minute, what about the telecommunications infrastructure you ask? Not to worry, the OLPC laptop will also include ad-hoc networking software developed at MIT so the units will network right out of the box and the group is looking at low cost backbone network access techniques. OLPC is headquartered in Cambridge Massachusetts.
You notice anything missing in this picture? This is something that makes some sense. So, who’s the Senator working on the bill to buy a laptop for every American schoolchild? No one? Why the hell not!
Too expensive for a large country you say? Bullfeathers!. There are approximately 80 million school children in the U.S. That would be a cost of approximately 8 billion dollars. Well ducky we’ve spent 30 times that much in Iraq already. Current estimates place the cost of the war at more than 250 billion dollars. For that kind of money we could have bought $3,000 laptops for every schoolchild and I defy you to find a laptop that expensive. A top of the line unit, retail, goes for about $2,500.
Alternatively, rather than splurging on our own kids, we could have bought $100 laptops for every child in North and South America and maybe looked as good as Libya.
You can find out more at One Laptop Per Child.
Giants vs. Redskins
Ok, I’ve finally given in to the fact that I’ve got to leave an hour earlier for Giants stadium in order to avoid the construction problems. Given that concession the day turned out quite pleasant.
I got to park in my favorite place, it was warm and sunny and the Giants beat up on the Redskins 19-3. The only problem is now we have to play them in Washington.
The defense finally looked like the defense from the pre-season and the offense had the balanced look it’s supposed to have with Tiki and Eli both humming. The only two areas of concern were Jay Feely missing another field goal that he probably should haver made and the number of
penalties. My goodness the penalties! Yo, guys, those bases on balls will kill ya!
Next Sunday the nightmare schedule continues as the boys journey to Atlanta to chase Michael Vick around the field for two hours. That should be about as frustrating as usual.
I got to park in my favorite place, it was warm and sunny and the Giants beat up on the Redskins 19-3. The only problem is now we have to play them in Washington.The defense finally looked like the defense from the pre-season and the offense had the balanced look it’s supposed to have with Tiki and Eli both humming. The only two areas of concern were Jay Feely missing another field goal that he probably should haver made and the number of
penalties. My goodness the penalties! Yo, guys, those bases on balls will kill ya!
Next Sunday the nightmare schedule continues as the boys journey to Atlanta to chase Michael Vick around the field for two hours. That should be about as frustrating as usual.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Conservative or Liberal?
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducts some interesting surveys and I’m finding them being quoted more and more often. They simply report the facts without embellishment or interpretation.
The current report that I’ve downloaded is on Social Issues and was released in August of 2006. The report investigates American attitudes on five issues, gay marriage, adoption by gay couples, stem cell research, abortion and the morning-after pill. Collected opinions are sliced and diced based upon demographics and geography although not always consistently.
I suspect that it would surprise no one that the Northeast and West lean left while the Midwest and South lean right. I use the word “lean” because, according to Pew, we’re not as polarized as some demagogues would like us to believe.
The most interesting set of statistics was related to the question of how real is the so-called “Culture War?” Now I have to admit that Pew demonstrates that I’ve been wrong on this one. I always sort of believed there were clear camps here and that most people took either consistently Conservative or consistently Liberal positions. Wrong! Perhaps I fell into this error because I tend to fall on the left side of the aisle on just about every question.
What Pew did was establish what it called a Conservatism Index based upon how many of the five social issues in the survey individuals took a Conservative position. If someone took the Conservative position on 4 or 5 issues their Conservatism was considered High, on 2 or 3 issues Medium and on 0 or 1 issue low.
Of the total sample 28% were rated High, 34% Medium and 38% Low. This means the right wing has by no means become the majority in this country. They just tend to be louder and more obnoxious I guess.
Men tended to be more Conservative than Women, which I have to admit surprised me, and Blacks much more Conservative than Whites which REALLY surprised me. Only 26% of Whites were rated High compared to 40% of Blacks and only 24% of Blacks rated Low compared to 40% of Whites. 31% of men were rated High and 34% Low compared to 25% of women rated High and 42% Low.
The Northeast was the most Liberal region with 50% rated Low and only 22% rated High. The West was next with 46% rated Low and only 20% rated High. The South was more Conservative than the Midwest, and was the only region with more people in the High category than the Low category, with 32% rated High and only 30% rated Low while the Midwest had 33% rated High and 35% rated Low.
The more education you have the more Liberal your outlook tends to be. This is no surprise as virtually every study I’ve ever seen is consistent on this point. Of those with at least a college degree 52% were rated Low and only 18% were rated High. For those with High School or less 33% were rated High and 29% were rated Low. For those with at least some college 43% were rated Low and 29% High. So I guess the solution to Conservatism is more education?
Age also plays a big role. For those 65 or older 37% were rated High and 25% Low. In the youngest group, 18-29 years of age, 50% were rated Low and only 23% High. Interestingly enough the Flower Children of the 60’s appear to have kept their Liberal ways, 42% of those aged 50-64 were rated Low and only 23% High.
No surprises in the religious affiliation numbers. Evangelical Protestants were the most Conservative with 46% rated High and only 18% rated Low. Mainline Protestants, with 54% rated Low and only 12% rated High, only had Secular folks on their left with a whopping 66% rated Low and only 10% rated High.
Of course perhaps if the topics were different the ratings would change, but then again, perhaps not. I think the implication from this survey that the country may not be as polarized as it sometimes feels, and as some people would like us to believe, is encouraging.
This is good because I’m in the process of reading Sam Harris’s “The End of Faith” and so far I haven’t found anything encouraging there. As a matter of fact Harris’s evaluation of Islam is scaring the daylights out of me. More on that when I finish the book.
The current report that I’ve downloaded is on Social Issues and was released in August of 2006. The report investigates American attitudes on five issues, gay marriage, adoption by gay couples, stem cell research, abortion and the morning-after pill. Collected opinions are sliced and diced based upon demographics and geography although not always consistently.
I suspect that it would surprise no one that the Northeast and West lean left while the Midwest and South lean right. I use the word “lean” because, according to Pew, we’re not as polarized as some demagogues would like us to believe.
The most interesting set of statistics was related to the question of how real is the so-called “Culture War?” Now I have to admit that Pew demonstrates that I’ve been wrong on this one. I always sort of believed there were clear camps here and that most people took either consistently Conservative or consistently Liberal positions. Wrong! Perhaps I fell into this error because I tend to fall on the left side of the aisle on just about every question.
What Pew did was establish what it called a Conservatism Index based upon how many of the five social issues in the survey individuals took a Conservative position. If someone took the Conservative position on 4 or 5 issues their Conservatism was considered High, on 2 or 3 issues Medium and on 0 or 1 issue low.
Of the total sample 28% were rated High, 34% Medium and 38% Low. This means the right wing has by no means become the majority in this country. They just tend to be louder and more obnoxious I guess.
Men tended to be more Conservative than Women, which I have to admit surprised me, and Blacks much more Conservative than Whites which REALLY surprised me. Only 26% of Whites were rated High compared to 40% of Blacks and only 24% of Blacks rated Low compared to 40% of Whites. 31% of men were rated High and 34% Low compared to 25% of women rated High and 42% Low.
The Northeast was the most Liberal region with 50% rated Low and only 22% rated High. The West was next with 46% rated Low and only 20% rated High. The South was more Conservative than the Midwest, and was the only region with more people in the High category than the Low category, with 32% rated High and only 30% rated Low while the Midwest had 33% rated High and 35% rated Low.
The more education you have the more Liberal your outlook tends to be. This is no surprise as virtually every study I’ve ever seen is consistent on this point. Of those with at least a college degree 52% were rated Low and only 18% were rated High. For those with High School or less 33% were rated High and 29% were rated Low. For those with at least some college 43% were rated Low and 29% High. So I guess the solution to Conservatism is more education?
Age also plays a big role. For those 65 or older 37% were rated High and 25% Low. In the youngest group, 18-29 years of age, 50% were rated Low and only 23% High. Interestingly enough the Flower Children of the 60’s appear to have kept their Liberal ways, 42% of those aged 50-64 were rated Low and only 23% High.
No surprises in the religious affiliation numbers. Evangelical Protestants were the most Conservative with 46% rated High and only 18% rated Low. Mainline Protestants, with 54% rated Low and only 12% rated High, only had Secular folks on their left with a whopping 66% rated Low and only 10% rated High.
Of course perhaps if the topics were different the ratings would change, but then again, perhaps not. I think the implication from this survey that the country may not be as polarized as it sometimes feels, and as some people would like us to believe, is encouraging.
This is good because I’m in the process of reading Sam Harris’s “The End of Faith” and so far I haven’t found anything encouraging there. As a matter of fact Harris’s evaluation of Islam is scaring the daylights out of me. More on that when I finish the book.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Don't Play it Again Sam
While searching for information related to the Clarence Hill execution I encountered a column by Sam Cook at the Southwest Florida News-Press (no, not Sam Cooke, this newspaper dude is White and besides the R&B Sam Cooke with an “e” has been dead since 1964). The newspaper Sam Cook is comfortable with the death penalty. In his article he says things like:
“…Hill’s death is a step in the right direction for capital punishment.”
