The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Ok, I can live with that. Have as many guns as you want. It’s the bullets I want to regulate. I propose making the possession of bullets outside of licensed preserves a felony punishable by up to five years as Bubba’s roommate.
I also want to tax them to death. How does a 100% Federal Sales Tax on all ammunition sound? And that’s not to mention the licensing fees for the preserves. On second thought, maybe we should make that 200%.
We could balance the budget in no time as well as take a massive bite out of crime and deaths through accidental shootings. As an extra added bonus, the only gun fatalities will be gun nuts so slowly, but surely, we might drive the breed to extinction.
The dum-dums that just have to have 40 rifles and pistols around the house wouldn’t have anything to complain about either. They only need bullets when they go to the range or hunting and all of those places would be licensed preserves with a generous supply of the best ammunition money could buy.
So feel free to curl up with, feel up, and use for various forms of pleasure your now guaranteed safe firearms.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech – Chase Harper
Chase Harper was a student at Poway High School in San Diego. Every year the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) sponsors the “Day of Silence” to protest the bullying and harassment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.
On the other side of the coin is the “Day of Truth” sponsored by the Christian based Alliance Defense League and supported by Christian organizations like Focus on the Family which claims that events like the “Day of Silence” promote homosexuality and “creates a hostile climate for students of faith.”
Exactly how promoting tolerance for gays creates a hostile climate for Christians escapes me at the moment. Then again, I never expect sense from Focus on the Family.
On the “Day of Truth” supporters are encouraged to spread the message "true tolerance means that people with differing -- even opposing -- viewpoints can freely exchange ideas and respectfully listen to each other. It's time for an honest conversation about homosexuality. There's freedom to change if you want to. Let's talk.”
The problem of course with this message is the assumption that homosexuality is a choice and an immoral choice at that. A Christian’s idea of “true tolerance” is to let them disparage folks for something they don’t appear to have any control over because of the ignorant mumblings of unwashed nomads and a repressed homosexual named Paul.
Again, I digress. Let’s get back to Chase.
Chase was apparently a good Christian and, since there didn’t appear to be any organized counter demonstration to the call for tolerance for homosexuals at his school, Chase decided to take matters into his own hands. He put two strips of adhesive tape, one on the front and one on the back, on a T-shirt. On the tape on the front he wrote “Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned” and on the tape on the back he wrote “Homosexuality Is Shameful.”
He then wore the T-shirt to school as a protest to the “Day of Silence.” He sure was demonstrating tolerance wasn’t he?
The school demanded that Chase remove the messages, remove the shirt or go home. Chase and his family eventually sued the Poway school for violating Chase’s 1st Amendment rights.
This is a tricky one. Chase is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to express his opinion regardless of how rotten that opinion might be. The question is whether he is entitled to express it anywhere and at any time?
I see two problems with Chase. The first is that invoking your right to free speech is not always appropriate. Someone might think that profanity and pornography are acceptable but wearing a T-shirt covered with four letter words and naked bodies to a little league baseball game would understandably be frowned upon by even the most liberal individuals. I have serious problems with Christians and with Christianity but wearing something proclaiming those issues to work or to the local church carnival would be equally inappropriate.
The second problem I have with Chase, and why I think the school was right, is that his T-shirt was an expression of intolerance. Even if you find someone’s ideas or lifestyle distasteful, you are still obligated to tolerate them.
Tolerate does not mean approval or respect. I don’t approve of the Nazi Party or the KKK and I certainly don’t respect them but I am obligated to tolerate them. That is a fundamental principle of secular Western and American Democracy.
Schools are obligated to teach secular Western Principles including tolerance for things that you may personally disapprove of. It’s a fundamental part of their educational mission. Chase’s action was an action of intolerance and totally incompatible with the democratic principle of tolerance. In other words it was in direct conflict with the school's mission. Therefore I agree that they had every right to make him remove the messages.
The ACLU didn’t agree with me and filed an Amicus brief in support of Chase but I don’t always agree with ACLU on everything. The U.S. district court determined that the school did do the right thing. Allow me to quote the court’s opinion.
“Public school students who may be injured by verbal assaults on the basis of a core identifying characteristic such as race, religion, or sexual orientation have a right to be free from such attacks while on school campuses. …students have the right to 'be secure and to be let alone.'...Being secure involves not only the freedom from physical assaults but from psychological attacks that cause young people to question their self-worth and their rightful place in society. The 'right to be let alone' has been recognized by the Supreme Court … as the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.''
In other words, your rights end where the next guy's begin.
Imagine the reaction if someone came to school with a T-shirt disparaging Blacks or Jews or Christianity? The howls of outrage would be echoing from sea to shining sea with nary a naysayer outside the lunatic fringe. Why is it ok then to disparage homosexuals because someone’s religion says homosexuality is sinful?
As has been noted by President Obama, because your religion says so is not a valid argument in the secular arena and this is still a secular country operating under secular laws.
Chase Harper was, and apparently still is, a Christian that thinks it's ok to condemn homosexuals. If he wanted to wear his silly T-shirt in the park or walking down a public street, he would have been within his rights, uncouth, but within his rights, but wearing it to school was wrong.
He is entitled to his opinion even if it stinks like last week’s garbage. If he wants to express his opinions about homosexuality, allow me to suggest he try it in Greenwich Village in NYC. I’m sure his message will be warmly received there.
On the other side of the coin is the “Day of Truth” sponsored by the Christian based Alliance Defense League and supported by Christian organizations like Focus on the Family which claims that events like the “Day of Silence” promote homosexuality and “creates a hostile climate for students of faith.”
Exactly how promoting tolerance for gays creates a hostile climate for Christians escapes me at the moment. Then again, I never expect sense from Focus on the Family.
On the “Day of Truth” supporters are encouraged to spread the message "true tolerance means that people with differing -- even opposing -- viewpoints can freely exchange ideas and respectfully listen to each other. It's time for an honest conversation about homosexuality. There's freedom to change if you want to. Let's talk.”
The problem of course with this message is the assumption that homosexuality is a choice and an immoral choice at that. A Christian’s idea of “true tolerance” is to let them disparage folks for something they don’t appear to have any control over because of the ignorant mumblings of unwashed nomads and a repressed homosexual named Paul.
Again, I digress. Let’s get back to Chase.
Chase was apparently a good Christian and, since there didn’t appear to be any organized counter demonstration to the call for tolerance for homosexuals at his school, Chase decided to take matters into his own hands. He put two strips of adhesive tape, one on the front and one on the back, on a T-shirt. On the tape on the front he wrote “Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned” and on the tape on the back he wrote “Homosexuality Is Shameful.”
He then wore the T-shirt to school as a protest to the “Day of Silence.” He sure was demonstrating tolerance wasn’t he?
The school demanded that Chase remove the messages, remove the shirt or go home. Chase and his family eventually sued the Poway school for violating Chase’s 1st Amendment rights.
This is a tricky one. Chase is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to express his opinion regardless of how rotten that opinion might be. The question is whether he is entitled to express it anywhere and at any time?
I see two problems with Chase. The first is that invoking your right to free speech is not always appropriate. Someone might think that profanity and pornography are acceptable but wearing a T-shirt covered with four letter words and naked bodies to a little league baseball game would understandably be frowned upon by even the most liberal individuals. I have serious problems with Christians and with Christianity but wearing something proclaiming those issues to work or to the local church carnival would be equally inappropriate.
The second problem I have with Chase, and why I think the school was right, is that his T-shirt was an expression of intolerance. Even if you find someone’s ideas or lifestyle distasteful, you are still obligated to tolerate them.
Tolerate does not mean approval or respect. I don’t approve of the Nazi Party or the KKK and I certainly don’t respect them but I am obligated to tolerate them. That is a fundamental principle of secular Western and American Democracy.
Schools are obligated to teach secular Western Principles including tolerance for things that you may personally disapprove of. It’s a fundamental part of their educational mission. Chase’s action was an action of intolerance and totally incompatible with the democratic principle of tolerance. In other words it was in direct conflict with the school's mission. Therefore I agree that they had every right to make him remove the messages.
The ACLU didn’t agree with me and filed an Amicus brief in support of Chase but I don’t always agree with ACLU on everything. The U.S. district court determined that the school did do the right thing. Allow me to quote the court’s opinion.
“Public school students who may be injured by verbal assaults on the basis of a core identifying characteristic such as race, religion, or sexual orientation have a right to be free from such attacks while on school campuses. …students have the right to 'be secure and to be let alone.'...Being secure involves not only the freedom from physical assaults but from psychological attacks that cause young people to question their self-worth and their rightful place in society. The 'right to be let alone' has been recognized by the Supreme Court … as the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.''
In other words, your rights end where the next guy's begin.
Imagine the reaction if someone came to school with a T-shirt disparaging Blacks or Jews or Christianity? The howls of outrage would be echoing from sea to shining sea with nary a naysayer outside the lunatic fringe. Why is it ok then to disparage homosexuals because someone’s religion says homosexuality is sinful?
As has been noted by President Obama, because your religion says so is not a valid argument in the secular arena and this is still a secular country operating under secular laws.
Chase Harper was, and apparently still is, a Christian that thinks it's ok to condemn homosexuals. If he wanted to wear his silly T-shirt in the park or walking down a public street, he would have been within his rights, uncouth, but within his rights, but wearing it to school was wrong.
He is entitled to his opinion even if it stinks like last week’s garbage. If he wants to express his opinions about homosexuality, allow me to suggest he try it in Greenwich Village in NYC. I’m sure his message will be warmly received there.
Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech - Dhabah "Debbie" Almontaser
Debbie Almontaser is an Arab American and a veteran of the New York City school system. In 2007 Debbie was slated to be the principal of an Arabic-English dual language school in Brooklyn called the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA).
The academy was one of a series of dual language schools in New York City. Most of them paired Spanish with English but there were also French, Chinese and Korean versions.
Nevertheless the Arabic academy was controversial right from the start and having Almontaser slated to be principal didn’t appear to help any. The school and Almontaser were accused of everything from intending to teach Sharia law to setting up a radical anti-American Madrassa right in New York City.
The whole thing was a volatile mix of anti-Arab sentiment and Christian vs. Muslim bickering in the city that suffered the major brunt of 9/11.
The primary opposition appears to have come from an Islam-phobic group called “Stop the Madrassa.” One wacko in the film is shown bemoaning the fact that he can’t get a crèche set up in his kid’s classroom but the Muslims get a whole school just like that. I checked their blog based website and they seem to have been pretty much inactive since July of 2008.
No matter how many times the Department of Education pointed that this was to be a public school that would tolerate no religious education whatsoever, opponents continued to brand the academy as an Islamic indoctrination center complete with prayers to Mecca and the teaching of revisionist Arab centric history.
The opposition also appeared to have it in for Debbie Almontaser. They considered her a Muslim extremist and didn’t trust her one bit. They called her a 9/11 denier despite the fact that her son was called up to his National Guard unit as a result of 9/11.
Almontaser’s personal life activities probably didn’t help much. She was active in Arab-American politics and a board member of the Saba Association of American Yemenis. Saba happened to share building space with a group called Arab Women Active in Art and Media (AWAAM) on Third Avenue in Brooklyn.
Saba and AWAAM both participated in Arab-American cultural events around the city. Events which were apparently stalked by opponents of KGIA searching for ammunition and eventually they found it.
At one event the AWAAM group was selling T-shirts labeled “Intifada NYC.” Well that caused big trouble. The word “Intifada” has come to be associated with the Gaza uprisings against Israel and is widely recognized as referring to a violent Arab uprising or rebellion.
Personally I interpret the T-shirts as expressing the solidarity of NYC Arabs with the struggles of the Palestinian people. Since we’re talking about Free Speech here, I’d like to point out that they are entitled to express that solidarity. But you have to admit that using the term “Intifada NYC” was a highly questionable idea. It implies a call for violence rather than peaceful support. You can peaceably assemble but you cannot advocate blowing stuff up.
Now, Almontaser had nothing to do with the T-shirts but even the tenuous association of the mutual participation in an Arab cultural event led the New York Post to request an interview with Almontaser on the matter. The NYC Department of Education (DOE) ordered her to comply with the request.
The interview was a complete disaster. Almontaser, rather than simply disavowing the T-shirts and explaining that she knew nothing about them, went into an explanation about the root meaning of the Arabic word “Intifada” being “shrugging off” or “throwing off” and speculating that the AWAAM girls were simply expressing their inclusion in NYC society.
Yeah, that explanation went over big. Her answers made her sound evasive and made her look like she was trying to hide something. To make matters worse it turned out that the founders of AWAAM were also supposedly active in the more militant al-Awda which the B’nai B’rith Anti-defamation League claims actively supports Hamas and Hezbollah.
Needless to say the Post absolutely crucified poor Debbie. The New York Post is a rag, and has been since it was bought out by Rupert Murdoch, but it knows when it has a blockbuster story and Almontaser gave them one on a silver platter.
I’ve read the Post article and it is a masterpiece of ripping someone completely to shreds while staying well within the rules of the libel laws. It sticks to the facts but the implications left to the imagination of the reader are devastating.
After the interview, and the Post article, Almontaser became a liability. The NYC DOE demanded her resignation as principal of KGIA and promised her an assistant principal position somewhere in the NYC school system. Uh-huh. Can you say “relegated to the outer Siberian banks real quickly?”