“Long live the death penalty.”
“If you don’t think death is a deterrent to murder, you’ve never held a gun in your hand.”
“Paying the ultimate price is the lone obstacle that stands between killer and victim.”
I think Sam is comfortable because he is focusing on this one instance of the death penalty and on an individual whose guilt is certain and, as much as anyone, probably deserves the ultimate penalty. It’s hard to find anything positive to say about Clarence Hill beyond that he deserved to have his case heard and was denied that based upon a filing deadline.
Still, I think Sam needs to step away and look at the wider picture so I sent him the following e-mail.
Dear Sam,
I read your article about the execution of Clarence Hill. While I respect your position, I think that you misunderstand the problem that many of us “bleeding hearts” have with the death penalty.
You ask “Didn’t Hill deserve to die for taking the life of a cop, a man sworn to serve and protect?”
Yes he did, but are we smart enough to play God with men’s lives? The fundamental problem with the death penalty is that, as a species, we’re just not smart enough to administer something that requires perfection. If you don’t believe it requires perfection then what kind of error rate are you willing to live with?
Would it be ok with you, in order to insure that people like Hill get what’s coming to them, if one execution in a thousand were of an innocent man? What about one in a hundred? What about one in ten? There has to be an error rate because men aren’t perfect and never will be.
If you don’t have a ready answer to this question then you’re not being realistic about the situation. Consider the number of men that have been exonerated and released from death row. And no I’m not talking about those who are released because they get a new trial based upon a legal technicality and the evidence and witnesses can no longer be located, I’m talking about real exonerations such as those based upon DNA.
If we haven’t executed an innocent man yet, then it’s only a matter of time. Personally I’d rather see ten thousand Hills living out their worthless lives in prison than have to live with the suspicion that one innocent man has been executed.
You rightly bemoan the length of time prisoners spend on death row and the terrible effect this can have on the families of the victims.
Well the problem here is that we know we’re not perfect and we have to go through all sorts of contortions to reduce the probability of a mistake. I have a simple solution. Life with no possibility of parole and I mean absolutely no possibility. Closure is immediate and the victim’s family can at least try to get on with their lives as difficult as that’s going to be.
You say “If you don’t think death is a deterrent to murder, you’ve never held a gun in your hand.”
While I’m a bit uncertain what holding a gun in my hand has to do with death as a deterrent to murder, study after study appears to show no deterrent effect from the death penalty. The South, with by far the highest rate of executions, continues to lead the nation in murder rate year after year while the Northeast, with only four executions, all of so-called volunteers, continues to have the lowest murder rate year after year. Where’s the deterrent effect?
Would the death penalty deter rational men from committing murder? Sure it would. The problem is that most murderers aren’t rational or they aren’t rational at the instant they commit the crime.
The death penalty is riddled with uncertainty, the convoluted appeals process is torture on the victim's family, it demonstrates no deterrent benefit and is arbitrary as hell to boot. Perhaps you can explain to me why the state of Texas has found it necessary to execute 376 people since 1976 while the state of New York hasn’t found it necessary to execute anyone. Are there that many more evil people in Texas than New York or are New Yorkers just too kind hearted?
Heck it even costs more than Life in Prison without Parole. What’s the benefit? While it may be satisfying to see those who clearly deserve the needle, or a date with Old Sparkey, get what’s coming to them, overall the death penalty is a bad deal.
“…Hill’s death is a step in the right direction for capital punishment.”
“Long live the death penalty.”
“If you don’t think death is a deterrent to murder, you’ve never held a gun in your hand.”
“Paying the ultimate price is the lone obstacle that stands between killer and victim.”
I think Sam is comfortable because he is focusing on this one instance of the death penalty and on an individual whose guilt is certain and, as much as anyone, probably deserves the ultimate penalty. It’s hard to find anything positive to say about Clarence Hill beyond that he deserved to have his case heard and was denied that based upon a filing deadline.
Still, I think Sam needs to step away and look at the wider picture so I sent him the following e-mail.
Dear Sam,
I read your article about the execution of Clarence Hill. While I respect your position, I think that you misunderstand the problem that many of us “bleeding hearts” have with the death penalty.
You ask “Didn’t Hill deserve to die for taking the life of a cop, a man sworn to serve and protect?”
Yes he did, but are we smart enough to play God with men’s lives? The fundamental problem with the death penalty is that, as a species, we’re just not smart enough to administer something that requires perfection. If you don’t believe it requires perfection then what kind of error rate are you willing to live with?
Would it be ok with you, in order to insure that people like Hill get what’s coming to them, if one execution in a thousand were of an innocent man? What about one in a hundred? What about one in ten? There has to be an error rate because men aren’t perfect and never will be.
If you don’t have a ready answer to this question then you’re not being realistic about the situation. Consider the number of men that have been exonerated and released from death row. And no I’m not talking about those who are released because they get a new trial based upon a legal technicality and the evidence and witnesses can no longer be located, I’m talking about real exonerations such as those based upon DNA.
If we haven’t executed an innocent man yet, then it’s only a matter of time. Personally I’d rather see ten thousand Hills living out their worthless lives in prison than have to live with the suspicion that one innocent man has been executed.
You rightly bemoan the length of time prisoners spend on death row and the terrible effect this can have on the families of the victims.
Well the problem here is that we know we’re not perfect and we have to go through all sorts of contortions to reduce the probability of a mistake. I have a simple solution. Life with no possibility of parole and I mean absolutely no possibility. Closure is immediate and the victim’s family can at least try to get on with their lives as difficult as that’s going to be.
You say “If you don’t think death is a deterrent to murder, you’ve never held a gun in your hand.”
While I’m a bit uncertain what holding a gun in my hand has to do with death as a deterrent to murder, study after study appears to show no deterrent effect from the death penalty. The South, with by far the highest rate of executions, continues to lead the nation in murder rate year after year while the Northeast, with only four executions, all of so-called volunteers, continues to have the lowest murder rate year after year. Where’s the deterrent effect?
Would the death penalty deter rational men from committing murder? Sure it would. The problem is that most murderers aren’t rational or they aren’t rational at the instant they commit the crime.
The death penalty is riddled with uncertainty, the convoluted appeals process is torture on the victim's family, it demonstrates no deterrent benefit and is arbitrary as hell to boot. Perhaps you can explain to me why the state of Texas has found it necessary to execute 376 people since 1976 while the state of New York hasn’t found it necessary to execute anyone. Are there that many more evil people in Texas than New York or are New Yorkers just too kind hearted?
Heck it even costs more than Life in Prison without Parole. What’s the benefit? While it may be satisfying to see those who clearly deserve the needle, or a date with Old Sparkey, get what’s coming to them, overall the death penalty is a bad deal.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Death Penalty Update
The execution of Clarence Hill in Florida on September 20th brought the total number of executions in the U.S. this year up to 43. Hill’s story is one of those that make you shake your head and wonder if you haven’t been transported through the looking glass.
In June the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Hill’s challenge to Florida’s lethal injection law on the basis of a civil rights violation was proper and should proceed. However, a district court in Tallahassee and an appeals court in Atlanta both refused to hear Hill’s suit saying that HE SHOULD HAVE FILED EARLIER! The Supreme Court then denied his request for a stay of execution by a vote of 5-4.
Let me make sure I understand this properly. In June the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously agreed that the man’s challenge was proper. In other words that he was entitled to have his day in court and be heard. However, this was denied by the lower courts because he filed his case too late and the same Supreme Court, that said his case should be heard, didn’t lift a finger to correct the fact that it had not been heard due to a filing deadline TECHNICALITY!
Just to further add to the Wonderland aspect of the whole thing is that the American Bar Association, three days prior to Hill’s execution, issued a report saying that Florida’s application of the death penalty fails to comply with ABA standards to ensure fairness and accuracy.
Among the problems cited in the report were the twenty-two Florida death row inmates exonerated since 1973, the fact that capital crime defense counsels were inadequately compensated, that there was juror confusion about the rules related to mitigating factors during the sentencing phase, that jurors did not have to arrive at a unanimous death penalty recommendation and that judges can overrule the jury’s recommendation and impose the death penalty which occurred in 166 of the 856 Florida death sentences from 1972 to 1999.
Well at least this time it wasn’t Texas looking ridiculous.
On the plus side of the ledger New Jersey continues to display indications that the death penalty is on the way out there. A state legislator from Cape May has announced that he has changed his mind and now opposes Capital Punishment which increases the majority in the legislature leaning toward abolition and the Asbury Park Press has published an editorial calling for replacing capital punishment with the sentence of life without parole.
There are twelve prisoners, including one woman on New Jersey's death row but the state has never executed anyone under its current death penalty statute.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund's "Death Row USA" for 2006 shows that the number of people on the death row in the United States is continuing to decline, falling to 3,366 as of July 1, 2006. The size of death row has been in a slow but steady decline since the year 2000.