The school did open and appears to be currently active so the opposition seems to have only won a partial victory. I guess with the opening of the school the ludicrous fears which fueled the rhetoric of “Stop the Madrassa” dissipated in the light of reality.
Of course that didn’t do Almontaser any good. She’s suing the NYC DOE for violating her 1st Amendment rights and she’s suing them in Federal Court claiming they discriminated against her on the basis of race, religion, and national origin.
She may get a settlement but personally I don’t think she has a snowball’s chance in hell in either suit.
As a matter of fact, I don’t even see this as a Freedom of Speech issue. You might claim that the Post misused the Freedom of the Press but that would be a stretch. What they reported was 100% factual. The yellow journalism part was in leading the reader to a series of unexpressed disturbing conclusions about the trustworthiness of Almontaser as the principal of an Arab-English school.
The NYC DOE didn’t ask for her resignation because of her opinions, but because she totally botched the New York Post interview and placed herself and the DOE in an untenable position. Even the head of the NYC Teacher’s Union called for her resignation. I mean, forget it, as soon as she went around O’Houlihan’s barn explaining the root meaning of “Intifada” she was toast. If nothing else a teacher should understand that the meaning of words evolve with usage. Consider the word “gay” for example.
I sympathize with her. If it hadn’t been for the yahoos of “Stop the Madrassa” she’d be happily working at her dream job as principal of an Arabic-English dual language school but she has only herself to blame.
Perhaps my opinion is slightly tainted by my inbred general distrust of Islam but I don’t think so. I don’t have a problem with the school and I don’t have a problem with Almontaser and I think the marriage of her as principal and KGIA would have been a match made in heaven. But that ship has sailed. That wouldn’t be a good idea any more.
The NYC DOE did what it had to do to protect the school and the needs of the school children of NYC. Isn’t that what it’s there for?
The academy was one of a series of dual language schools in New York City. Most of them paired Spanish with English but there were also French, Chinese and Korean versions.
Nevertheless the Arabic academy was controversial right from the start and having Almontaser slated to be principal didn’t appear to help any. The school and Almontaser were accused of everything from intending to teach Sharia law to setting up a radical anti-American Madrassa right in New York City.
The whole thing was a volatile mix of anti-Arab sentiment and Christian vs. Muslim bickering in the city that suffered the major brunt of 9/11.
The primary opposition appears to have come from an Islam-phobic group called “Stop the Madrassa.” One wacko in the film is shown bemoaning the fact that he can’t get a crèche set up in his kid’s classroom but the Muslims get a whole school just like that. I checked their blog based website and they seem to have been pretty much inactive since July of 2008.
No matter how many times the Department of Education pointed that this was to be a public school that would tolerate no religious education whatsoever, opponents continued to brand the academy as an Islamic indoctrination center complete with prayers to Mecca and the teaching of revisionist Arab centric history.
The opposition also appeared to have it in for Debbie Almontaser. They considered her a Muslim extremist and didn’t trust her one bit. They called her a 9/11 denier despite the fact that her son was called up to his National Guard unit as a result of 9/11.
Almontaser’s personal life activities probably didn’t help much. She was active in Arab-American politics and a board member of the Saba Association of American Yemenis. Saba happened to share building space with a group called Arab Women Active in Art and Media (AWAAM) on Third Avenue in Brooklyn.
Saba and AWAAM both participated in Arab-American cultural events around the city. Events which were apparently stalked by opponents of KGIA searching for ammunition and eventually they found it.
At one event the AWAAM group was selling T-shirts labeled “Intifada NYC.” Well that caused big trouble. The word “Intifada” has come to be associated with the Gaza uprisings against Israel and is widely recognized as referring to a violent Arab uprising or rebellion.Personally I interpret the T-shirts as expressing the solidarity of NYC Arabs with the struggles of the Palestinian people. Since we’re talking about Free Speech here, I’d like to point out that they are entitled to express that solidarity. But you have to admit that using the term “Intifada NYC” was a highly questionable idea. It implies a call for violence rather than peaceful support. You can peaceably assemble but you cannot advocate blowing stuff up.
Now, Almontaser had nothing to do with the T-shirts but even the tenuous association of the mutual participation in an Arab cultural event led the New York Post to request an interview with Almontaser on the matter. The NYC Department of Education (DOE) ordered her to comply with the request.
The interview was a complete disaster. Almontaser, rather than simply disavowing the T-shirts and explaining that she knew nothing about them, went into an explanation about the root meaning of the Arabic word “Intifada” being “shrugging off” or “throwing off” and speculating that the AWAAM girls were simply expressing their inclusion in NYC society.
Yeah, that explanation went over big. Her answers made her sound evasive and made her look like she was trying to hide something. To make matters worse it turned out that the founders of AWAAM were also supposedly active in the more militant al-Awda which the B’nai B’rith Anti-defamation League claims actively supports Hamas and Hezbollah.
Needless to say the Post absolutely crucified poor Debbie. The New York Post is a rag, and has been since it was bought out by Rupert Murdoch, but it knows when it has a blockbuster story and Almontaser gave them one on a silver platter.
I’ve read the Post article and it is a masterpiece of ripping someone completely to shreds while staying well within the rules of the libel laws. It sticks to the facts but the implications left to the imagination of the reader are devastating.
After the interview, and the Post article, Almontaser became a liability. The NYC DOE demanded her resignation as principal of KGIA and promised her an assistant principal position somewhere in the NYC school system. Uh-huh. Can you say “relegated to the outer Siberian banks real quickly?”
The school did open and appears to be currently active so the opposition seems to have only won a partial victory. I guess with the opening of the school the ludicrous fears which fueled the rhetoric of “Stop the Madrassa” dissipated in the light of reality.
Of course that didn’t do Almontaser any good. She’s suing the NYC DOE for violating her 1st Amendment rights and she’s suing them in Federal Court claiming they discriminated against her on the basis of race, religion, and national origin.
She may get a settlement but personally I don’t think she has a snowball’s chance in hell in either suit.
As a matter of fact, I don’t even see this as a Freedom of Speech issue. You might claim that the Post misused the Freedom of the Press but that would be a stretch. What they reported was 100% factual. The yellow journalism part was in leading the reader to a series of unexpressed disturbing conclusions about the trustworthiness of Almontaser as the principal of an Arab-English school.
The NYC DOE didn’t ask for her resignation because of her opinions, but because she totally botched the New York Post interview and placed herself and the DOE in an untenable position. Even the head of the NYC Teacher’s Union called for her resignation. I mean, forget it, as soon as she went around O’Houlihan’s barn explaining the root meaning of “Intifada” she was toast. If nothing else a teacher should understand that the meaning of words evolve with usage. Consider the word “gay” for example.
I sympathize with her. If it hadn’t been for the yahoos of “Stop the Madrassa” she’d be happily working at her dream job as principal of an Arabic-English dual language school but she has only herself to blame.
Perhaps my opinion is slightly tainted by my inbred general distrust of Islam but I don’t think so. I don’t have a problem with the school and I don’t have a problem with Almontaser and I think the marriage of her as principal and KGIA would have been a match made in heaven. But that ship has sailed. That wouldn’t be a good idea any more.
The NYC DOE did what it had to do to protect the school and the needs of the school children of NYC. Isn’t that what it’s there for?
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech – Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill was a tenured professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado. Ward is not what you would call bashful about expressing his opinion.
Shortly after 9/11 he wrote an article pointing out that the U.S. State Department’s history of foreign policy abuses were at least partially responsible for the attack. Of course he was right.
Let’s get one thing straight. An act of terrorism against unarmed civilians is an act of cowardice. I’ve said that before and I’ll say it again. If we agree on that then let’s talk about what is an “act of terrorism.”
An “act of terrorism” is an attack designed to induce fear in a population in order to bring about some goal. The rounding up and execution of the men of Lidice by the Nazis in World War II was an act of terrorism. The lynching of blacks in the Jim Crow South was an act of terrorism. The firebombing of Tokyo was an act of terrorism. The bombing of Dresden was an act of terrorism. A Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up a supermarket is an act of terrorism. The shelling of West Bank Palestinian towns by the Israeli army is an act of terrorism. A Shiite suicide bomber exploding a bomb in the midst of mourners at a Sunni funeral is an act of terrorism.
Unfortunately, there’s no shortage of acts of terrorism to go around. Yet while the U.S. cries foul at every act of terrorism aimed at itself or its allies, it tends to feel it’s ok to commit or condone acts which are just as bad.
Let’s face it, our hands are not exactly clean of blood. You can draw a direct line between our support for Israel ,through our supplying of arms to Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war, to the rubble of the twin towers.
That’s all Ward Churchill was saying and he was saying it because those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Now this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t wipe the scum that attacked the World Trade Center off the face of the earth. I thought that was a real good idea and I still do. I agree with Belgarath. "Good and Evil" and "Right and Wrong" are too messy and complicated. I prefer "Us and Them." It's simple and let's you get past the preliminaries and down to the main event quickly.
Too bad Little Georgie got distracted by Iraq, who had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attack and who Bush and Rumsfeld knew had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attack, and let the real bad guys off the hook. Looks like Obama is in the process of correcting that mistake. But I digress. Let’s get back to Ward.
His article sort of languished in the archives of the internet until one day it came to the attention of the American Council of Trusties and Alumni (ACTA). While ACTA states that one of its objectives is to “safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus,” they weren’t real happy with Ward’s ideas and began to put pressure on the University of Colorado to terminate him.
ACTA is clearly a conservative right wing group that throws out all the nice sounding glittering generalities to advance or defend positions that they agree with. But apparently they’ll do everything they can to suppress ideas they don’t agree with and they sure as hell didn’t agree with Ward.
Right now universities tend to be dominated by liberal viewpoints so ACTA is screaming for “Intellectual Diversity.” Yet you can take it to the bank that if academia was dominated by conservatives, they’d be defending “Traditional Values” and “Academic Privilege.”
I hear them attacking Harvard, Yale and Stanford but they appear to be mum about Brigham Young, Oral Roberts and Liberty University.
Still, they were perfectly within their rights to disagree with Ward, point out why Ward had his head up his ass and call him nasty names. Even I admit that he went way over the line when he referred to some of the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns.” He clearly deserved to be criticized and have someone tear him a new one for that pronouncement.
But what ACTA did not have the right to do was pressure the University of Colorado to silence him. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives fail to understand the principles that they claim so loudly to love and support. If you can deny someone you disagree with his right to free speech, then someone else can deny you yours. Either everyone is protected by the Constitution or no one is protected. And they call themselves Patriots.
What? What’s that you say? Doesn’t the left do the same thing? Aren’t Creationism and Intelligent Design being censored? No. Despite Ben Stein’s absurd claims, no one is trying to silence Creationists. No one is petitioning Lehigh to terminate Michael Behe because they disagree with his viewpoint.
We will loudly and often point out Creationist misconceptions, distortions and outright falsehoods and we reserve the right to call them morons for ignoring the overwhelming evidence in nature and clinging to the fairy tales and myths of a group of ignorant unwashed nomads. But we’re not trying to silence them. If YouTube tried to shut down Creationist accounts, simply because they were promoting Creationism, their opponents in the Evolution-Creationism debate would be among the loudest howling “foul” in indignation. Yet I will bet you that the Creationists wouldn't let out the slightest whimper if YouTube decided to shut down their critics.
What's that you say? What about the Left’s fight to keep Creationism out of the science classroom? Isn’t that the same thing as ACTA trying to silence Ward Churchill?
We fight to keep Creationism out of the science classroom because being recognized as a scientific theory is not available on-demand. It has to be earned.
You can’t pick up a degree at the local Rite-Aid. It has to be earned with time and effort. You can’t order a Purple Heart from Amazon.com. It has to be earned with blood and pain. Your opinions aren’t accorded the recognition of being a scientific theory simply by you declaring they’re worthy of that recognition. You have to do the research; you have to write the papers; you have to present the evidence. The distinction of being recognized as a scientific theory has to be earned. Creationism hasn’t earned it. It hasn’t even tried to earn it. So no, it’s not the same thing at all.
The University of Colorado, under pressure from ACTA, decided to investigate Ward’s work to see if he had violated any academic ethics. They looked for skeletons and apparently found enough to revoke his tenure and terminate his teaching position.
I didn’t read the report on Ward’s termination issued by the university so I can’t pass judgment other than to say that I doubt that any of us could undergo a really intense scrutiny without something turning up. I know of a few lines of text here and there that I’ve written that someone could claim was plagiarized. I know in my storage account at work and in e-mails I’ve sent that there are things that violate the “Terms of Use” for computers and e-mail that they make me swear to abide by every year or so.
I didn’t read the report, but the courts did, and decided that the University of Colorado wrongefully terminated Ward Churchill. How’s that for a kick in the face ACTA? Yet ACTA continues to grind this axe. In their publications directory you can find a paper which moans that “throughout American higher education, professors are using their classrooms to push political agendas in the name of teaching students to think critically” entitled “How Many Ward Churchills?”
Shortly after 9/11 he wrote an article pointing out that the U.S. State Department’s history of foreign policy abuses were at least partially responsible for the attack. Of course he was right.
Let’s get one thing straight. An act of terrorism against unarmed civilians is an act of cowardice. I’ve said that before and I’ll say it again. If we agree on that then let’s talk about what is an “act of terrorism.”
An “act of terrorism” is an attack designed to induce fear in a population in order to bring about some goal. The rounding up and execution of the men of Lidice by the Nazis in World War II was an act of terrorism. The lynching of blacks in the Jim Crow South was an act of terrorism. The firebombing of Tokyo was an act of terrorism. The bombing of Dresden was an act of terrorism. A Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up a supermarket is an act of terrorism. The shelling of West Bank Palestinian towns by the Israeli army is an act of terrorism. A Shiite suicide bomber exploding a bomb in the midst of mourners at a Sunni funeral is an act of terrorism.
Unfortunately, there’s no shortage of acts of terrorism to go around. Yet while the U.S. cries foul at every act of terrorism aimed at itself or its allies, it tends to feel it’s ok to commit or condone acts which are just as bad.
Let’s face it, our hands are not exactly clean of blood. You can draw a direct line between our support for Israel ,through our supplying of arms to Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war, to the rubble of the twin towers.
That’s all Ward Churchill was saying and he was saying it because those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Now this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t wipe the scum that attacked the World Trade Center off the face of the earth. I thought that was a real good idea and I still do. I agree with Belgarath. "Good and Evil" and "Right and Wrong" are too messy and complicated. I prefer "Us and Them." It's simple and let's you get past the preliminaries and down to the main event quickly.
Too bad Little Georgie got distracted by Iraq, who had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attack and who Bush and Rumsfeld knew had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attack, and let the real bad guys off the hook. Looks like Obama is in the process of correcting that mistake. But I digress. Let’s get back to Ward.
His article sort of languished in the archives of the internet until one day it came to the attention of the American Council of Trusties and Alumni (ACTA). While ACTA states that one of its objectives is to “safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus,” they weren’t real happy with Ward’s ideas and began to put pressure on the University of Colorado to terminate him.
ACTA is clearly a conservative right wing group that throws out all the nice sounding glittering generalities to advance or defend positions that they agree with. But apparently they’ll do everything they can to suppress ideas they don’t agree with and they sure as hell didn’t agree with Ward.
Right now universities tend to be dominated by liberal viewpoints so ACTA is screaming for “Intellectual Diversity.” Yet you can take it to the bank that if academia was dominated by conservatives, they’d be defending “Traditional Values” and “Academic Privilege.”
I hear them attacking Harvard, Yale and Stanford but they appear to be mum about Brigham Young, Oral Roberts and Liberty University.
Still, they were perfectly within their rights to disagree with Ward, point out why Ward had his head up his ass and call him nasty names. Even I admit that he went way over the line when he referred to some of the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns.” He clearly deserved to be criticized and have someone tear him a new one for that pronouncement.
But what ACTA did not have the right to do was pressure the University of Colorado to silence him. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives fail to understand the principles that they claim so loudly to love and support. If you can deny someone you disagree with his right to free speech, then someone else can deny you yours. Either everyone is protected by the Constitution or no one is protected. And they call themselves Patriots.
What? What’s that you say? Doesn’t the left do the same thing? Aren’t Creationism and Intelligent Design being censored? No. Despite Ben Stein’s absurd claims, no one is trying to silence Creationists. No one is petitioning Lehigh to terminate Michael Behe because they disagree with his viewpoint.
We will loudly and often point out Creationist misconceptions, distortions and outright falsehoods and we reserve the right to call them morons for ignoring the overwhelming evidence in nature and clinging to the fairy tales and myths of a group of ignorant unwashed nomads. But we’re not trying to silence them. If YouTube tried to shut down Creationist accounts, simply because they were promoting Creationism, their opponents in the Evolution-Creationism debate would be among the loudest howling “foul” in indignation. Yet I will bet you that the Creationists wouldn't let out the slightest whimper if YouTube decided to shut down their critics.
What's that you say? What about the Left’s fight to keep Creationism out of the science classroom? Isn’t that the same thing as ACTA trying to silence Ward Churchill?
We fight to keep Creationism out of the science classroom because being recognized as a scientific theory is not available on-demand. It has to be earned.
You can’t pick up a degree at the local Rite-Aid. It has to be earned with time and effort. You can’t order a Purple Heart from Amazon.com. It has to be earned with blood and pain. Your opinions aren’t accorded the recognition of being a scientific theory simply by you declaring they’re worthy of that recognition. You have to do the research; you have to write the papers; you have to present the evidence. The distinction of being recognized as a scientific theory has to be earned. Creationism hasn’t earned it. It hasn’t even tried to earn it. So no, it’s not the same thing at all.
The University of Colorado, under pressure from ACTA, decided to investigate Ward’s work to see if he had violated any academic ethics. They looked for skeletons and apparently found enough to revoke his tenure and terminate his teaching position.
I didn’t read the report on Ward’s termination issued by the university so I can’t pass judgment other than to say that I doubt that any of us could undergo a really intense scrutiny without something turning up. I know of a few lines of text here and there that I’ve written that someone could claim was plagiarized. I know in my storage account at work and in e-mails I’ve sent that there are things that violate the “Terms of Use” for computers and e-mail that they make me swear to abide by every year or so.
I didn’t read the report, but the courts did, and decided that the University of Colorado wrongefully terminated Ward Churchill. How’s that for a kick in the face ACTA? Yet ACTA continues to grind this axe. In their publications directory you can find a paper which moans that “throughout American higher education, professors are using their classrooms to push political agendas in the name of teaching students to think critically” entitled “How Many Ward Churchills?”
Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech
I watched the HBO documentary “Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech” the other night. I found it quite well done.
The primary source throughout the program was Martin Garbus, a 1st Amendment attorney and father of the filmmaker Liz Garbus.
The show covered a number of historical and contemporary stories including the Alien and Sedition Acts, McCarthy, The Pentagon Papers and the Nazi march in Skokie Illinois. The show was supposedly centered on the balancing act between free speech and security but some of the stories had nothing to do with that. Some stories did, perhaps even most, but the three I found most interesting either had nothing to do with national security or were, at best, on the remote outer fringe of the security question.
I want to focus on these three contemporary stories because they have a modern face that you can relate to as an individual and because I think they address some fundamental flaws in current American culture. Rather than do them in one long essay, I’ve decided to address each separately in future posts.
The primary source throughout the program was Martin Garbus, a 1st Amendment attorney and father of the filmmaker Liz Garbus.
The show covered a number of historical and contemporary stories including the Alien and Sedition Acts, McCarthy, The Pentagon Papers and the Nazi march in Skokie Illinois. The show was supposedly centered on the balancing act between free speech and security but some of the stories had nothing to do with that. Some stories did, perhaps even most, but the three I found most interesting either had nothing to do with national security or were, at best, on the remote outer fringe of the security question.
I want to focus on these three contemporary stories because they have a modern face that you can relate to as an individual and because I think they address some fundamental flaws in current American culture. Rather than do them in one long essay, I’ve decided to address each separately in future posts.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Pew News IQ Score
Every so often I go take the Pew News Test at Pewresearch.org. I’m not sure how often they update it but if you go back about every 3 months it’s usually different.
There are 12 questions and after you finish they compare how you did to the demographic scores on each question compared to a random survey. I usually get all 12 right. If you read or listen to the news with any regularity it’s sort of hard not to. This time around 6% got all the questions right.
Men do better than woman answering an average of 8.3 questions right to 6.7. Not surprisingly the more education you have the higher you tend to score. College graduates averaged 8.7 correct while those having graduated High School got an average of 6.2 correct.
The older you were, the better you did. Those over 50 years of age got 8.4 correct, those between 30 and 49 got 7.8 correct and those between 18 and 29 5.9 correct.
The question that the most people got correct was which party controlled the House of Representatives. 86% knew it was the Democrats. The question that the fewest got right was approximately how many U.S. military deaths have occurred in Iraq. Only 38% knew it was approximately 4,300. I find that sort of disturbing.
I guess it could be worse. But then again, it could also be a whole lot better.
There are 12 questions and after you finish they compare how you did to the demographic scores on each question compared to a random survey. I usually get all 12 right. If you read or listen to the news with any regularity it’s sort of hard not to. This time around 6% got all the questions right.
Men do better than woman answering an average of 8.3 questions right to 6.7. Not surprisingly the more education you have the higher you tend to score. College graduates averaged 8.7 correct while those having graduated High School got an average of 6.2 correct.
The older you were, the better you did. Those over 50 years of age got 8.4 correct, those between 30 and 49 got 7.8 correct and those between 18 and 29 5.9 correct.
The question that the most people got correct was which party controlled the House of Representatives. 86% knew it was the Democrats. The question that the fewest got right was approximately how many U.S. military deaths have occurred in Iraq. Only 38% knew it was approximately 4,300. I find that sort of disturbing.
I guess it could be worse. But then again, it could also be a whole lot better.
Residents Protest Atheist Sign
According to WSVN-TV, the Florida Atheist and Secular Humanist Society (FLASH) has erected a billboard just off of Route 95 in Ft. Lauderdale which reads "Being a good person doesn't require God. Don't believe in God? You're not alone. www.FreeThoughtFlorida.com."
Apparently some residents of the area are unhappy with the sign and want it taken down because it’s “offensive to Christians.” Protesters cite two main problems with the sign: it’s right next to a business owned by born again Christians and it’s in the middle of an African-American community.
I say, remember Freedom of Speech? Christians are fast enough to raise the Freedom of Speech issue when they want access to public facilities for religious functions. Well, this is Freedom of Speech too. I don’t see how the billboard being near a born again Christian store makes a damn bit of difference.
As for it being in an African-American community, allow me to remind those folks that they were happy enough to have the support of free thinkers during the Civil Rights movement but now they’d like to restrict the Freedom of Speech of Atheists and the equal rights of gays.
Tell you what, next time those good ol’ boys come by with a rope; you’re on your own. FLASH intends to keep the billboard up for four weeks. I say more power to them.
Apparently some residents of the area are unhappy with the sign and want it taken down because it’s “offensive to Christians.” Protesters cite two main problems with the sign: it’s right next to a business owned by born again Christians and it’s in the middle of an African-American community.
I say, remember Freedom of Speech? Christians are fast enough to raise the Freedom of Speech issue when they want access to public facilities for religious functions. Well, this is Freedom of Speech too. I don’t see how the billboard being near a born again Christian store makes a damn bit of difference.
As for it being in an African-American community, allow me to remind those folks that they were happy enough to have the support of free thinkers during the Civil Rights movement but now they’d like to restrict the Freedom of Speech of Atheists and the equal rights of gays.
Tell you what, next time those good ol’ boys come by with a rope; you’re on your own. FLASH intends to keep the billboard up for four weeks. I say more power to them.
Why is Sarah Palin Resigning?
I figure there are four possibilities. The first is that she’s finally realized what an idiot she is and is going to go live in a cold water walk-up and mercifully disappear from sight. No, I don’t think that’s it. Too damn bad if you ask me.
The second is that she’s just fed up with all the nonsense and is going to live a quit and respectable life somewhere and only appear on rare occasions. No, I don’t think that’s it either.
The third is there’s a big scandal brewing and she’s tossing in the towel in exchange for it remaining out of public view. She’ll show up and annoy us from time to time but her public life is basically over if she doesn’t want it to hit the fan. Nah, no such luck, as entertaining as this might be, I doubt it.
That leaves she’s starting the 2012 campaign three years early. If you’re looking for definitive evidence that conservatives and evangelical Christians have their heads so far up their asses that they always think it’s nighttime, the fact that they seem to think Palin should be President should do it.
She hasn’t got the brains of a moose in heat so how the hell could anyone with an ounce of sense consider her for President? Oh wait, that’s right, we’re talking about evangelical Christians and conservatives. They’d be lucky to find a half dozen triple IQs in the whole bunch.
The fact that we have to take this insanity seriously shows how far this country has sunk. I’d rather have Dubyah back, or maybe even Jeb. This is truly pathetic.
As much as I had contempt for Little Georgie, I never wished him harm. This lady however, I’d like to see staked out on a convenient ant hill, or even an inconvenient ant hill. If she was drowning and I had 10 life preservers I would suddenly become attached to all 10 of them. She makes you realize what salmonella is good for.
Ok, Barack baby, don’t you dare screw up.
The second is that she’s just fed up with all the nonsense and is going to live a quit and respectable life somewhere and only appear on rare occasions. No, I don’t think that’s it either.
The third is there’s a big scandal brewing and she’s tossing in the towel in exchange for it remaining out of public view. She’ll show up and annoy us from time to time but her public life is basically over if she doesn’t want it to hit the fan. Nah, no such luck, as entertaining as this might be, I doubt it.
That leaves she’s starting the 2012 campaign three years early. If you’re looking for definitive evidence that conservatives and evangelical Christians have their heads so far up their asses that they always think it’s nighttime, the fact that they seem to think Palin should be President should do it.
She hasn’t got the brains of a moose in heat so how the hell could anyone with an ounce of sense consider her for President? Oh wait, that’s right, we’re talking about evangelical Christians and conservatives. They’d be lucky to find a half dozen triple IQs in the whole bunch.