Nationally, the racial composition of those on death row is 45% white, 42% black, and 11% latino. Of jurisdictions with more than 10 people on death row, Texas (69%) and Pennsylvania (70%) have the largest percentage of minorities on death row. Nearly 80% of the victims in crimes that resulted in executions were white.
California, with 657 inmates, and Texas, with 401 inmates, have the largest death row populations in the country. California has a judicial moratorium on executions in place due to problems with its lethal injection procedures but there’s nothing slowing down the death factory in Texas.
Maybe one day we’ll become as modern and sophisticated as countries like Liberia, Mexico and South Africa and realize how bad an idea capital punishment is.
In June the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Hill’s challenge to Florida’s lethal injection law on the basis of a civil rights violation was proper and should proceed. However, a district court in Tallahassee and an appeals court in Atlanta both refused to hear Hill’s suit saying that HE SHOULD HAVE FILED EARLIER! The Supreme Court then denied his request for a stay of execution by a vote of 5-4.
Let me make sure I understand this properly. In June the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously agreed that the man’s challenge was proper. In other words that he was entitled to have his day in court and be heard. However, this was denied by the lower courts because he filed his case too late and the same Supreme Court, that said his case should be heard, didn’t lift a finger to correct the fact that it had not been heard due to a filing deadline TECHNICALITY!
Just to further add to the Wonderland aspect of the whole thing is that the American Bar Association, three days prior to Hill’s execution, issued a report saying that Florida’s application of the death penalty fails to comply with ABA standards to ensure fairness and accuracy.
Among the problems cited in the report were the twenty-two Florida death row inmates exonerated since 1973, the fact that capital crime defense counsels were inadequately compensated, that there was juror confusion about the rules related to mitigating factors during the sentencing phase, that jurors did not have to arrive at a unanimous death penalty recommendation and that judges can overrule the jury’s recommendation and impose the death penalty which occurred in 166 of the 856 Florida death sentences from 1972 to 1999.
Well at least this time it wasn’t Texas looking ridiculous.
On the plus side of the ledger New Jersey continues to display indications that the death penalty is on the way out there. A state legislator from Cape May has announced that he has changed his mind and now opposes Capital Punishment which increases the majority in the legislature leaning toward abolition and the Asbury Park Press has published an editorial calling for replacing capital punishment with the sentence of life without parole.
There are twelve prisoners, including one woman on New Jersey's death row but the state has never executed anyone under its current death penalty statute.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund's "Death Row USA" for 2006 shows that the number of people on the death row in the United States is continuing to decline, falling to 3,366 as of July 1, 2006. The size of death row has been in a slow but steady decline since the year 2000.
Nationally, the racial composition of those on death row is 45% white, 42% black, and 11% latino. Of jurisdictions with more than 10 people on death row, Texas (69%) and Pennsylvania (70%) have the largest percentage of minorities on death row. Nearly 80% of the victims in crimes that resulted in executions were white.
California, with 657 inmates, and Texas, with 401 inmates, have the largest death row populations in the country. California has a judicial moratorium on executions in place due to problems with its lethal injection procedures but there’s nothing slowing down the death factory in Texas.
Maybe one day we’ll become as modern and sophisticated as countries like Liberia, Mexico and South Africa and realize how bad an idea capital punishment is.
Liar, Lunatic or Lord?
I watched The Chronicles of Narnia on cable Saturday night. I thought the movie rather mediocre, the Christian allegory rather obvious and the level of violence rather surprising.
I noticed that even C.S. Lewis’s famous argument, mistakenly labeled “The Trilemma,” got into the movie. When the Professor is considering the youngest girl’s story about a world through the wardrobe he says that since she’s not lying, and she’s not mad, then she must be telling the truth.
The argument was first expounded by Lewis to counter the position that Jesus was simply an inspired moral teacher. Amateur Christian Apologists are attracted to the argument due to its air of elegance and simplicity but better educated Apologists realize that it has serious flaws and isn’t going to impress anyone that isn’t either already a committed believer or not too bright.
The argument goes something like this. Jesus claimed to be God and Jesus claimed the authority to instruct people how to achieve salvation. If his claims were false then either he was delusional, and therefore a lunatic, or he was lying, and therefore committing an evil of immense proportions. In either case it wouldn’t be rational to consider him a great moral teacher. Since Jesus was obviously a great moral teacher, he could not have been either lying or a lunatic therefore his claims must be true and he must be the Lord.
Like I said, simple and elegant, and at first glance it looks like a pretty good argument. Unfortunately if you think about it for a couple of seconds the flaws become rather obvious.
The first problem is how do we know Jesus claimed any such thing? That, based upon the gospels, he instructed people about how to achieve salvation I’ll have to admit is pretty obvious but his teaching was standard first century Judaism with a twist of apocalyptic fervor. There is nothing in his game plan for salvation in the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew and Luke) that is very radical other than some very liberal interpretations of some parts of the law such as concluding that it’s acceptable to heal on the Sabbath.
Nowhere in the Synoptics does Jesus claim to be divine. To the contrary, in Mark 8, Matthew 16 and Luke 9 Peter identifies him as the Messiah, or Christ, and Jesus accepts the identification to various degrees. In Mark he simply tells Peter not to tell anyone which could be interpreted as either a confirmation or a denial. In Matthew he clearly confirms the identification and then utters the famous play on words about establishing his church upon this rock (Peter = Petros = Rock). In Luke he appears to confirm it and then makes two very interesting statements.
Luke 9: 26 “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.”
This statement seems to indicate that Jesus, the Son of Man and the Father are three distinct entities doesn’t it? Without getting into the whole mess related to the Trinity this statement could be interpreted as a denial of divinity.
Luke 9:27 “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
Was this a bad prediction? While there are all kinds of spins that apologists put on this passage to demonstrate why it’s really not a failed prophesy, I’ve yet to see one that would impress anyone who wasn’t either already a believer or a complete idiot.
The funny part about it is no explanation is necessary. Jesus often speaks in metaphors and this could easily be a metaphoric statement that simply means that some will understand his teaching which will allow them to “see” the kingdom of God. One of the reasons I suspect that the gospels are fairly accurate is the consistency of the metaphoric language of Jesus. It's only the insistance on a simple literal interpretation that requires a defense.
Even accepting that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, or the Christ, the Jewish Messiah was mortal, not divine and certainly not on a par with God the Father.
It’s not until the Gospel of John that Jesus makes statements that can clearly be interpreted as claiming divinity.
John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one."
John 10:38 “…believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
The author of John certainly appears to think that Jesus claimed to be God and he reports the Pharisees arguing with Jesus as coming to that conclusion as well. So, what’s the deal here?
There are several possibilities. The obvious one is that the author of John, or some future modifier of the Gospel of John, put words into Jesus’s mouth that he never actually said either because he thought they were said or as a pious fiction to support the Christological position that Jesus was divine. In other words an editor made the gospel more clearly reflect what he already knew to be true. There is considerable evidence that this occured in other passages although none to my knowledge that these particular passages have been tampered with.
If you accept on faith that the bible is the inerrant word of God then this isn’t a possibility that you need to contend with. For those of us that accept the more likely definition that the bible is simply the output of pious well meaning men, with all the fallibilities of men, then it is a possibility that must be contended with.
Even if you accept the accuracy of the report that Jesus said these things, the interpretation that this is a claim to be God isn’t necessarily correct. Jesus consistently claims that he speaks with the authority of God, he equates his words with God’s words and his motives with God’s motives. In John 8:58 and John 10:30 we may simply be seeing the strongest affirmation of this claim that Jesus is speaking words that are synonomous with what God would say.
I also think it’s important to keep in mind that in John 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalm 82.
John 10: 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'”
Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'”
In other words we are ALL sons of God so claiming to be a son of God is no blasphemy. In Psalm 82 God is chastising man.
Psalm 82:1 God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods":
Psalm 82:2 How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
Psalm 82:3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
So the entire exercise could simply be an incredibly subtle criticism of the Pharisees that Jesus is arguing with. Anyone familiar with Psalm 82 couldn’t miss the implication that God’s chastisement in the Psalm applies to those rejecting the message of Jesus. Of course to think something like that up on the fly, in the middle of a rather heated discussion, would be the mark of a man whose mental agility ranks with that of Leonardo DiVinci.
On the other hand, Jesus could simply have been delusional. We have a number of cases down through history of mere mortals confusing themselves with divinity often with tragic results. Does this by definition render everything else they say or believe reprehensible? Not at all, men are complex entities and rarely is one all good or all bad. A man can have a delusion about one thing while still being lucid and insightful, even inspired, about another.
Most of the moral teachings of Jesus were not original but positions well established in either Jewish Theology or Greek Philosophy so inspiration wasn't even necessarily required, simply the ability to recognize a good idea when he saw one. The delusion of a religious experience as the source of the sudden recognition of a moral or philosophical truth isn't all that unknown. As a matter of fact it happens all the time to believers when it's really simply the subconscious mind intruding abruptly on the conscious mind.
So the argument that one has to either discard everything Jesus said and did or accept him as God is an oversimplification. Men, and events, are much more complicated than that.