The fact that we have to take this insanity seriously shows how far this country has sunk. I’d rather have Dubyah back, or maybe even Jeb. This is truly pathetic.
As much as I had contempt for Little Georgie, I never wished him harm. This lady however, I’d like to see staked out on a convenient ant hill, or even an inconvenient ant hill. If she was drowning and I had 10 life preservers I would suddenly become attached to all 10 of them. She makes you realize what salmonella is good for.
Ok, Barack baby, don’t you dare screw up.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Another YouTube Challenge
This one is entitled “5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST answer.” I thought the “MUST” in all capitals was cute.
Question #1 - "Aren’t you using random chance as a substitute for the “God of the Gaps?”
No, I don’t think so. We know, from observation, that certain events, such as genetic mutation occur and that these events appear random. A key word here is “appear.” Perhaps if we knew all the variables involved, they wouldn’t, but we don’t so “random” supplies a reasonable approximation.
We can even measure the rate at which these events occur and observe some of their effects. So no, this isn’t the same thing as the "God of the Gaps." Observation and measurement leading to an inference is not the same thing as saying I don’t understand how it happened so “GOD DID IT!”
Question #2 – "Why should there be something instead of nothing?"
I could ask why should there be nothing instead of something? Clearly we exist. What science has been trying to understand is how we came to exist. Perhaps that might lead to an understanding of why we exist and perhaps not. Maybe we’re just a temporary cosmic accident that will strut and fret its hour upon the stage and then be heard no more.
Question #3 – "Where do you get your morals?"
Here we go again with the idea that morality can only come from God. Men can use their intelligence and reason to agree upon a greater good, establish rules to bring that greater good about and enforce laws against breaking those rules. Mankind has been doing it since the dawn of civilization. The greater good could be as simple as the survival of the tribe or as complex as the glory of the empire.
Question #4 – "How can morals evolve?"
Why do they have to? In explaining this question, the video maker implies that evolution needs to intelligently move toward an objective for morals to evolve. First of all it’s unlikely that “morals” do evolve.
Second of all Natural Selection is not intelligent nor does it have any objective or goal. If a trait or mutation confers a reproductive benefit, more organisms in the next generation will have that trait or mutation and even more will have it in the generation after that. Eventually it will extend throughout the gene pool. It really is just simple arithmetic.
Most “morals” are probably learned traits. The ability to inherit learned traits is called Lamarckism and has generally been discredited (BUT some recent experiments at MIT indicate that perhaps the concept needs to be revisited at least with respect to some environmental effects).
Morals may not evolve but survival, reproductive and perhaps co-operative instincts do. Most individuals will choose actions that enhance their survival and ability to reproduce. Often those actions have been declared by society to be “moral.”
Individuals that don’t follow the rules tend to get ostracized or expelled which makes it difficult to survive or reproduce. This is normally not an effective strategy.
The point is that “morals” don’t need to evolve as long as survival and reproductive instincts do and following the rules is safer than not following them.
Question #5 - "Can nature generate complex organisms when originally there was none?"
If what is meant by the question is going from nothing to a complex organism in one step, then the answer is no, it can’t. This is called “spontaneous generation” and Louis Pasteur laid that hypothesis to rest over a hundred years ago.
If however what is meant by the question is can it occur in a series of thousands or even millions of steps starting with an extremely simple cell and then laboriously, over millions of years, evolve into a complex organism, the answer is obviously yes because it has. We’re here aren’t we? The question is how?
There are two distinct steps to this hypothetical process. The first step is the emergence of the first simple living cell. The second step is Evolution and Natural Selection which takes over once the first cell appears.
That Evolution occurs is a fact. The question of whether it can produce complex organisms using only the tools of genetic mutation and Natural Selection is, to my mind, not entirely clear. That’s why science keeps looking, like revisiting the idea of Lamarckism at MIT.
The first step is also something of a problem. The current hypothesis is that, under the right conditions, organic chemistry can produce simple cells and then Evolution will begin and ultimately lead to the proliferation of life that we see today. Perhaps, but I don’t think we know with any degree of probability exactly how that first step can occur.
You are free to postulate that neither step can occur without the guidance of a supernatural authority. However, you will excuse me if we continue to search for answers rather than throw our hands into the air and say “GOD DID IT!”
To be satisfied with “GOD DID IT” is to accept being ignorant. If there is a God, and he directed the development of man, then he decreed that we have intelligence, the ability to reason and a thirst for knowledge. To not use those gifts to discover the secrets of creation would be to sabotage the deity’s rationale for our creation.
Therefore to my mind, whether there is a God or not isn’t the question, in either case we should place our energies into science and the effort to advance man’s knowledge of the universe. To accept “GOD DID IT” as the answer is a blasphemy. The only question is whether it’s a blasphemy against men or a blasphemy against God.
As I've said before, Atheism is the null hypothesis and the burden of proof is on the Theist to topple that hypothesis with compelling evidence or a compelling argument. This video is again essentially an attempt to shift the burden of proof. I find it entertaining to address questions like this but technically the Atheist doesn't have to answer a damn thing. It's the Theist that is making the positive assertion and who needs to answer the questions.
Question #1 - "Aren’t you using random chance as a substitute for the “God of the Gaps?”
No, I don’t think so. We know, from observation, that certain events, such as genetic mutation occur and that these events appear random. A key word here is “appear.” Perhaps if we knew all the variables involved, they wouldn’t, but we don’t so “random” supplies a reasonable approximation.
We can even measure the rate at which these events occur and observe some of their effects. So no, this isn’t the same thing as the "God of the Gaps." Observation and measurement leading to an inference is not the same thing as saying I don’t understand how it happened so “GOD DID IT!”
Question #2 – "Why should there be something instead of nothing?"
I could ask why should there be nothing instead of something? Clearly we exist. What science has been trying to understand is how we came to exist. Perhaps that might lead to an understanding of why we exist and perhaps not. Maybe we’re just a temporary cosmic accident that will strut and fret its hour upon the stage and then be heard no more.
Question #3 – "Where do you get your morals?"
Here we go again with the idea that morality can only come from God. Men can use their intelligence and reason to agree upon a greater good, establish rules to bring that greater good about and enforce laws against breaking those rules. Mankind has been doing it since the dawn of civilization. The greater good could be as simple as the survival of the tribe or as complex as the glory of the empire.
Question #4 – "How can morals evolve?"
Why do they have to? In explaining this question, the video maker implies that evolution needs to intelligently move toward an objective for morals to evolve. First of all it’s unlikely that “morals” do evolve.
Second of all Natural Selection is not intelligent nor does it have any objective or goal. If a trait or mutation confers a reproductive benefit, more organisms in the next generation will have that trait or mutation and even more will have it in the generation after that. Eventually it will extend throughout the gene pool. It really is just simple arithmetic.
Most “morals” are probably learned traits. The ability to inherit learned traits is called Lamarckism and has generally been discredited (BUT some recent experiments at MIT indicate that perhaps the concept needs to be revisited at least with respect to some environmental effects).
Morals may not evolve but survival, reproductive and perhaps co-operative instincts do. Most individuals will choose actions that enhance their survival and ability to reproduce. Often those actions have been declared by society to be “moral.”
Individuals that don’t follow the rules tend to get ostracized or expelled which makes it difficult to survive or reproduce. This is normally not an effective strategy.
The point is that “morals” don’t need to evolve as long as survival and reproductive instincts do and following the rules is safer than not following them.
Question #5 - "Can nature generate complex organisms when originally there was none?"
If what is meant by the question is going from nothing to a complex organism in one step, then the answer is no, it can’t. This is called “spontaneous generation” and Louis Pasteur laid that hypothesis to rest over a hundred years ago.
If however what is meant by the question is can it occur in a series of thousands or even millions of steps starting with an extremely simple cell and then laboriously, over millions of years, evolve into a complex organism, the answer is obviously yes because it has. We’re here aren’t we? The question is how?
There are two distinct steps to this hypothetical process. The first step is the emergence of the first simple living cell. The second step is Evolution and Natural Selection which takes over once the first cell appears.
That Evolution occurs is a fact. The question of whether it can produce complex organisms using only the tools of genetic mutation and Natural Selection is, to my mind, not entirely clear. That’s why science keeps looking, like revisiting the idea of Lamarckism at MIT.
The first step is also something of a problem. The current hypothesis is that, under the right conditions, organic chemistry can produce simple cells and then Evolution will begin and ultimately lead to the proliferation of life that we see today. Perhaps, but I don’t think we know with any degree of probability exactly how that first step can occur.
You are free to postulate that neither step can occur without the guidance of a supernatural authority. However, you will excuse me if we continue to search for answers rather than throw our hands into the air and say “GOD DID IT!”
To be satisfied with “GOD DID IT” is to accept being ignorant. If there is a God, and he directed the development of man, then he decreed that we have intelligence, the ability to reason and a thirst for knowledge. To not use those gifts to discover the secrets of creation would be to sabotage the deity’s rationale for our creation.
Therefore to my mind, whether there is a God or not isn’t the question, in either case we should place our energies into science and the effort to advance man’s knowledge of the universe. To accept “GOD DID IT” as the answer is a blasphemy. The only question is whether it’s a blasphemy against men or a blasphemy against God.
As I've said before, Atheism is the null hypothesis and the burden of proof is on the Theist to topple that hypothesis with compelling evidence or a compelling argument. This video is again essentially an attempt to shift the burden of proof. I find it entertaining to address questions like this but technically the Atheist doesn't have to answer a damn thing. It's the Theist that is making the positive assertion and who needs to answer the questions.
A Theists Idea of Atheism
Atheism is a terrible threat to religion. Religion banks upon people’s fears and extends a false comfort to ease those fears. Atheists, while they may be just as afraid as anyone else, reject that false comfort. This rejection undermines the feeling of security that leads the theist to buy into religion in the first place.
If you take away someone’s security blanket, don’t expect them to thank you for it. Theists will often, in a confused way, try to make atheism something it’s not. I guess somehow that reduces the threat. I was watching a video on YouTube the other day called “The Inconvenient Truth about Atheism” that did just that. Let’s consider the video’s arguments shall we.
Point #1 - The absence of proof that something exists is not proof that it does not exist. It is by faith that an atheist believes God does not exist.
This is the old absence of evidence is not evidence of absence argument. I honestly don’t know what people mean by “proof.” One can only “prove” something in mathematics and formal deductive logic. Everywhere else it’s only “evidence” of varying strength.
The burden of proof is on the positive claim. In this particular case it is upon the theist to present compelling evidence for the existence of God not for the Atheist to present evidence for his (her? Its?) nonexistence.
Besides, atheism is not only based upon an absence of evidence, it is also based upon evidence of absence. The problem of evil provides compelling evidence, if not for the absence of all gods, then at least for the absence of the Christian definition of God.
While one cannot prove the negative that no gods exist, one can prove that a specific god does not exist. For instance, the Christian God is a logical contradiction. A being cannot be all powerful and all knowing yet be susceptible to the prayers of mortals. A deity cannot be perfectly just and perfectly loving yet create cancers that kill innocent little girls.
It is not by faith that an atheist rejects the existence of God. It is by a combination of the lack of evidence that he (she? It?) does exist combined with evidence that he (she? It?) does not. In other words, it’s an opinion based upon the evidence that exists as well as the evidence that does not exist.
Point #2 - In fervently seeking to convert anybody they can to their faith atheism is no different than every other existing religion.
By that definition every philosophy or opinion would be a religion. That is of course absurd. Like I said with respect to Point #1, atheism is not faith but an opinion. On many occasions I’ve tried to convince people of the accuracy of a particular opinion of mine. Does that automatically make it a religion?
We argue fiscal politics and economic systems ad nauseam. Does that render Capitalism and Socialism religions?
Besides, like I pointed out above, atheism is not based upon faith. Faith is by definition the acceptance of an assertion despite the lack of evidence to support it. Atheism is essentially the rational null hypothesis. It is the logical conclusion that one must assume something does not exist in the absence of evidence for its existence. When one adds to that actual evidence, such as the problem of evil, that supports the null hypothesis, the conclusion becomes even stronger.
In the absence of that rational assumption we would have to accept the existence of all manner of absurdities including purple unicorns, fairies, leprechauns and Santa Claus unless someone managed to “prove” they didn’t exist.
Point #3 - By declaring no higher authority the atheist declares each to be the lord of their own existence. To avoid being a hypocrite an atheist must defend the right of anyone to believe whatever they want.
Not really. The fallacy here is the assumption that there is one and only one source of morality and therefore only one possible “higher authority,” that which is known as “Divine Command Authority.” In the absence of a divine authority, it falls to men to decide what will be the basis of morality and define what they will accept as a “higher authority. “
If there are differing ideas about how to do that, I need not defend the right of everyone to believe whatever they want. I can try and enforce my opinion upon them and they can try to enforce theirs upon me.
The mutually agreed to "higher authority" could be as simple as the peaceful survival of the tribe, or as complicated as the glory of the empire. There is such a thing as “society” or “civilization” that most rationale men recognize as essential to their survival and evolution has established survival as the ultimate "higher authority."
We could get together and define a moral code based upon whatever ethical theory we’re comfortable with. The problem of course is in enforcing the decisions. That’s why men invented religion. It makes it a lot easier to enforce society’s rules if you convince the riff-raff they’re the will of the gods.