I noticed that even C.S. Lewis’s famous argument, mistakenly labeled “The Trilemma,” got into the movie. When the Professor is considering the youngest girl’s story about a world through the wardrobe he says that since she’s not lying, and she’s not mad, then she must be telling the truth.
The argument was first expounded by Lewis to counter the position that Jesus was simply an inspired moral teacher. Amateur Christian Apologists are attracted to the argument due to its air of elegance and simplicity but better educated Apologists realize that it has serious flaws and isn’t going to impress anyone that isn’t either already a committed believer or not too bright.
The argument goes something like this. Jesus claimed to be God and Jesus claimed the authority to instruct people how to achieve salvation. If his claims were false then either he was delusional, and therefore a lunatic, or he was lying, and therefore committing an evil of immense proportions. In either case it wouldn’t be rational to consider him a great moral teacher. Since Jesus was obviously a great moral teacher, he could not have been either lying or a lunatic therefore his claims must be true and he must be the Lord.
Like I said, simple and elegant, and at first glance it looks like a pretty good argument. Unfortunately if you think about it for a couple of seconds the flaws become rather obvious.
The first problem is how do we know Jesus claimed any such thing? That, based upon the gospels, he instructed people about how to achieve salvation I’ll have to admit is pretty obvious but his teaching was standard first century Judaism with a twist of apocalyptic fervor. There is nothing in his game plan for salvation in the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew and Luke) that is very radical other than some very liberal interpretations of some parts of the law such as concluding that it’s acceptable to heal on the Sabbath.
Nowhere in the Synoptics does Jesus claim to be divine. To the contrary, in Mark 8, Matthew 16 and Luke 9 Peter identifies him as the Messiah, or Christ, and Jesus accepts the identification to various degrees. In Mark he simply tells Peter not to tell anyone which could be interpreted as either a confirmation or a denial. In Matthew he clearly confirms the identification and then utters the famous play on words about establishing his church upon this rock (Peter = Petros = Rock). In Luke he appears to confirm it and then makes two very interesting statements.
Luke 9: 26 “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.”
This statement seems to indicate that Jesus, the Son of Man and the Father are three distinct entities doesn’t it? Without getting into the whole mess related to the Trinity this statement could be interpreted as a denial of divinity.
Luke 9:27 “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
Was this a bad prediction? While there are all kinds of spins that apologists put on this passage to demonstrate why it’s really not a failed prophesy, I’ve yet to see one that would impress anyone who wasn’t either already a believer or a complete idiot.
The funny part about it is no explanation is necessary. Jesus often speaks in metaphors and this could easily be a metaphoric statement that simply means that some will understand his teaching which will allow them to “see” the kingdom of God. One of the reasons I suspect that the gospels are fairly accurate is the consistency of the metaphoric language of Jesus. It's only the insistance on a simple literal interpretation that requires a defense.
Even accepting that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, or the Christ, the Jewish Messiah was mortal, not divine and certainly not on a par with God the Father.
It’s not until the Gospel of John that Jesus makes statements that can clearly be interpreted as claiming divinity.
John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one."
John 10:38 “…believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
The author of John certainly appears to think that Jesus claimed to be God and he reports the Pharisees arguing with Jesus as coming to that conclusion as well. So, what’s the deal here?
There are several possibilities. The obvious one is that the author of John, or some future modifier of the Gospel of John, put words into Jesus’s mouth that he never actually said either because he thought they were said or as a pious fiction to support the Christological position that Jesus was divine. In other words an editor made the gospel more clearly reflect what he already knew to be true. There is considerable evidence that this occured in other passages although none to my knowledge that these particular passages have been tampered with.
If you accept on faith that the bible is the inerrant word of God then this isn’t a possibility that you need to contend with. For those of us that accept the more likely definition that the bible is simply the output of pious well meaning men, with all the fallibilities of men, then it is a possibility that must be contended with.
Even if you accept the accuracy of the report that Jesus said these things, the interpretation that this is a claim to be God isn’t necessarily correct. Jesus consistently claims that he speaks with the authority of God, he equates his words with God’s words and his motives with God’s motives. In John 8:58 and John 10:30 we may simply be seeing the strongest affirmation of this claim that Jesus is speaking words that are synonomous with what God would say.
I also think it’s important to keep in mind that in John 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalm 82.
John 10: 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'”
Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'”
In other words we are ALL sons of God so claiming to be a son of God is no blasphemy. In Psalm 82 God is chastising man.
Psalm 82:1 God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods":
Psalm 82:2 How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
Psalm 82:3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
So the entire exercise could simply be an incredibly subtle criticism of the Pharisees that Jesus is arguing with. Anyone familiar with Psalm 82 couldn’t miss the implication that God’s chastisement in the Psalm applies to those rejecting the message of Jesus. Of course to think something like that up on the fly, in the middle of a rather heated discussion, would be the mark of a man whose mental agility ranks with that of Leonardo DiVinci.
On the other hand, Jesus could simply have been delusional. We have a number of cases down through history of mere mortals confusing themselves with divinity often with tragic results. Does this by definition render everything else they say or believe reprehensible? Not at all, men are complex entities and rarely is one all good or all bad. A man can have a delusion about one thing while still being lucid and insightful, even inspired, about another.
Most of the moral teachings of Jesus were not original but positions well established in either Jewish Theology or Greek Philosophy so inspiration wasn't even necessarily required, simply the ability to recognize a good idea when he saw one. The delusion of a religious experience as the source of the sudden recognition of a moral or philosophical truth isn't all that unknown. As a matter of fact it happens all the time to believers when it's really simply the subconscious mind intruding abruptly on the conscious mind.
So the argument that one has to either discard everything Jesus said and did or accept him as God is an oversimplification. Men, and events, are much more complicated than that.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
A Theocracy Called for
I always figured Katherine Harris, the Florida attorney general that oversaw the chad recount in 2000 and now a Congressional Representative from Florida, was a political hack, now I see that she’s a certifiable religious loony bird with no understanding of western democratic principles as well.
Some quotes, with commentary, from a recent speech.
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”
So, in other words, only Christians are moral or is it that everyone needs to accept the Christian definition of morality? This is, always has been, and always will be, my major problem with so-called “moral values.” Who gets to chose what is moral and what isn’t?
Christians, in the immense arrogance of the breed, figure their definition is the only definition. Harris, like most religious people, can’t differentiate between what SHE BELIEVES to be true and objective truth. Her beliefs are merely opinion and, in a democracy, anyone else’s opinion is just as good.
"…we have to have the faithful in government" because that is God's will.”
Well in that case there’s no need to vote is there? If it’s God’s will it’s going to happen no matter what isn’t it? Personally I'd rather have people that focus on facts rather than faith in the government.
Separating religion and politics is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.”
I refer you to the comment above. If Sky Daddy is making all the decisions, then my vote isn’t worth a whole hell of a lot is it? Is it just me or does this sound a lot like the concept of Rule by Divine Right so popular in the Dark Ages? Tell me, oh great loony bird, you figure that I shouldn’t oppose the policies of Bush the Unhinged because God chose him to be President so everything he’s doing is God’s will?
"And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women," then "we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our Founding Fathers intended, and that certainly isn't what God intended."
Actually, it’s precisely what the Founding Fathers intended because they were committed to Religious Freedom. Men like Madison and Jefferson were smart enough to realize that only a secular society, with secular laws, could be relied upon to protect that freedom.
As for what God intended, I haven’t got a clue. What leads you to believe that you do?
I consider it a disgrace that a member of Congress can hold such views and the people of Florida should hang their heads in shame. Let’s hope they correct the situation next election day.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the form of Evangelical Christianity as exemplified by people like Pat Robertson, Roy Moore, George Bush and Katherine Harris, is the greatest danger to American Democracy that has ever existed. It is fundamentally incompatible with democracy, it is fundamentally incompatible with science and it is fundamentally incompatible with all of the progress made by mankind since the enlightenment.
Some quotes, with commentary, from a recent speech.
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”
So, in other words, only Christians are moral or is it that everyone needs to accept the Christian definition of morality? This is, always has been, and always will be, my major problem with so-called “moral values.” Who gets to chose what is moral and what isn’t?
Christians, in the immense arrogance of the breed, figure their definition is the only definition. Harris, like most religious people, can’t differentiate between what SHE BELIEVES to be true and objective truth. Her beliefs are merely opinion and, in a democracy, anyone else’s opinion is just as good.
"…we have to have the faithful in government" because that is God's will.”
Well in that case there’s no need to vote is there? If it’s God’s will it’s going to happen no matter what isn’t it? Personally I'd rather have people that focus on facts rather than faith in the government.
Separating religion and politics is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.”
I refer you to the comment above. If Sky Daddy is making all the decisions, then my vote isn’t worth a whole hell of a lot is it? Is it just me or does this sound a lot like the concept of Rule by Divine Right so popular in the Dark Ages? Tell me, oh great loony bird, you figure that I shouldn’t oppose the policies of Bush the Unhinged because God chose him to be President so everything he’s doing is God’s will?
"And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women," then "we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our Founding Fathers intended, and that certainly isn't what God intended."
Actually, it’s precisely what the Founding Fathers intended because they were committed to Religious Freedom. Men like Madison and Jefferson were smart enough to realize that only a secular society, with secular laws, could be relied upon to protect that freedom.
As for what God intended, I haven’t got a clue. What leads you to believe that you do?
I consider it a disgrace that a member of Congress can hold such views and the people of Florida should hang their heads in shame. Let’s hope they correct the situation next election day.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the form of Evangelical Christianity as exemplified by people like Pat Robertson, Roy Moore, George Bush and Katherine Harris, is the greatest danger to American Democracy that has ever existed. It is fundamentally incompatible with democracy, it is fundamentally incompatible with science and it is fundamentally incompatible with all of the progress made by mankind since the enlightenment.
Asleep in Seattle
Last year I thought the Giant’s defense looked awful in pre-season but they played pretty well during the season. This year they looked really good in the pre-season but, at least so far, are absolutely dreadful in the regular season. Eleven grannies with orthopedic shoes could score on these guys.
I mean it takes talent to give up 35 points in the first half. Bah, enough of this nonsense, the Giants have another debacle in Seattle getting clipped by the Seahawks 42-30. Thank goodness for the bye week.
I mean it takes talent to give up 35 points in the first half. Bah, enough of this nonsense, the Giants have another debacle in Seattle getting clipped by the Seahawks 42-30. Thank goodness for the bye week.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Why not Gay Marriage?
That’s the title of a booklet and DVD authored by Glenn Stanton and being offered by Dobson’s Focus on the Family group. The booklet promises 10 persuasive answers to the question.
Now since they want $15 for the DVD and booklet combination and I’m not about to provide any funds for Dobson, I had to go looking for a newspaper report on the thing to give me an idea what it says. The best I found was from the Baptist Press (BP) News in Nashville which, given it’s not exactly what I would call an unbiased party, gave a very neutral journalistic description of some of the questions and answers. Among the questions BP says are included in Stanton’s booklet are:
-- How will my "same-sex marriage" hurt your marriage?
Stanton answers "It hurts my marriage by teaching my children that their gender does not matter. As a father, I will never, never allow that to happen."
You will excuse me but I don’t see where gay marriage, which would be practiced by at most a small portion of the population, says any such thing. Even if it did, how could it possibly have any impact against the literally thousands of signals we get daily from parents, peers, siblings, teachers, role models, television, magazines and Hollywood that gender DOES matter.
Personally I think the reverse issue, that we’re teaching our children that gender matters way too much, is the bigger problem.
-- Could "gay marriage" lead to polygamy?
Stanton points out that some gays live in multiple partner relationships now and claims that if we accept gay marriage "There is no logical stopping point."
My reaction to the first point is so what? There were group sex communes in the 60’s and they didn’t bring the world to an end nor were they ever viewed by society as anything but an aberration. There will always be a tiny percentage of the population that will engage in what the rest of us consider a bizarre life style. Most of us learn to ignore it.
As for the “no logical stopping point” argument, this is the old slippery slope logical fallacy. The fact is there are stopping points. In a previous post I pointed out the biggest difference between gay marriage and other alternative life styles such as polygamy and group marriage. While homosexuality appears to be at least partially rooted in genetics and not in a free lifestyle choice, the alternatives are clearly lifestyle choices. I can therefore easily justify recognizing one while condemning the others.
-- Is it healthy to subject children to experimental families?
I assume by “experimental” families Stanton means other than one man one woman families. Well I have two news flashes for you bubby. First ALL families are experimental because no two families are identical.
You need proof of this? How about the fact that 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce? I might also point out that evangelical Christian families have a higher divorce rate than the average. I’ve been married for 34 years and I’ve raised three children and you want to lecture me on family values?
The second news flash is while, as you properly point out, Social Science hasn’t had enough time to study the effects of growing up in a male – male or female – female parent household, it has had enough time to study the effects of growing up in a NO PARENT household and those effects are not terribly comforting. I find it hard to believe that being raised by two mommies or two daddies could possible be worse than being raised by no mommies and no daddies.
Often gay couples adopt, love and raise children that no one else will take, minority children, children with health problems or children born with drug addiction. You will excuse me again but I don’t see you Focus on the Family folks lining up to adopt these kids. I wouldn’t have the courage to do it myself but many gay couples do and I say more power to them. A loving home, even one that you think is aberrant, is a lot better than growing up in a state institution.
What the other questions may be I don’t know, but as for “persuasive,” only if you’re either already a believer or not too bright. Oh, wait a minute, aren’t they the same thing?
When I started this blog I promised myself not to use a certain word regardless of how deserved it might be. Therefore, all I have to say is, dear Mr. Stanton, go perform a reproductive function on yourself.
Now since they want $15 for the DVD and booklet combination and I’m not about to provide any funds for Dobson, I had to go looking for a newspaper report on the thing to give me an idea what it says. The best I found was from the Baptist Press (BP) News in Nashville which, given it’s not exactly what I would call an unbiased party, gave a very neutral journalistic description of some of the questions and answers. Among the questions BP says are included in Stanton’s booklet are:
-- How will my "same-sex marriage" hurt your marriage?
Stanton answers "It hurts my marriage by teaching my children that their gender does not matter. As a father, I will never, never allow that to happen."
You will excuse me but I don’t see where gay marriage, which would be practiced by at most a small portion of the population, says any such thing. Even if it did, how could it possibly have any impact against the literally thousands of signals we get daily from parents, peers, siblings, teachers, role models, television, magazines and Hollywood that gender DOES matter.
Personally I think the reverse issue, that we’re teaching our children that gender matters way too much, is the bigger problem.
-- Could "gay marriage" lead to polygamy?
Stanton points out that some gays live in multiple partner relationships now and claims that if we accept gay marriage "There is no logical stopping point."
My reaction to the first point is so what? There were group sex communes in the 60’s and they didn’t bring the world to an end nor were they ever viewed by society as anything but an aberration. There will always be a tiny percentage of the population that will engage in what the rest of us consider a bizarre life style. Most of us learn to ignore it.
As for the “no logical stopping point” argument, this is the old slippery slope logical fallacy. The fact is there are stopping points. In a previous post I pointed out the biggest difference between gay marriage and other alternative life styles such as polygamy and group marriage. While homosexuality appears to be at least partially rooted in genetics and not in a free lifestyle choice, the alternatives are clearly lifestyle choices. I can therefore easily justify recognizing one while condemning the others.
-- Is it healthy to subject children to experimental families?
I assume by “experimental” families Stanton means other than one man one woman families. Well I have two news flashes for you bubby. First ALL families are experimental because no two families are identical.
You need proof of this? How about the fact that 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce? I might also point out that evangelical Christian families have a higher divorce rate than the average. I’ve been married for 34 years and I’ve raised three children and you want to lecture me on family values?
The second news flash is while, as you properly point out, Social Science hasn’t had enough time to study the effects of growing up in a male – male or female – female parent household, it has had enough time to study the effects of growing up in a NO PARENT household and those effects are not terribly comforting. I find it hard to believe that being raised by two mommies or two daddies could possible be worse than being raised by no mommies and no daddies.
Often gay couples adopt, love and raise children that no one else will take, minority children, children with health problems or children born with drug addiction. You will excuse me again but I don’t see you Focus on the Family folks lining up to adopt these kids. I wouldn’t have the courage to do it myself but many gay couples do and I say more power to them. A loving home, even one that you think is aberrant, is a lot better than growing up in a state institution.
What the other questions may be I don’t know, but as for “persuasive,” only if you’re either already a believer or not too bright. Oh, wait a minute, aren’t they the same thing?
When I started this blog I promised myself not to use a certain word regardless of how deserved it might be. Therefore, all I have to say is, dear Mr. Stanton, go perform a reproductive function on yourself.
A Reversal of Fortune
Whoo-hoo we won one in Philly! Usually it’s the Eagles that come up with bizarre winning finishes against the Giants. This time the Giants came up with a wild one against the Eagles.
Let’s start with a lucky fumble recovery in the end zone, followed by a lucky fumble, followed by a fortuitous personal foul penalty that brought the Giants within field goal range and then a kick that just about scrapped the left upright and you had a 17 point 4th quarter comeback that tied the game at 24-24.
Then the topper came in overtime. After the Giants had penaltied their way back from a run to the 5 yard line to the 30 yard line, little brother Eli lofted one to Plaxico in the end zone to wrap up a totally improbable victory 30-24.
Good thing too. An 0-2 start coupled with a Philly 2-0 start would have been more than a little bit of trouble.
Now the guys head for Seattle, the scene of last year’s debacle by Jay Feely. Here’s hoping we do better this year.
Let’s start with a lucky fumble recovery in the end zone, followed by a lucky fumble, followed by a fortuitous personal foul penalty that brought the Giants within field goal range and then a kick that just about scrapped the left upright and you had a 17 point 4th quarter comeback that tied the game at 24-24.
Then the topper came in overtime. After the Giants had penaltied their way back from a run to the 5 yard line to the 30 yard line, little brother Eli lofted one to Plaxico in the end zone to wrap up a totally improbable victory 30-24.