Consider ancient Egypt, ancient Babylon, ancient Greece and ancient Rome for instance. They established peaceful and flourishing societies without any knowledge of the Judeo-Christian God. One must either concede that Amen-Ra, Marduk and Zeus were equally valid manifestations of God or concede that a real god is not necessary for the establishment of laws and morality.
Point #4 - By declaring no higher authority the atheist declares that each person has the authority to decide what is right and wrong and cannot declare the belief of another to be wrong.
Why not? This is really the same error as the previous point. It assumes that a “higher authority” cannot be established in the absence of a deity and therefore no one is allowed to have an opinion about what is "good." This is absurd. Like I said, the simple peaceful survival of the tribe can be the “higher authority” that we agree is "good" and the majority can expell those that act in a manner deemed harmful to that survival.
What religion and theists tend to ignore is that evolution has built into us the basic need to co-operate. You know the old saying that goodness is its own reward? That’s because doing what is considered “right” makes you feel good.
The question becomes whether the definition of “right” is learned or instinctive. I suspect it’s a combination. Some things, such as protecting the young and helping the injured, are most likely instinctive while cooperating to bring down a wooly mammoth for dinner is most likely learned.
While Christianity teaches that men are fundamentally evil sinners, atheists realize that, except for the occasional sociopath, men are conditioned by natural selection to be "moral" and basic morality is instinctive. If it isn't, then how do chimpanzees, wolves and other social animals manage to survive?
Point #5 - If god does not exist then right and wrong become meaningless words.
Sigh. He’s beating the “only God can define right and wrong” to death isn’t he? Allow me to reference the Euthyphro Dilemma. Simply stated Plato’s dilemma asks the question “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”
If you go with the first option, “it’s commanded by God because it is moral,” then there must exist an independent measure of right and wrong to which even God must adhere. If you go with the second option then the concepts of “right” and “wrong” or “good” and “evil” become arbitrary based upon God’s whim. It therefore makes no non-tautological sense to call God “good.” The most you can say is that he (she? It?) is consistent.
Point #6 - You would not want to live in world with no god because it would be a no-holds barred fight to the death for temporary survival.
You mean it isn’t that way? What planet do you live on?
This is the old “argument from consequences” fallacy. The fact, or fear, that the consequences of something are unpleasant, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever upon whether it’s true or not.
The author claims to be an ex-atheist. Strange that he could have been something that he knows so little about.
I’m sorry, but it’s not that simple. One cannot assert the position that only God can define morality and then use that assertion to prove that morality cannot be established without God. That argument is so circular it should make even Christians, champions of the circular argument, dizzy.
The entire video is essentially an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Atheism is the null hypothesis. It’s the Theist that must present compelling evidence that God exists if they want to topple that hypothesis.
If you take away someone’s security blanket, don’t expect them to thank you for it. Theists will often, in a confused way, try to make atheism something it’s not. I guess somehow that reduces the threat. I was watching a video on YouTube the other day called “The Inconvenient Truth about Atheism” that did just that. Let’s consider the video’s arguments shall we.
Point #1 - The absence of proof that something exists is not proof that it does not exist. It is by faith that an atheist believes God does not exist.
This is the old absence of evidence is not evidence of absence argument. I honestly don’t know what people mean by “proof.” One can only “prove” something in mathematics and formal deductive logic. Everywhere else it’s only “evidence” of varying strength.
The burden of proof is on the positive claim. In this particular case it is upon the theist to present compelling evidence for the existence of God not for the Atheist to present evidence for his (her? Its?) nonexistence.
Besides, atheism is not only based upon an absence of evidence, it is also based upon evidence of absence. The problem of evil provides compelling evidence, if not for the absence of all gods, then at least for the absence of the Christian definition of God.
While one cannot prove the negative that no gods exist, one can prove that a specific god does not exist. For instance, the Christian God is a logical contradiction. A being cannot be all powerful and all knowing yet be susceptible to the prayers of mortals. A deity cannot be perfectly just and perfectly loving yet create cancers that kill innocent little girls.
It is not by faith that an atheist rejects the existence of God. It is by a combination of the lack of evidence that he (she? It?) does exist combined with evidence that he (she? It?) does not. In other words, it’s an opinion based upon the evidence that exists as well as the evidence that does not exist.
Point #2 - In fervently seeking to convert anybody they can to their faith atheism is no different than every other existing religion.
By that definition every philosophy or opinion would be a religion. That is of course absurd. Like I said with respect to Point #1, atheism is not faith but an opinion. On many occasions I’ve tried to convince people of the accuracy of a particular opinion of mine. Does that automatically make it a religion?
We argue fiscal politics and economic systems ad nauseam. Does that render Capitalism and Socialism religions?
Besides, like I pointed out above, atheism is not based upon faith. Faith is by definition the acceptance of an assertion despite the lack of evidence to support it. Atheism is essentially the rational null hypothesis. It is the logical conclusion that one must assume something does not exist in the absence of evidence for its existence. When one adds to that actual evidence, such as the problem of evil, that supports the null hypothesis, the conclusion becomes even stronger.
In the absence of that rational assumption we would have to accept the existence of all manner of absurdities including purple unicorns, fairies, leprechauns and Santa Claus unless someone managed to “prove” they didn’t exist.
Point #3 - By declaring no higher authority the atheist declares each to be the lord of their own existence. To avoid being a hypocrite an atheist must defend the right of anyone to believe whatever they want.
Not really. The fallacy here is the assumption that there is one and only one source of morality and therefore only one possible “higher authority,” that which is known as “Divine Command Authority.” In the absence of a divine authority, it falls to men to decide what will be the basis of morality and define what they will accept as a “higher authority. “
If there are differing ideas about how to do that, I need not defend the right of everyone to believe whatever they want. I can try and enforce my opinion upon them and they can try to enforce theirs upon me.
The mutually agreed to "higher authority" could be as simple as the peaceful survival of the tribe, or as complicated as the glory of the empire. There is such a thing as “society” or “civilization” that most rationale men recognize as essential to their survival and evolution has established survival as the ultimate "higher authority."
We could get together and define a moral code based upon whatever ethical theory we’re comfortable with. The problem of course is in enforcing the decisions. That’s why men invented religion. It makes it a lot easier to enforce society’s rules if you convince the riff-raff they’re the will of the gods.
Consider ancient Egypt, ancient Babylon, ancient Greece and ancient Rome for instance. They established peaceful and flourishing societies without any knowledge of the Judeo-Christian God. One must either concede that Amen-Ra, Marduk and Zeus were equally valid manifestations of God or concede that a real god is not necessary for the establishment of laws and morality.
Point #4 - By declaring no higher authority the atheist declares that each person has the authority to decide what is right and wrong and cannot declare the belief of another to be wrong.
Why not? This is really the same error as the previous point. It assumes that a “higher authority” cannot be established in the absence of a deity and therefore no one is allowed to have an opinion about what is "good." This is absurd. Like I said, the simple peaceful survival of the tribe can be the “higher authority” that we agree is "good" and the majority can expell those that act in a manner deemed harmful to that survival.
What religion and theists tend to ignore is that evolution has built into us the basic need to co-operate. You know the old saying that goodness is its own reward? That’s because doing what is considered “right” makes you feel good.
The question becomes whether the definition of “right” is learned or instinctive. I suspect it’s a combination. Some things, such as protecting the young and helping the injured, are most likely instinctive while cooperating to bring down a wooly mammoth for dinner is most likely learned.
While Christianity teaches that men are fundamentally evil sinners, atheists realize that, except for the occasional sociopath, men are conditioned by natural selection to be "moral" and basic morality is instinctive. If it isn't, then how do chimpanzees, wolves and other social animals manage to survive?
Point #5 - If god does not exist then right and wrong become meaningless words.
Sigh. He’s beating the “only God can define right and wrong” to death isn’t he? Allow me to reference the Euthyphro Dilemma. Simply stated Plato’s dilemma asks the question “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”
If you go with the first option, “it’s commanded by God because it is moral,” then there must exist an independent measure of right and wrong to which even God must adhere. If you go with the second option then the concepts of “right” and “wrong” or “good” and “evil” become arbitrary based upon God’s whim. It therefore makes no non-tautological sense to call God “good.” The most you can say is that he (she? It?) is consistent.
Point #6 - You would not want to live in world with no god because it would be a no-holds barred fight to the death for temporary survival.
You mean it isn’t that way? What planet do you live on?
This is the old “argument from consequences” fallacy. The fact, or fear, that the consequences of something are unpleasant, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever upon whether it’s true or not.
The author claims to be an ex-atheist. Strange that he could have been something that he knows so little about.
I’m sorry, but it’s not that simple. One cannot assert the position that only God can define morality and then use that assertion to prove that morality cannot be established without God. That argument is so circular it should make even Christians, champions of the circular argument, dizzy.
The entire video is essentially an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Atheism is the null hypothesis. It’s the Theist that must present compelling evidence that God exists if they want to topple that hypothesis.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett
Two more empty chairs from my youth. Sigh. So many of them are empty now. So many of them. It's starting to get very lonely.
So long Michael. You were more than a little weird, but what the hell. Here's hoping you're partying somewhere with Farrah and George Carlin and Dom Deluise and all the others that entertained us way back when.
Good-bye, and thanks for the good times.
So long Michael. You were more than a little weird, but what the hell. Here's hoping you're partying somewhere with Farrah and George Carlin and Dom Deluise and all the others that entertained us way back when.
Good-bye, and thanks for the good times.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Rotation of the Earth
The earth is slowing down and the day is getting longer. I wouldn’t start making any plans for that extra time however because it only amounts to about 5 milliseconds per year. That’s 5 one thousandths of a second so in about 200 years you’ll gain about one second per year.
And that’s about where we are since the last day was calibrated to 86,400 seconds in 1820. In 2005 the current day was about 86,400.002 seconds. That’s a gain of something slightly greater than .730 seconds.
By now I’m sure you’re asking yourself “Is this something I really need to be concerned about?” Well, not really, but the slowing of the earth’s rotation is one of the arguments used by creationists to claim that evolution is impossible. Actually there are two arguments in this category; a simple one and a more sophisticated one.
Let’s talk about the simple one and the folks at Religious Tolerance first.
If you’re not familiar with “ReligiousTolerance.org” it’s a web site maintained by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance and is about as neutral a site as exists when it comes to religion. They stand for tolerance and mutual respect and say in their statement of beliefs that they believe “In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human.”
I don’t agree with them on everything and in some ways I find them rather naïve but clearly their hearts are in the right place. They tend to tread very delicately around controversial issues but do have several pages related to the evolution versus creationism question.
On one of these called “A Failed Attempt to Dialogue with Young Earth Creation Scientists” they describe a simple misunderstanding related to the slowing of the earth’s rotation and the need to add “leap seconds” in order to prevent the error from exceeding .9 seconds. The simple misunderstanding was that since leap seconds were added at the rate 0f .7 per year, that the earth was slowing at a rate of .7 seconds per year.
If you extrapolate that back 4.5 billion years it yields a rotation of about 14 minutes rather than the current 24 hours! Such a rapid rotation would have flattened the earth into a pancake which obviously didn’t happen.
Actually, the earth has slowed at a rate of somewhere between .005 and .006 seconds per year depending upon whose numbers you use. The Goddard Space Center says that the solar day is increasing 1.5 milliseconds per century which would be (.0015*365.25)/100 = .00548 seconds per year so I think I’ll use that number.
If you extrapolate that back 4.5 billion years it yields a rotation of about 13.5 hours rather than the current 24 hours, faster certainly, but well within the realm of possibility. Now please note this is a simple misunderstanding about the significance of the leap seconds leading to a simple mathematical aberration. There is no interpretation or subjectivity here, its straight fact and mathematics.
Now comes the fun part. Like I said the folks at RT are a little naïve. They contacted fifteen creationist web sites with the objective of simply pointing out the error so they could remove the argument. They looked upon this as a “win-win” situation as follows:
“The cause of creation science would benefit, because the invalid ‘proof’ of a young earth would be withdrawn. Their credibility would increase in the minds of the public.”
“The cause of evolution would benefit, because the creation scientists would have one fewer ‘proof’ of a young earth.”
So what happened? In RT’s own words, with commentary.
“One webmaster thanked us for our interest. However, they will not change their web site because it is an archive of previously published materials. Thus, accuracy is unimportant.”
Accuracy is unimportant!? An honest broker would at least note the error in order to prevent readers from being misled.
“A second webmaster responded, but said that there are no inaccuracies in Scott Huse's book.”
I assume that’s the source of the argument for that web site. Well, I beg to differ; there is clearly at least ONE inaccuracy.
“A third webmaster responded, asking for information on our identity and motivation. They also asked for more information about the error.”
Paranoid? Who’s paranoid? More information about the error!? You don’t understand arithmetic?
"A fourth webmaster thanked us for our E-mail."
Well that was nice of him.
"The remaining 11 webmasters have not replied to our E-mail."
One individual other than the webmaster “responded to our query. However, his site leaves the original error in place. He wrote that he has many quotes from scientists which suggest that many dating methods are equivocal. ‘It is not a crime to present a differing viewpoint.’”