Good thing too. An 0-2 start coupled with a Philly 2-0 start would have been more than a little bit of trouble.
Now the guys head for Seattle, the scene of last year’s debacle by Jay Feely. Here’s hoping we do better this year.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Islam is Mad at the Pope
Uh-oh, the Pope quoted a Byzantine Emperor and has the Muslim world all in an uproar. What was the quote? It was "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Considering that the Emperor then goes on to explain how spreading faith through violence is unreasonable, which is a Greek concept not a Christian concept by the way, the implication that Muhammad was an unreasonable war monger is, I think, pretty unmistakable.
What I don’t understand is why the surprise? Interfaith co-operation my rear end. Look folks, the Pope, and ALL other Christians, believe Muhammad was a false prophet and therefore they have to believe either (a) the Quran is full of lies, (b) Muhammad was an evil liar or (c) Muhammad was a lunatic. If they didn’t, they would convert to Islam.
In the meantime, no Muslims believe that Jesus is the Lord God Savior so therefore they have to believe either (a) the gospels and epistles are full of lies, (b) Jesus was an evil liar or (c) Jesus was a lunatic. If they didn’t, they would convert to Christianity.
DUH! Get it? All this about interfaith co-operation and respect is basically “you let me fleece my flock and I’ll let you fleece your flock.” They’re smiling at each other while holding daggers behind their backs! They’re all freaking hypocrites.
If you learn nothing else young Padawan learn this, NEVER trust anyone who claims to speak for God.
Considering that the Emperor then goes on to explain how spreading faith through violence is unreasonable, which is a Greek concept not a Christian concept by the way, the implication that Muhammad was an unreasonable war monger is, I think, pretty unmistakable.
What I don’t understand is why the surprise? Interfaith co-operation my rear end. Look folks, the Pope, and ALL other Christians, believe Muhammad was a false prophet and therefore they have to believe either (a) the Quran is full of lies, (b) Muhammad was an evil liar or (c) Muhammad was a lunatic. If they didn’t, they would convert to Islam.
In the meantime, no Muslims believe that Jesus is the Lord God Savior so therefore they have to believe either (a) the gospels and epistles are full of lies, (b) Jesus was an evil liar or (c) Jesus was a lunatic. If they didn’t, they would convert to Christianity.
DUH! Get it? All this about interfaith co-operation and respect is basically “you let me fleece my flock and I’ll let you fleece your flock.” They’re smiling at each other while holding daggers behind their backs! They’re all freaking hypocrites.
If you learn nothing else young Padawan learn this, NEVER trust anyone who claims to speak for God.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Survivor’s Racial Teams
This year’s Survivor program has apparently chosen to divide the teams by race. There will be a White, a Black, a Hispanic and an Asian team. Needless to say there has been more than a little criticism and some people have even called for the show to be canceled.
I don’t watch Survivor but I have to admit I was more than a little surprised when I heard about the teams divided by race arrangement. Shocked would be too strong a word but I was surprised.
Then I thought about it a bit and decided who cares? Is this any different than dividing the teams into blue eyed and brown eyed or left handed and right handed? No it isn’t. How about we grow up and stop being offended by every little thing. I might even watch an episode to see how things work out.
I don’t watch Survivor but I have to admit I was more than a little surprised when I heard about the teams divided by race arrangement. Shocked would be too strong a word but I was surprised.
Then I thought about it a bit and decided who cares? Is this any different than dividing the teams into blue eyed and brown eyed or left handed and right handed? No it isn’t. How about we grow up and stop being offended by every little thing. I might even watch an episode to see how things work out.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Wal-Mart and the NGLCC
This is too delicious. The Mecca of Red State America, Wal-Mart, has entered into a partnership with the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) a staunch supporter of homosexual marriage.
As a part of this partnership Wal-Mart will be donating $25,000 to the NGLCC and will pay for two conferences scheduled by the organization. Wal-Mart will also give homosexual-owned businesses special treatment when making purchases.
Needless to say the Religious Right is going absolutely bonkers over Wal-Mart joining the Ford Corporation in supporting Gay Rights in general and, apparently, Gay Marriage in particular.
Like I said in a post not too long ago support for Gay Marriage is approaching critical mass in many states. At heart Americans are fair minded people, ignorant as hell, but fair minded. If they act like jackasses sometimes it’s due to the demagogues taking advantage of that ignorance. Once that ignorance is resolved they can usually be relied upon to do the right thing. This is the reason that the Religious Right is ultimately going to lose on the issue of Gay Marriage, because the right thing is to extend the benefits (or pain and suffering depending on your outlook) of marriage to all Americans regardless of sexual persuasion.
Let's hear it for Wal-Mart. Now if only they would give their work force decent benefits I might actual shop there a little more often than when I have absolutely no other choice.
As a part of this partnership Wal-Mart will be donating $25,000 to the NGLCC and will pay for two conferences scheduled by the organization. Wal-Mart will also give homosexual-owned businesses special treatment when making purchases.
Needless to say the Religious Right is going absolutely bonkers over Wal-Mart joining the Ford Corporation in supporting Gay Rights in general and, apparently, Gay Marriage in particular.
Like I said in a post not too long ago support for Gay Marriage is approaching critical mass in many states. At heart Americans are fair minded people, ignorant as hell, but fair minded. If they act like jackasses sometimes it’s due to the demagogues taking advantage of that ignorance. Once that ignorance is resolved they can usually be relied upon to do the right thing. This is the reason that the Religious Right is ultimately going to lose on the issue of Gay Marriage, because the right thing is to extend the benefits (or pain and suffering depending on your outlook) of marriage to all Americans regardless of sexual persuasion.
Let's hear it for Wal-Mart. Now if only they would give their work force decent benefits I might actual shop there a little more often than when I have absolutely no other choice.
The Manning Bowl
Yes I went to the game Sunday night to watch Peyton spank his baby brother and the Giants. I was just so annoyed with the parking debacle at Giants Stadium that I was in no mood to write about it.
The Colts offensive looked good. The Giants offense looked ok. The Giants defense was a big disappointment other than the one big turnover opportunity they supplied which, unfortunately, the offense turned right back over to the Colts. The officials refereeing the game should probably get hit in the head with semi-limp noodles. I’ve probably seen worse calls by officials but off-hand I can’t remember when.
The NFL wants parity. This makes sense because it makes more of the games exciting and keeps the playoff races going almost invariably until the last week of the season. This keeps the television audiences glued to their chairs and the revenues flowing. One unfortunate side effect however is that the officiating can loom large in more games. I wonder how many games are ultimately decided by the officials rather than the teams?
Anyway, the Colts handled the Giants 26-21 and the Giants now head down the turnpike to Philadelphia where they rarely have much luck. An 0-2 season start is more than likely.
The Colts offensive looked good. The Giants offense looked ok. The Giants defense was a big disappointment other than the one big turnover opportunity they supplied which, unfortunately, the offense turned right back over to the Colts. The officials refereeing the game should probably get hit in the head with semi-limp noodles. I’ve probably seen worse calls by officials but off-hand I can’t remember when.
The NFL wants parity. This makes sense because it makes more of the games exciting and keeps the playoff races going almost invariably until the last week of the season. This keeps the television audiences glued to their chairs and the revenues flowing. One unfortunate side effect however is that the officiating can loom large in more games. I wonder how many games are ultimately decided by the officials rather than the teams?
Anyway, the Colts handled the Giants 26-21 and the Giants now head down the turnpike to Philadelphia where they rarely have much luck. An 0-2 season start is more than likely.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
September 11, 2006
It’s difficult to believe that it’s been five years since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. I think the media is luxuriating a little too much in the anniversary this year. Perhaps it's because mother nature didn't supply them a hurricane disaster that they could blubber over and the media feels that it isn't doing its job unless it's trying to scare the hell out of us about something. For instance, I’m getting a little tired of hearing the constant argument about do we “feel” safer as opposed to are we in fact safer.
Obviously we’re safer. We would all be complete idiots if some things haven’t gotten a little safer in the aftermath of the attack. If nothing else they’re checking my shoes for explosives at airports and as little as that may be, it certainly counts for something doesn't it? Should I suddenly start hearing the chant "God is great" in my head and decide to pack some plastic explosives into my Nikes in order to take out a 747, they're going to prevent that from happening. At least I think they would prevent that from happening.
Just as obviously we feel less safe since we now know with absolute certainty that it can happen here. I feel less safe but I’m pretty darn good at not letting it affect my day to day activities. I decided a long time ago that if I allowed myself to be afraid of all the things I could be afraid of, or of all the things our society of fear would like me to be afraid of, I wouldn't be able to do anything but be afraid. Screw that.
I got stuck in Fullerton California in 2001. I had flown from Newark to South Orange airport the evening of the 10th and was greeted at 0700 the next morning by an overly excited co-worker staying at the same hotel with news of the events transpiring in New York and Washington. I saw the collapse of the towers on television from my hotel room.
The remainder of the day consisted of a series of reports filtering in about individuals lost on the aircraft or unaccounted for in the towers. It’s difficult to accomplish much in a business meeting when every few hours someone sticks his head into the room to announce someone else who was on one of the planes even if you’re not personally acquainted with the individual.