I didn’t know arithmetic had differing viewpoints.
“None of the 15 web sites has been changed (emphasis RT’s). Persuading the webmasters of these creation science web sites to correct their error appears to be quite impossible. In fact, dialog seems to be hopeless.”
No real surprise here. The dishonesty of Christians, whether pitching creationism, biblical inerrancy, bible instruction in the public schools, the display of Christian icons in public places or the denial of gay marriage, is legendary. The dishonesty of Christians is what demonstrates that Christianity is a bankrupt philosophy undeserving of respect or adherence.
The RT folks gave it up with the following conclusion.
“The experiment has convinced the author that meaningful dialog is probably impossible. Supporters of creation science -- at least the 15 contacted -- seem to be totally resistant to change. Attempts to correct these websites are probably not worth pursuing.”
Yup, I’ve also learned that any "meaningful dialog" is impossible.
However, there is a more sophisticated creationist argument revolving around the slowing of the earth’s rotation. This combines the slowing of the earth with the receding of the moon from the earth. The CreationWiki web site provides an excellent example of this argument on its refutation of Talk Origins explanation of the slowing of the earth’s rotation.
I’m no expert in celestial physics, but there are some problems with the CreationWiki presentation starting with its estimate of .008812 seconds per year “based on data from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.”
What data? This is .0033 seconds faster than any other number I’ve seen. Second is the statement that this yields a 7 hour rotation when extrapolated back 4.5 billion years. My arithmetic yields a 10.6 hour rotation. I could be wrong, but I checked several times.
Third is the presentation of the current measured rate of recession of the moon at 3.82 cm per year. This is a measurement made possible by the three cornered mirrors left behind on the lunar surface by the Apollo astronauts. This number is important because the closer the moon is to the earth, the faster the earth should be slowing down if the moon's gravity is the dominant factor. As we shall see both this number and the assumption are sort of accurate but misleading.
Finally, CreationWiki makes the assertion that if you plug these values (.008812 seconds per year and 3.82 cm per year) into the “laws of physics,” without ever articulating those laws, one can show that the earth cannot be older than 1.2 billion years so therefore evolution is impossible.
I’m not even going to make an issue about not defining the “laws of physics.” I’m going to make three points and then present a conclusion.
Point #1 – 1.2 billion years is 120,000 times the 10,000 or so years that Young Earth Creationists claim is the age of the earth based upon an inerrant bible. So, if nothing else, the calculations have demonstrated that if the earth is anywhere near that old, the bible is not inerrant and therefore fundamentalist Christianity is a false teaching. Of course that is the upper limit so I guess it's possible for the earth to be only 10,000 years old, just terribly unlikely given the range of options.
Point #2 – Like I said before, I don’t know where the .008812 seconds per year number came from, everyone else’s number is closer to .0054 seconds per year. You’ll excuse me if I take the word of NASA rather than a vague claim “based on data from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics” which isn't identified.
Point #3 – The current recession of the moon at 3.82 cm per year has been shown to be abnormally high. The rate of recession is affected by continental drift and was much slower in the past. Two converging pieces of evidence demonstrate this. The first are computer models which take into account the effect of continental drift and the second is paleontological evidence based upon the study of tidal rhythmites (sediment). The rhythmites indicate that between 2.5 billion years ago and 650 million years ago the lunar recession had a mean of around 1.27 cm per year and between 650 million years ago and today, the mean was around 2.16 cm per year.
Conclusion – When you take into account the reduced current slowdown and the reduced recession rates and plug them into the same “laws of physics” you get, TA-DA, about 4.5 billion years or so. Therefore the only thing CreationWiki managed to show was that most likely the bible is wrong and fundamentalist Christianity is a crock, but we all already knew that.
Actually this is not on the same order as the simple case. Here, there is much to discuss about which are the right numbers, the validity of the computer models, the precise calculations to be used and the trustworthiness of the conclusions from the rhythmite studies.
The problem is that all the information I've presented is readily available. If you disagree with it, acknowledge it and show why you believe it’s invalid. You cannot simply ignore it because it ruins your calculations.
I might be wrong but I've presented both sets of numbers and arguments and explained why I don't believe I am. That's what science is all about. It's about dealing with the facts as they are understood even if those facts indicate you might be wrong.
This would be the perfect opportunity for a "meaningful dialogue." But as the folks from Religious Tolerance discovered, that's almost impossible with a creationist.
And that’s about where we are since the last day was calibrated to 86,400 seconds in 1820. In 2005 the current day was about 86,400.002 seconds. That’s a gain of something slightly greater than .730 seconds.
By now I’m sure you’re asking yourself “Is this something I really need to be concerned about?” Well, not really, but the slowing of the earth’s rotation is one of the arguments used by creationists to claim that evolution is impossible. Actually there are two arguments in this category; a simple one and a more sophisticated one.
Let’s talk about the simple one and the folks at Religious Tolerance first.
If you’re not familiar with “ReligiousTolerance.org” it’s a web site maintained by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance and is about as neutral a site as exists when it comes to religion. They stand for tolerance and mutual respect and say in their statement of beliefs that they believe “In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human.”
I don’t agree with them on everything and in some ways I find them rather naïve but clearly their hearts are in the right place. They tend to tread very delicately around controversial issues but do have several pages related to the evolution versus creationism question.
On one of these called “A Failed Attempt to Dialogue with Young Earth Creation Scientists” they describe a simple misunderstanding related to the slowing of the earth’s rotation and the need to add “leap seconds” in order to prevent the error from exceeding .9 seconds. The simple misunderstanding was that since leap seconds were added at the rate 0f .7 per year, that the earth was slowing at a rate of .7 seconds per year.
If you extrapolate that back 4.5 billion years it yields a rotation of about 14 minutes rather than the current 24 hours! Such a rapid rotation would have flattened the earth into a pancake which obviously didn’t happen.
Actually, the earth has slowed at a rate of somewhere between .005 and .006 seconds per year depending upon whose numbers you use. The Goddard Space Center says that the solar day is increasing 1.5 milliseconds per century which would be (.0015*365.25)/100 = .00548 seconds per year so I think I’ll use that number.
If you extrapolate that back 4.5 billion years it yields a rotation of about 13.5 hours rather than the current 24 hours, faster certainly, but well within the realm of possibility. Now please note this is a simple misunderstanding about the significance of the leap seconds leading to a simple mathematical aberration. There is no interpretation or subjectivity here, its straight fact and mathematics.
Now comes the fun part. Like I said the folks at RT are a little naïve. They contacted fifteen creationist web sites with the objective of simply pointing out the error so they could remove the argument. They looked upon this as a “win-win” situation as follows:
“The cause of creation science would benefit, because the invalid ‘proof’ of a young earth would be withdrawn. Their credibility would increase in the minds of the public.”
“The cause of evolution would benefit, because the creation scientists would have one fewer ‘proof’ of a young earth.”
So what happened? In RT’s own words, with commentary.
“One webmaster thanked us for our interest. However, they will not change their web site because it is an archive of previously published materials. Thus, accuracy is unimportant.”
Accuracy is unimportant!? An honest broker would at least note the error in order to prevent readers from being misled.
“A second webmaster responded, but said that there are no inaccuracies in Scott Huse's book.”
I assume that’s the source of the argument for that web site. Well, I beg to differ; there is clearly at least ONE inaccuracy.
“A third webmaster responded, asking for information on our identity and motivation. They also asked for more information about the error.”
Paranoid? Who’s paranoid? More information about the error!? You don’t understand arithmetic?
"A fourth webmaster thanked us for our E-mail."
Well that was nice of him.
"The remaining 11 webmasters have not replied to our E-mail."
One individual other than the webmaster “responded to our query. However, his site leaves the original error in place. He wrote that he has many quotes from scientists which suggest that many dating methods are equivocal. ‘It is not a crime to present a differing viewpoint.’”
I didn’t know arithmetic had differing viewpoints.
“None of the 15 web sites has been changed (emphasis RT’s). Persuading the webmasters of these creation science web sites to correct their error appears to be quite impossible. In fact, dialog seems to be hopeless.”
No real surprise here. The dishonesty of Christians, whether pitching creationism, biblical inerrancy, bible instruction in the public schools, the display of Christian icons in public places or the denial of gay marriage, is legendary. The dishonesty of Christians is what demonstrates that Christianity is a bankrupt philosophy undeserving of respect or adherence.
The RT folks gave it up with the following conclusion.
“The experiment has convinced the author that meaningful dialog is probably impossible. Supporters of creation science -- at least the 15 contacted -- seem to be totally resistant to change. Attempts to correct these websites are probably not worth pursuing.”
Yup, I’ve also learned that any "meaningful dialog" is impossible.
However, there is a more sophisticated creationist argument revolving around the slowing of the earth’s rotation. This combines the slowing of the earth with the receding of the moon from the earth. The CreationWiki web site provides an excellent example of this argument on its refutation of Talk Origins explanation of the slowing of the earth’s rotation.
I’m no expert in celestial physics, but there are some problems with the CreationWiki presentation starting with its estimate of .008812 seconds per year “based on data from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.”
What data? This is .0033 seconds faster than any other number I’ve seen. Second is the statement that this yields a 7 hour rotation when extrapolated back 4.5 billion years. My arithmetic yields a 10.6 hour rotation. I could be wrong, but I checked several times.
Third is the presentation of the current measured rate of recession of the moon at 3.82 cm per year. This is a measurement made possible by the three cornered mirrors left behind on the lunar surface by the Apollo astronauts. This number is important because the closer the moon is to the earth, the faster the earth should be slowing down if the moon's gravity is the dominant factor. As we shall see both this number and the assumption are sort of accurate but misleading.
Finally, CreationWiki makes the assertion that if you plug these values (.008812 seconds per year and 3.82 cm per year) into the “laws of physics,” without ever articulating those laws, one can show that the earth cannot be older than 1.2 billion years so therefore evolution is impossible.
I’m not even going to make an issue about not defining the “laws of physics.” I’m going to make three points and then present a conclusion.
Point #1 – 1.2 billion years is 120,000 times the 10,000 or so years that Young Earth Creationists claim is the age of the earth based upon an inerrant bible. So, if nothing else, the calculations have demonstrated that if the earth is anywhere near that old, the bible is not inerrant and therefore fundamentalist Christianity is a false teaching. Of course that is the upper limit so I guess it's possible for the earth to be only 10,000 years old, just terribly unlikely given the range of options.
Point #2 – Like I said before, I don’t know where the .008812 seconds per year number came from, everyone else’s number is closer to .0054 seconds per year. You’ll excuse me if I take the word of NASA rather than a vague claim “based on data from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics” which isn't identified.
Point #3 – The current recession of the moon at 3.82 cm per year has been shown to be abnormally high. The rate of recession is affected by continental drift and was much slower in the past. Two converging pieces of evidence demonstrate this. The first are computer models which take into account the effect of continental drift and the second is paleontological evidence based upon the study of tidal rhythmites (sediment). The rhythmites indicate that between 2.5 billion years ago and 650 million years ago the lunar recession had a mean of around 1.27 cm per year and between 650 million years ago and today, the mean was around 2.16 cm per year.
Conclusion – When you take into account the reduced current slowdown and the reduced recession rates and plug them into the same “laws of physics” you get, TA-DA, about 4.5 billion years or so. Therefore the only thing CreationWiki managed to show was that most likely the bible is wrong and fundamentalist Christianity is a crock, but we all already knew that.
Actually this is not on the same order as the simple case. Here, there is much to discuss about which are the right numbers, the validity of the computer models, the precise calculations to be used and the trustworthiness of the conclusions from the rhythmite studies.
The problem is that all the information I've presented is readily available. If you disagree with it, acknowledge it and show why you believe it’s invalid. You cannot simply ignore it because it ruins your calculations.
I might be wrong but I've presented both sets of numbers and arguments and explained why I don't believe I am. That's what science is all about. It's about dealing with the facts as they are understood even if those facts indicate you might be wrong.
This would be the perfect opportunity for a "meaningful dialogue." But as the folks from Religious Tolerance discovered, that's almost impossible with a creationist.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Of God and Men
What would be your opinion of a man that had the power to save the life of a child but chose not to do so?
Did you read the story of the little girl in California named Colby as reported by the AP? Ten year old Colby wanted very much to see Pixar’s latest movie “Up.” Her parents would have been happy to take her but Colby was far too ill to leave home. You see she was diagnosed with vascular cancer when she was six years old.
A family friend contacted Pixar and the company sent an employee to Colby’s home with the movie on a DVD for a private showing. He also brought with him stuffed dolls of the main characters and other movie memorabilia. Colby was so weak she couldn’t even open her eyes to watch. Her mother had to describe each scene to her. Yet she enjoyed the movie immensely while the Pixar messenger and other family members and friends could only watch helplessly with tears in their eyes.
If any of the onlookers had the power to save Colby do you imagine that anything in the universe could have prevented them from doing so? They were helpless but what about this so-called God?
He’s supposed to be all powerful. Christians tell me that he helps them find their car keys when they lose them. He’s supposed to have created man from dust and woman from the rib of man. He’s supposed to have created everything. So WTF was this God thinking when he created a cancer that can destroy innocent little girls who just want to be able to watch the movie “Up?”
Please tell me what greater purpose could possibly be served by this child becoming deathly ill? A man, any man, would have cured this child if he could. A God who supposedly has the power to cure this child chose not to.
So who is morally superior, the God or the man?
At least Colby got to enjoy the movie she so badly wanted to see. She died later that same night.
Did you read the story of the little girl in California named Colby as reported by the AP? Ten year old Colby wanted very much to see Pixar’s latest movie “Up.” Her parents would have been happy to take her but Colby was far too ill to leave home. You see she was diagnosed with vascular cancer when she was six years old.
A family friend contacted Pixar and the company sent an employee to Colby’s home with the movie on a DVD for a private showing. He also brought with him stuffed dolls of the main characters and other movie memorabilia. Colby was so weak she couldn’t even open her eyes to watch. Her mother had to describe each scene to her. Yet she enjoyed the movie immensely while the Pixar messenger and other family members and friends could only watch helplessly with tears in their eyes.
If any of the onlookers had the power to save Colby do you imagine that anything in the universe could have prevented them from doing so? They were helpless but what about this so-called God?
He’s supposed to be all powerful. Christians tell me that he helps them find their car keys when they lose them. He’s supposed to have created man from dust and woman from the rib of man. He’s supposed to have created everything. So WTF was this God thinking when he created a cancer that can destroy innocent little girls who just want to be able to watch the movie “Up?”
Please tell me what greater purpose could possibly be served by this child becoming deathly ill? A man, any man, would have cured this child if he could. A God who supposedly has the power to cure this child chose not to.
So who is morally superior, the God or the man?
At least Colby got to enjoy the movie she so badly wanted to see. She died later that same night.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Iranian Elections
I don’t know what the hell is going on in Iran but we should keep our noses out of it. I don’t know if there were irregularities or not but I sort of doubt it.
Regardless, it’s an internal affair that we should STFU about and let them work it out. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is something of a chowder head but we elected George Bush twice! I sort of believe the numbers to be honest with you.
I like Iranians. All the ones I’ve met are good people. I suspect Americans and Iranians have a lot more in common than our respective governments are willing to admit. I think if given the chance they’ll work their way out of their current aberration. We got rid of the Republicans didn’t we? At least temporarily.
Regardless, it’s an internal affair that we should STFU about and let them work it out. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is something of a chowder head but we elected George Bush twice! I sort of believe the numbers to be honest with you.
I like Iranians. All the ones I’ve met are good people. I suspect Americans and Iranians have a lot more in common than our respective governments are willing to admit. I think if given the chance they’ll work their way out of their current aberration. We got rid of the Republicans didn’t we? At least temporarily.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The sixth Harry Potter movie is scheduled for release in about a month. I’ll probably go see it in the first couple of weeks because I think Harry Potter is cool and a lot of fun. I’ve read all the books.
I got started when my wife, an elementary school teacher, bought and read the first book out of curiosity. She told me to check it out and I was hooked.
I thought the whole concept was wonderfully creative. It was something new in a society that seems happier to rehash old successes rather than constructing new ones.
The Harry Potter series made kids excited about reading. Everyone was happy. The kids were happy, their parents were happy and teachers and school administrators were simply tickled pink.
Did I say everyone? Well, not quite. Fundamentalists Christians weren’t and still aren’t. Why? Because the heroes of the stories are wizards and witches that flew brooms and cast spells. To their confused medieval mindset this somehow equated to evil.
Doesn’t the bible say in Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?” Well, maybe. According to the NIV Exodus 22:18 says “Do not allow a sorceress to live” which I guess is sort of the same thing right?
Let’s look a little closer. The Hebrew term for witchcraft is “keeshoof” which means sorcery or magic. The word for a female that practices magic, or what we would call a witch, is “mekhashah” which is derived from the verb “mekhash” which means “to bewitch.” A male who uses magic would be a “mekhashef.” So Harry Potter is a “mekhashef” in Hebrew.
But the word used in Exodus 22:18 is “kashaph” which, regardless of what Strong’s Concordance says, may not mean sorcerer or witch. A better translation might in fact be “herbalist” or one who has a knowledge of herbs or one who administers herbs.
Some folks claim that this implies that Exodus 22:18 condemns “poisoners,” but someone who knows herbs isn’t necessarily a murderer. I have a darker explanation. I think this is a warning against the budding science of pharmacology and those capable of using herbs to help fight sickness. Such knowledge would infringe upon the province of the gods and the priesthood.
It’s just another example of the stupidity of religion. Imagine where we’d be as a civilization if we hadn’t had religion holding us back for 3,000 years or more.
I got started when my wife, an elementary school teacher, bought and read the first book out of curiosity. She told me to check it out and I was hooked.
I thought the whole concept was wonderfully creative. It was something new in a society that seems happier to rehash old successes rather than constructing new ones.
The Harry Potter series made kids excited about reading. Everyone was happy. The kids were happy, their parents were happy and teachers and school administrators were simply tickled pink.
Did I say everyone? Well, not quite. Fundamentalists Christians weren’t and still aren’t. Why? Because the heroes of the stories are wizards and witches that flew brooms and cast spells. To their confused medieval mindset this somehow equated to evil.
Doesn’t the bible say in Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?” Well, maybe. According to the NIV Exodus 22:18 says “Do not allow a sorceress to live” which I guess is sort of the same thing right?
Let’s look a little closer. The Hebrew term for witchcraft is “keeshoof” which means sorcery or magic. The word for a female that practices magic, or what we would call a witch, is “mekhashah” which is derived from the verb “mekhash” which means “to bewitch.” A male who uses magic would be a “mekhashef.” So Harry Potter is a “mekhashef” in Hebrew.
But the word used in Exodus 22:18 is “kashaph” which, regardless of what Strong’s Concordance says, may not mean sorcerer or witch. A better translation might in fact be “herbalist” or one who has a knowledge of herbs or one who administers herbs.
Some folks claim that this implies that Exodus 22:18 condemns “poisoners,” but someone who knows herbs isn’t necessarily a murderer. I have a darker explanation. I think this is a warning against the budding science of pharmacology and those capable of using herbs to help fight sickness. Such knowledge would infringe upon the province of the gods and the priesthood.
It’s just another example of the stupidity of religion. Imagine where we’d be as a civilization if we hadn’t had religion holding us back for 3,000 years or more.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Letterman’s Palin Joke
I have no patience for Sarah Palin. I think she’s a fundamentalist yahoo without half a brain, but making sexist jokes on national television about her daughter is definitely not acceptable.
Public figures are legal targets for criticism and comedic jabs whether those jabs are tasteful or not. But the children of public figures most certainly are not.
What you did was very uncool Little Davey.
Public figures are legal targets for criticism and comedic jabs whether those jabs are tasteful or not. But the children of public figures most certainly are not.
What you did was very uncool Little Davey.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Obama’s Speech to the Muslim World
I make no secret about the fact that I distrust Islam. Despite arguments and protests to the contrary by some Muslims, the recent history of that culture displays an appalling tendency toward violence, intolerance and ignorance.
On the other hand, people are people and maybe if we stopped fighting and talked about it honestly, we would find more common ground than expected and perhaps learn better how to get along.
Hey, you never know, it’s possible. So I guess I applaud Obama’s attempt to reach out to the Muslim world. If I sound less than overwhelmingly enthusiastic it’s because I’m still suspicious that there is some endemic characteristic of Islam that makes it more amenable to fanaticism than even other religions.
As much as I like to equate fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalists Christians, they’re not really the same. They’re both nuts but the Muslims somehow seem to be even further over the edge into la-la land than the Christians. At least Pat Robertson isn’t pushing for honor killings and Ray Comfort isn’t screeching that apostasy should be punished by death.
On the other hand, people are people and maybe if we stopped fighting and talked about it honestly, we would find more common ground than expected and perhaps learn better how to get along.
Hey, you never know, it’s possible. So I guess I applaud Obama’s attempt to reach out to the Muslim world. If I sound less than overwhelmingly enthusiastic it’s because I’m still suspicious that there is some endemic characteristic of Islam that makes it more amenable to fanaticism than even other religions.
As much as I like to equate fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalists Christians, they’re not really the same. They’re both nuts but the Muslims somehow seem to be even further over the edge into la-la land than the Christians. At least Pat Robertson isn’t pushing for honor killings and Ray Comfort isn’t screeching that apostasy should be punished by death.
Who defines what is sin?
Religious types are always ranting and raving about what they call sin. But who gets to define what is sin and what is not?
In Romans 3:20 Paul says “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his (God’s) sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”
I suspect that if you asked Christians what comprised “The Law,” many would say The 10 Commandments. But this wouldn’t be correct. The law is the law of the Hebrew Torah which consists of a lot more than the 10 Commandments. The Torah contains 613 Mitzvot or laws.
As a matter of fact, The 10 Commandments aren’t even laws or commandments. In the original Hebrew of the bible they are referred to as the Aseret ha-D'varim. One could translate this to mean the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements or perhaps the Ten Things, but not The Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot.
The Ten Commandments aren’t individual laws; they are categories of laws. There aren’t Ten Commandments plus 603 other laws. There are 613 laws which fit into one of the ten categories derived from the Aseret ha-D'varim.
Nor are any of the 613 laws considered more or less important than any of the others. All are equally sacred and equally binding. Perhaps this is why the Epistle of James states in James 2:10 “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it”.
The problem is these laws are 3,000 years old. Some of them have clearly been overtaken by events and are no longer meaningful. Others would be considered repulsive in modern society and still others are open to wildly varying interpretation.
So who decides which laws if not followed result in sin? Which laws can be safely ignored, and how different laws are to be interpreted? This is sort of especially important if they were all originally thought of as equally binding or if in breaking one you break all.
The Catholics have it easy. They have a hierarchy and an infallible (within the sphere of faith and morals) Pope. What about everyone else? Who’s the authority and who decided he was in charge?
I guess fundies don’t care. They need to grovel on a regular basis and declare they’re miserable sinners that don’t deserve any mercy and then ask poor Jesus to forgive them anyway. They don’t need to keep track of which sins they’ve committed; they just need to admit they’ve committed them even if they can’t figure out exactly what they may have been.
As Christopher Hitchens points out in “God is Not Great,” a fundamental principle of Totalitarianism is a system of laws that is essentially arbitrary or impossible to fully comprehend. What makes this an effective controlling mechanism is one can never be sure if one is breaking, or has broken, the law. This means you live in constant uncertainty, uncertainty leads to fear and frightened people are so much easier to control.
Therefore one can make the argument that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a Totalitarian system that substitutes a heavenly leader for an earthly one. Or, in reality, Totalitarianism is a religion which substitutes an earthly god for a heavenly one. This is why I don’t buy the Hitler and Stalin arguments people throw around when they try to convince me how useful religion is.
But none of that answers my original question. Who decides what constitutes sin? Each man can’t decide for himself because that would be moral relativism and don’t religions claim morality is based upon Divine Authority? So who speaks for God?
In Romans 3:20 Paul says “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his (God’s) sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”
I suspect that if you asked Christians what comprised “The Law,” many would say The 10 Commandments. But this wouldn’t be correct. The law is the law of the Hebrew Torah which consists of a lot more than the 10 Commandments. The Torah contains 613 Mitzvot or laws.
As a matter of fact, The 10 Commandments aren’t even laws or commandments. In the original Hebrew of the bible they are referred to as the Aseret ha-D'varim. One could translate this to mean the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements or perhaps the Ten Things, but not The Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot.
The Ten Commandments aren’t individual laws; they are categories of laws. There aren’t Ten Commandments plus 603 other laws. There are 613 laws which fit into one of the ten categories derived from the Aseret ha-D'varim.
Nor are any of the 613 laws considered more or less important than any of the others. All are equally sacred and equally binding. Perhaps this is why the Epistle of James states in James 2:10 “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it”.
The problem is these laws are 3,000 years old. Some of them have clearly been overtaken by events and are no longer meaningful. Others would be considered repulsive in modern society and still others are open to wildly varying interpretation.
So who decides which laws if not followed result in sin? Which laws can be safely ignored, and how different laws are to be interpreted? This is sort of especially important if they were all originally thought of as equally binding or if in breaking one you break all.
The Catholics have it easy. They have a hierarchy and an infallible (within the sphere of faith and morals) Pope. What about everyone else? Who’s the authority and who decided he was in charge?
I guess fundies don’t care. They need to grovel on a regular basis and declare they’re miserable sinners that don’t deserve any mercy and then ask poor Jesus to forgive them anyway. They don’t need to keep track of which sins they’ve committed; they just need to admit they’ve committed them even if they can’t figure out exactly what they may have been.
As Christopher Hitchens points out in “God is Not Great,” a fundamental principle of Totalitarianism is a system of laws that is essentially arbitrary or impossible to fully comprehend. What makes this an effective controlling mechanism is one can never be sure if one is breaking, or has broken, the law. This means you live in constant uncertainty, uncertainty leads to fear and frightened people are so much easier to control.
Therefore one can make the argument that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a Totalitarian system that substitutes a heavenly leader for an earthly one. Or, in reality, Totalitarianism is a religion which substitutes an earthly god for a heavenly one. This is why I don’t buy the Hitler and Stalin arguments people throw around when they try to convince me how useful religion is.