Eventually our attention focused on how, and when, we might be getting home. The hotel and rental agency told us that our rooms and cars would be available for the duration so we at least had no concerns there. Neither the hotel nor Avis Rental charged for the extra days.
There were five of us stranded in Fullerton. Two were from Ft. Wayne, Indiana, two from Scottsdale, Arizona and one poor schnook (me) from New Jersey. I was about as far away from home as I could get and still be in the continental U.S.
The two guys from Scottsdale decided to drive home and offered to take us along thinking that it might be easier to get a flight out of Phoenix than LAX. We decided against that since we at least had someplace to stay in California but had no such guarantee in Phoenix. Next we got a call from two other guys from Ft. Wayne that were stuck in California who had decided to drive to Indiana. They offered to drop me off in either Chicago or Indianapolis where I might be able to get a train. This didn’t sound like a real good idea either and again we decided to stay put.
In the final analysis it didn’t take all that long to get back it just seemed long. All of us got on flights Friday morning by which time I was on a first name basis with the Continental booking agents at both Orange County and LAX. I was on the first Continental flight out of John Wayne Airport and based upon the advice being loudly broadcast over the TV, I arrived about 5 hours before the flight or around 4 AM. It took an hour to return the rental car because they searched every conceivable place in the car, under the car, in the trunk, in my bag and on me that you could imagine. If I had suddenly woken up that morning and decided that Allah was God, Muhammad was his prophet, Satan America needed to be chastised and those 72 virgins sounded like a pretty good deal, they at least had that contingency covered.
After finally getting rid of the car I confronted THE LINE which stretched out of the terminal building and down the block. Lucky for me that was the American Airlines line. The Continental desk was completely empty so it took me all of 10 minutes to get to the gate. Four hours later I boarded a very full plane and five hours after that landed in the ghost town that was Newark Airport. Let me tell you how eerie a feeling it was to walk through what is normally a beehive of activity when it is virtually empty. We were the only passengers working our way through the terminal.
So I managed to make it home and found out about more losses in and around town. The father of a child in my wife’s 3rd grade class was killed as was the son of the interim principal at the school where she worked. All of the small towns in Northern New Jersey suffered losses. Like the man said, after 9/11 the Red States put magnets on their cars and the Blue States put coffins in the ground.
Five years have passed and I find myself annoyed at the constant drum beat in the media of how everything changed on 9/11. For many people, especially those who lost spouses, parents or children, everything did change, but for most of us things didn’t really change. Our perceptions were simply brought more into line with reality. We’re not immune from the insane acts of fanatics driven by extreme political beliefs or extreme religious beliefs and we never have been.
In the 60’s and 70’s the danger was from radical left wing organizations or those who claimed to be radical left wing organizations. In the early 21st century the danger is from right wing fundamentalist religious groups of both the Islamic and Christian varieties. Islamic fundamentalists crash planes into buildings and send suicide bombers into restaurants and hotels. Christian fundamentalists bomb abortion clinics and kill gays. At least the Muslim terrorists have the courtesy to die while they’re committing acts of terrorism; the Christian fundamentalists always seem to figure out a way to survive and continue to be a wart on society's rear end.
Ok, enough complaining and moaning. Perhaps some day we’ll all grow up enough to realize that there’s no reason to kill each other. If there is a Sky Daddy he must spend an awful lot of time weeping.
Obviously we’re safer. We would all be complete idiots if some things haven’t gotten a little safer in the aftermath of the attack. If nothing else they’re checking my shoes for explosives at airports and as little as that may be, it certainly counts for something doesn't it? Should I suddenly start hearing the chant "God is great" in my head and decide to pack some plastic explosives into my Nikes in order to take out a 747, they're going to prevent that from happening. At least I think they would prevent that from happening.
Just as obviously we feel less safe since we now know with absolute certainty that it can happen here. I feel less safe but I’m pretty darn good at not letting it affect my day to day activities. I decided a long time ago that if I allowed myself to be afraid of all the things I could be afraid of, or of all the things our society of fear would like me to be afraid of, I wouldn't be able to do anything but be afraid. Screw that.
I got stuck in Fullerton California in 2001. I had flown from Newark to South Orange airport the evening of the 10th and was greeted at 0700 the next morning by an overly excited co-worker staying at the same hotel with news of the events transpiring in New York and Washington. I saw the collapse of the towers on television from my hotel room.
The remainder of the day consisted of a series of reports filtering in about individuals lost on the aircraft or unaccounted for in the towers. It’s difficult to accomplish much in a business meeting when every few hours someone sticks his head into the room to announce someone else who was on one of the planes even if you’re not personally acquainted with the individual.
Eventually our attention focused on how, and when, we might be getting home. The hotel and rental agency told us that our rooms and cars would be available for the duration so we at least had no concerns there. Neither the hotel nor Avis Rental charged for the extra days.
There were five of us stranded in Fullerton. Two were from Ft. Wayne, Indiana, two from Scottsdale, Arizona and one poor schnook (me) from New Jersey. I was about as far away from home as I could get and still be in the continental U.S.
The two guys from Scottsdale decided to drive home and offered to take us along thinking that it might be easier to get a flight out of Phoenix than LAX. We decided against that since we at least had someplace to stay in California but had no such guarantee in Phoenix. Next we got a call from two other guys from Ft. Wayne that were stuck in California who had decided to drive to Indiana. They offered to drop me off in either Chicago or Indianapolis where I might be able to get a train. This didn’t sound like a real good idea either and again we decided to stay put.
In the final analysis it didn’t take all that long to get back it just seemed long. All of us got on flights Friday morning by which time I was on a first name basis with the Continental booking agents at both Orange County and LAX. I was on the first Continental flight out of John Wayne Airport and based upon the advice being loudly broadcast over the TV, I arrived about 5 hours before the flight or around 4 AM. It took an hour to return the rental car because they searched every conceivable place in the car, under the car, in the trunk, in my bag and on me that you could imagine. If I had suddenly woken up that morning and decided that Allah was God, Muhammad was his prophet, Satan America needed to be chastised and those 72 virgins sounded like a pretty good deal, they at least had that contingency covered.
After finally getting rid of the car I confronted THE LINE which stretched out of the terminal building and down the block. Lucky for me that was the American Airlines line. The Continental desk was completely empty so it took me all of 10 minutes to get to the gate. Four hours later I boarded a very full plane and five hours after that landed in the ghost town that was Newark Airport. Let me tell you how eerie a feeling it was to walk through what is normally a beehive of activity when it is virtually empty. We were the only passengers working our way through the terminal.
So I managed to make it home and found out about more losses in and around town. The father of a child in my wife’s 3rd grade class was killed as was the son of the interim principal at the school where she worked. All of the small towns in Northern New Jersey suffered losses. Like the man said, after 9/11 the Red States put magnets on their cars and the Blue States put coffins in the ground.
Five years have passed and I find myself annoyed at the constant drum beat in the media of how everything changed on 9/11. For many people, especially those who lost spouses, parents or children, everything did change, but for most of us things didn’t really change. Our perceptions were simply brought more into line with reality. We’re not immune from the insane acts of fanatics driven by extreme political beliefs or extreme religious beliefs and we never have been.
In the 60’s and 70’s the danger was from radical left wing organizations or those who claimed to be radical left wing organizations. In the early 21st century the danger is from right wing fundamentalist religious groups of both the Islamic and Christian varieties. Islamic fundamentalists crash planes into buildings and send suicide bombers into restaurants and hotels. Christian fundamentalists bomb abortion clinics and kill gays. At least the Muslim terrorists have the courtesy to die while they’re committing acts of terrorism; the Christian fundamentalists always seem to figure out a way to survive and continue to be a wart on society's rear end.
Ok, enough complaining and moaning. Perhaps some day we’ll all grow up enough to realize that there’s no reason to kill each other. If there is a Sky Daddy he must spend an awful lot of time weeping.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Dawkins, Harris and Me
There was an article in this week’s Newsweek about atheist scholars which was, not unexpectedly, heavily related to the philosophies of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
Harris and Dawkins are probably the most radical and outspoken voices criticizing religion and faith. I’m especially looking forward to Dawkins’ new book “The God Delusion” which should be released sometime this year.
So where do I line up here? I don’t make it any secret that I consider religion not only false but dangerous as well. At the moment I consider today’s brand of Conservative Evangelical Christianity the single biggest threat to Western Democratic principles that has ever existed. The hatred and intolerance that led Christianity to enslave people different from themselves, attempt to erase all traces of pre-Columbian culture and destroy the Library at Alexandria is alive and well in the message of today’s Evangelical Preachers and the oft fleeced flock, with vapid expressions on the faces, nods unthinkingly at the words like bob head dolls in the back of a car going down a bumpy road.
So in terms of religion I’m squarely in the Harris and Dawkins camp. I’m convinced that either our species frees itself from religion or religion will ultimately lead to our destruction.
I’m not as ready to side with Harris and Dawkins in terms of the existence of God. Logically speaking the only honest intellectual position is Agnosticism. Dawkins claims he’s Agnostic about God in the same way he’s Agnostic about Santa Claus which means he’s certain that God doesn’t exist. I’m not so sure. There is only one thing I’m absolutely certain about and that’s Shakespeare had it right when he put the words “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” into Hamlet’s mouth.
The universe is a strange place and the knowledge we possess is minuscule. Relatively speaking what we know compared to what there is to know is probably about the size of a flea compared to an elephant. Actually I’m more of what I’ve heard called a “Militant Agnostic.” A Militant Agnostic’s philosophy is “I don’t know and neither do you!”
I’ve also described myself as an “Agnostic Deist” which means I don’t know if God exists but if he does exist then I believe the Deist concept of God is the most accurate. So I guess I’m a Militant Agnostic Deist.
Harris and Dawkins are probably the most radical and outspoken voices criticizing religion and faith. I’m especially looking forward to Dawkins’ new book “The God Delusion” which should be released sometime this year.
So where do I line up here? I don’t make it any secret that I consider religion not only false but dangerous as well. At the moment I consider today’s brand of Conservative Evangelical Christianity the single biggest threat to Western Democratic principles that has ever existed. The hatred and intolerance that led Christianity to enslave people different from themselves, attempt to erase all traces of pre-Columbian culture and destroy the Library at Alexandria is alive and well in the message of today’s Evangelical Preachers and the oft fleeced flock, with vapid expressions on the faces, nods unthinkingly at the words like bob head dolls in the back of a car going down a bumpy road.
So in terms of religion I’m squarely in the Harris and Dawkins camp. I’m convinced that either our species frees itself from religion or religion will ultimately lead to our destruction.
I’m not as ready to side with Harris and Dawkins in terms of the existence of God. Logically speaking the only honest intellectual position is Agnosticism. Dawkins claims he’s Agnostic about God in the same way he’s Agnostic about Santa Claus which means he’s certain that God doesn’t exist. I’m not so sure. There is only one thing I’m absolutely certain about and that’s Shakespeare had it right when he put the words “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” into Hamlet’s mouth.
The universe is a strange place and the knowledge we possess is minuscule. Relatively speaking what we know compared to what there is to know is probably about the size of a flea compared to an elephant. Actually I’m more of what I’ve heard called a “Militant Agnostic.” A Militant Agnostic’s philosophy is “I don’t know and neither do you!”
I’ve also described myself as an “Agnostic Deist” which means I don’t know if God exists but if he does exist then I believe the Deist concept of God is the most accurate. So I guess I’m a Militant Agnostic Deist.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
When the Levies Broke
I’ve been watching Spike Lee’s four part documentary about the Katrina disaster on HBO on Demand and I feel obligated to make a number of observations.
My first observation is that if I had any doubts that Spike Lee is THE premier film artist of our time, this documentary eliminated them. My second observation is that the Bush administration is at least guilty of criminal incompetence and my third observation is that, for all the talk about the “New South,” blacks are still treated like crap down there aren’t they?
I mean, it sounds to me like the place was a freaking disaster if you were black, or poor white, before the freaking disaster and Katrina took it from really bad to catastrophic. I wouldn’t let a dog live in some of the places shown in the film. They were little more than shacks. No wonder they got flattened by what wasn’t even a direct hit by the hurricane.
I can understand why some of the people displaced by Katrina are considering not going back. Since they have to start from scratch anyway they’re realizing that they might be better off doing it in Texas or Oklahoma or Pennsylvania.
As for the New Orleans city administration and the Louisiana governor’s office, both underestimated the impact that a category 5 hurricane was going to have. Bianco should have activated the National Guard BEFORE the storm struck and Nagin should have used them, his police force and every bus they could find to enforce the mandatory evacuation. Yes this is 20-20 hindsight on my part, but if you want to be the leader, then be prepared to pay the piper when you drop the ball.
After the storm struck I think Nagin did the best he could with an impossible situation and Bianco was more concerned about politics than doing what needed to be done. I’d vote her ass out of office but he can play on my team anytime.
Of course on the other hand, we’re not talking about the sharpest tools in the shed here. While I sympathized with what happened to them I couldn’t help observing that a lot of the people involved were not prone to logical thinking. I loved the lady that explained how Jesus helped them wade through the water to safety. Err, wouldn’t he have done better by you to keep the storm away or at least keep the levees from breaking? I’m amazed by the attitude that God helped me AFTER the catastrophe struck so that shows his love. I guess he didn’t love those that drowned did he? I think I would prefer a God that either prevented the catastrophe or was at least totally neutral rather than one that allows the catastrophe to occur and then plays favorites helping some while leaving others to their fate.
My first observation is that if I had any doubts that Spike Lee is THE premier film artist of our time, this documentary eliminated them. My second observation is that the Bush administration is at least guilty of criminal incompetence and my third observation is that, for all the talk about the “New South,” blacks are still treated like crap down there aren’t they?
I mean, it sounds to me like the place was a freaking disaster if you were black, or poor white, before the freaking disaster and Katrina took it from really bad to catastrophic. I wouldn’t let a dog live in some of the places shown in the film. They were little more than shacks. No wonder they got flattened by what wasn’t even a direct hit by the hurricane.
I can understand why some of the people displaced by Katrina are considering not going back. Since they have to start from scratch anyway they’re realizing that they might be better off doing it in Texas or Oklahoma or Pennsylvania.
As for the New Orleans city administration and the Louisiana governor’s office, both underestimated the impact that a category 5 hurricane was going to have. Bianco should have activated the National Guard BEFORE the storm struck and Nagin should have used them, his police force and every bus they could find to enforce the mandatory evacuation. Yes this is 20-20 hindsight on my part, but if you want to be the leader, then be prepared to pay the piper when you drop the ball.
After the storm struck I think Nagin did the best he could with an impossible situation and Bianco was more concerned about politics than doing what needed to be done. I’d vote her ass out of office but he can play on my team anytime.
Of course on the other hand, we’re not talking about the sharpest tools in the shed here. While I sympathized with what happened to them I couldn’t help observing that a lot of the people involved were not prone to logical thinking. I loved the lady that explained how Jesus helped them wade through the water to safety. Err, wouldn’t he have done better by you to keep the storm away or at least keep the levees from breaking? I’m amazed by the attitude that God helped me AFTER the catastrophe struck so that shows his love. I guess he didn’t love those that drowned did he? I think I would prefer a God that either prevented the catastrophe or was at least totally neutral rather than one that allows the catastrophe to occur and then plays favorites helping some while leaving others to their fate.
Telephone Telepathy?
You know the phenomena where you think about someone just before the phone rings and it’s the person you just thought about? That’s what, according to Reuters, a scientist named Rupert Sheldrake at Trinity College in Cambridge is calling “Telephone Telepathy” and for what he claims to have experimental evidence that it really does exists. Not only does this precognition work with telephones, supposedly it also works with e-mails!
Yeah right. The article explains that Sheldrake performed small scale tests asking people to predict, out of four family or friend choices, who was going to call and got a success rate of 45%. Granted that’s a lot higher than the 25% one would expect by pure chance but the article doesn’t give a lot of detail about the protocol used or even if it was a double-blind study. Experience has shown repeatedly that only double-blind studies can be relied upon. It’s amazing what non-verbal clues are sent out and can be picked up, especially when the examiner has a vested interest in the outcome of the experiment.
Sheldrake’s basic hypothesis is that there is an interconnectedness of minds within a social group. My reaction is that’s all very interesting but I think I’ll wait until other folks duplicate Sheldrake’s results before I get too excited.
My problem with all this is that if it works for I’m going to call you or send you an e-mail, then it should work for just about everything and despite lots and lots of trying, no one has ever, to my knowledge, come up with any credible evidence of telepathic capabilities even between the closest of family members.
As for the “Hey, I was just thinking about you” phenomena when the phone rings, it called “confirmation bias.” You remember weird stuff when it happens, because it is weird, but forget about all the times you thought about your wife or girlfriend and she didn’t call.
Yeah right. The article explains that Sheldrake performed small scale tests asking people to predict, out of four family or friend choices, who was going to call and got a success rate of 45%. Granted that’s a lot higher than the 25% one would expect by pure chance but the article doesn’t give a lot of detail about the protocol used or even if it was a double-blind study. Experience has shown repeatedly that only double-blind studies can be relied upon. It’s amazing what non-verbal clues are sent out and can be picked up, especially when the examiner has a vested interest in the outcome of the experiment.
Sheldrake’s basic hypothesis is that there is an interconnectedness of minds within a social group. My reaction is that’s all very interesting but I think I’ll wait until other folks duplicate Sheldrake’s results before I get too excited.
My problem with all this is that if it works for I’m going to call you or send you an e-mail, then it should work for just about everything and despite lots and lots of trying, no one has ever, to my knowledge, come up with any credible evidence of telepathic capabilities even between the closest of family members.
As for the “Hey, I was just thinking about you” phenomena when the phone rings, it called “confirmation bias.” You remember weird stuff when it happens, because it is weird, but forget about all the times you thought about your wife or girlfriend and she didn’t call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