But none of that answers my original question. Who decides what constitutes sin? Each man can’t decide for himself because that would be moral relativism and don’t religions claim morality is based upon Divine Authority? So who speaks for God?
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
And Then There Were Six
With the signature of Governor John Lynch, New Hampshire becomes the sixth state to legalize Gay Marriage. I salute Governor Lynch for signing the bill into law despite personal opposition to Gay Marriage.
The next up are New Jersey, New York and Little Rhody, the sole holdout in New England.
The next up are New Jersey, New York and Little Rhody, the sole holdout in New England.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Obama's Choice for Supreme Court
That would be Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Not the flaming Liberal I would have preferred but a darn good choice that puts the Republicans in a bit of a pickle.
Any significant attempt to block her confirmation is going to make them look like the self centered obstructionists they are. Just a gaggle of arrogant SOBs ready to oppose anything simply for partisan reasons rather than considering what's good for the country.
And they call themselves patriots.
However, on the down side I see that the Center for Inquiry is extending a tentative endorsement. CFI thinks Sotomayor's stand on the Separation of Church and State is a tad murky.
Somehow I doubt she's going to line up with Scalia and Thomas and try to erase the idea that government must be neutral with respect to religion versus non-religion as well as neutral with respect to different religions.
Any significant attempt to block her confirmation is going to make them look like the self centered obstructionists they are. Just a gaggle of arrogant SOBs ready to oppose anything simply for partisan reasons rather than considering what's good for the country.
And they call themselves patriots.
However, on the down side I see that the Center for Inquiry is extending a tentative endorsement. CFI thinks Sotomayor's stand on the Separation of Church and State is a tad murky.
Somehow I doubt she's going to line up with Scalia and Thomas and try to erase the idea that government must be neutral with respect to religion versus non-religion as well as neutral with respect to different religions.
California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8
The California Supreme Court today decided that it’s ok for voters to amend the Constitution in order to outlaw same sex marriage.
The decision is a disappointment, but not really surprising. On the plus side, the court ruled that the 18,000 marriages performed while it was legal stand.
This decision implies that there is something fundamentally different about the minority called gays. For some reason you’re allowed to discriminate against gays and gays don’t have the same rights as other minorities.
I’d like to ask the California Supreme Court exactly what that fundamental difference is?
I’d also like to ask the African American and Catholic voters who for voted for Proposition 8 why, since it’s ok to discriminate against gays, it’s not ok to discriminate against Catholics and Blacks?
I’d especially like to hear it from Blacks. Why was it ok for non-blacks to fight to help them secure their rights in the 1960s but now they believe it’s ok to vote away someone else’s rights? I remember the fire hoses, the dogs and the blood. Apparently too many Black Californians don’t.
Ok, enough with the whining. There's only one more thing I'd like to say. This isn't the end of the fight. It's a setback yes, but only a temporary one. It's a longer journey but now we'll just have to get Proposition 8 repealed by doing a better job of explaining to the voters why it's so terribly wrong to let it stand.
Victory is certain. The only questions are how long will it take and what will be the cost. “So comrades, come rally, and the last fight let us face.”
The decision is a disappointment, but not really surprising. On the plus side, the court ruled that the 18,000 marriages performed while it was legal stand.
This decision implies that there is something fundamentally different about the minority called gays. For some reason you’re allowed to discriminate against gays and gays don’t have the same rights as other minorities.
I’d like to ask the California Supreme Court exactly what that fundamental difference is?
I’d also like to ask the African American and Catholic voters who for voted for Proposition 8 why, since it’s ok to discriminate against gays, it’s not ok to discriminate against Catholics and Blacks?
I’d especially like to hear it from Blacks. Why was it ok for non-blacks to fight to help them secure their rights in the 1960s but now they believe it’s ok to vote away someone else’s rights? I remember the fire hoses, the dogs and the blood. Apparently too many Black Californians don’t.
Ok, enough with the whining. There's only one more thing I'd like to say. This isn't the end of the fight. It's a setback yes, but only a temporary one. It's a longer journey but now we'll just have to get Proposition 8 repealed by doing a better job of explaining to the voters why it's so terribly wrong to let it stand.
Victory is certain. The only questions are how long will it take and what will be the cost. “So comrades, come rally, and the last fight let us face.”
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Word of God?
I got hit with the last ditch Creationist defense the other day, “Evolution can’t be right because it contradicts the Word of God.”
Of course by the Word of God the fundie meant the Book of Genesis in the Bible. That’s when it hit me. If you’re looking for the Word of God in some book, allow me to suggest that you are looking for it in the wrong place. If the Word of God is to be found, it’s to be found in Nature. It’s to be found in the wondrous variety of living things and in the laws of the universe.
Ironically it’s science that is searching in the right place and the faithful who are looking in the wrong place. You will excuse me, but if Nature contradicts some musty old book, I’ll go with Nature.
Of course by the Word of God the fundie meant the Book of Genesis in the Bible. That’s when it hit me. If you’re looking for the Word of God in some book, allow me to suggest that you are looking for it in the wrong place. If the Word of God is to be found, it’s to be found in Nature. It’s to be found in the wondrous variety of living things and in the laws of the universe.
Ironically it’s science that is searching in the right place and the faithful who are looking in the wrong place. You will excuse me, but if Nature contradicts some musty old book, I’ll go with Nature.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Republic is Safe
As soon as I saw this picture any doubts that I may have had about the safety of the Republic vanished in a twinkling.
As long as we have men with the courage to engage in combat wearing pink “I love NY” undies and flip-flops, we have nothing to fear from anyone.Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
A Christian's Grip on Reality
Here's a wonderful quote from a Christian on Global Warming.
"The average global temperature has DROPPED over the past 12 years. Don't give me this man-made global warming nonsense. God, and God alone is responsible for the climate conditions here on earth. It is nothing short of presumed arrogance to think that we can destroy what God has made."
The global temperature has been dropped for the past 12 years? Really? Where are you getting your information from, your pastor?
Here’s a quote from the Earth Policy Institute about 2007, the second warmest year on record.
“The year 2007 fits into a pattern of steadily increasing global average temperature, with the eight warmest years on record all occurring in the last decade.”
Don’t take my word for it though, check it out here http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008.htm.
Don’t take their word for it either, check out any of a dozen or so sites with the same information. Are they all in a vast conspiracy with Al Gore to destroy Christianity and Capitalism?
You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
The average global temperature has been getting warmer; that’s a fact. The warmer average temperatures are melting glaciers, ice caps and ice pack; that’s also a fact. If this trend continues much longer the effects could be catastrophic; that is also a fact.
The only questions are whether this is part of a natural warming cycle or caused by human activity and whether or not there is anything we can do about it. The general consensus in the scientific community is that human activity is at least partially responsible.
If your god is controlling the global temperature then he’s pushing the world toward the brink of disaster. Maybe you should ask him to knock it off.
"The average global temperature has DROPPED over the past 12 years. Don't give me this man-made global warming nonsense. God, and God alone is responsible for the climate conditions here on earth. It is nothing short of presumed arrogance to think that we can destroy what God has made."
The global temperature has been dropped for the past 12 years? Really? Where are you getting your information from, your pastor?
Here’s a quote from the Earth Policy Institute about 2007, the second warmest year on record.
“The year 2007 fits into a pattern of steadily increasing global average temperature, with the eight warmest years on record all occurring in the last decade.”
Don’t take my word for it though, check it out here http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008.htm.
Don’t take their word for it either, check out any of a dozen or so sites with the same information. Are they all in a vast conspiracy with Al Gore to destroy Christianity and Capitalism?
You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
The average global temperature has been getting warmer; that’s a fact. The warmer average temperatures are melting glaciers, ice caps and ice pack; that’s also a fact. If this trend continues much longer the effects could be catastrophic; that is also a fact.
The only questions are whether this is part of a natural warming cycle or caused by human activity and whether or not there is anything we can do about it. The general consensus in the scientific community is that human activity is at least partially responsible.
If your god is controlling the global temperature then he’s pushing the world toward the brink of disaster. Maybe you should ask him to knock it off.
Hello Ida Baby!
Or should I say GRANDMA!
Ah yes, Darwinius Masillae, nicknamed Ida, is a 47 million year old fossil unveiled in New York after being under study in relative secret for over two years at Oslo University. Ida may be from a species on the branch of the tree that connects primates to the rest of the animal kingdom.
The media is going ga-ga over the specimen and Evangelical Christians are calling it everything from meaningless to bogus.
As far as I can tell Ida looks like another rock on the mountain of evidence supporting evolution. It’s unlikely she’s anyone’s direct Great lots of times Grandma though because she appears to have been about only nine months old when she died.
I’m never amazed by the Faithfull’s ability to arbitrarily dismiss anything that doesn’t fit their narrow view of reality. You think we could fool them into thinking the Rapture is occurring and dump them all somewhere in Kansas?
Ah yes, Darwinius Masillae, nicknamed Ida, is a 47 million year old fossil unveiled in New York after being under study in relative secret for over two years at Oslo University. Ida may be from a species on the branch of the tree that connects primates to the rest of the animal kingdom.
The media is going ga-ga over the specimen and Evangelical Christians are calling it everything from meaningless to bogus.
As far as I can tell Ida looks like another rock on the mountain of evidence supporting evolution. It’s unlikely she’s anyone’s direct Great lots of times Grandma though because she appears to have been about only nine months old when she died.
I’m never amazed by the Faithfull’s ability to arbitrarily dismiss anything that doesn’t fit their narrow view of reality. You think we could fool them into thinking the Rapture is occurring and dump them all somewhere in Kansas?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
What’s in a name?
The "Christian Children’s Fund" (CCF) has apparently decided to change its name. As of July 1st it will be "ChildFund International."
Fox news had a segment with a clearly incensed female interviewer interviewing a clearly incensed female interviewee. The interviewee was called the “ex-donator” because she would no longer support the organization after the current child she is sponsoring leaves the program. Of course they were incensed about CCF’s decision to drop the “Christian” in its name.
After the general ranting and raving, they went on to exclaim how Christians were eventually going to rise up from their pews and put an end to such rampant political correctness.
Apparently the interviewee had called CCF and complained. She reported they told her two things. First they said they believed in “truth in advertising.” Then later, after that had clearly failed to soothe her outrage, explained that despite the change in name they were going to continue doing “what they’ve always done.”
Now here’s the good part. CCF is a nonsectarian organization. Despite the name, they do no missionary work. As a matter of fact in 2004, Wall Watchers, a Christian Watch Dog organization, sent an alert saying that CCF wasn’t “Christian” in the way most Christian organizations are viewed because it didn’t bring the gospel along with the more practical charity. Wall Watchers actually accused CCF of purposely misleading people with their name.
Clearly our interviewer and interviewee were of the impression that CCF was a Christian missionary organization that was dropping the “Christian” due to pressure from left wing atheist liberals. It’s a little unlikely they were both incensed about a non-Christian organization dropping the misleading “Christian” from its name isn’t it? Far more likely the wrath was because what was believed to be a Christian organization was dropping “Christian” from its name in order to be more “politically correct,” whatever the hell that means.
So I guess that’s where the “truth in advertising” bit comes in. At first the person she spoke to was being perfectly honest with our enraged interviewee and then, I guess after he or she figured out the interviewee had never bothered to find out that a charity she had supported for years upon years wasn’t a missionary organization, sort of planted the tongue into the cheek a little bit by assuring her they would continue doing “what they’ve always done.”
Of course “what they’ve always done” wasn’t what our incensed Christian apparently thought they’ve always done.
In the meantime the incensed interviewer never pointed out to the interviewee that CCF does no missionary work and thus the name is a tad misleading so I suspect she didn’t have the right scoop either.
So what’s the point of this? The first is to point out that Fox news is run by a bunch of morons for morons. But that’s obvious to anyone who’s ever watched it.
The second is to poke some fun at the incensed interviewee. Apparently based upon the name she thought she was supporting a missionary organization. I can’t say as I blame her, it’s an honest mistake and easy to understand, but if she had really cared that much, she could have checked it out.
Lastly I want to consider a little the right and wrong of the situation. Clearly CCF is right to drop the Christian out of the name. It is definitely misleading.
Our incensed interviewee is sort of right too. If there are multiple charities performing the same sort of work, and there are several similar to CCF including Save the Children and World Vision, and one prefers a charity that also includes missionary work or vice-versa, then one should be able to choose to which charity one donates. Our interviewee was apparently fooled by the name and made an unwarranted assumption. Not realizing that CCF was doing the ethical thing and getting upset over it made her look like a real dummy.
Fox news however has no excuse. They’d aired an interview based upon a total lack of research into the topic. At the very least they should have talked to CCF to get their side of the story. Instead they looked more than a little silly.
Of course it is possible that Fox understood the situation quite well but thought this would be a better story for their bible thumping audience, but I try not to attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity.
Fox news had a segment with a clearly incensed female interviewer interviewing a clearly incensed female interviewee. The interviewee was called the “ex-donator” because she would no longer support the organization after the current child she is sponsoring leaves the program. Of course they were incensed about CCF’s decision to drop the “Christian” in its name.
After the general ranting and raving, they went on to exclaim how Christians were eventually going to rise up from their pews and put an end to such rampant political correctness.
Apparently the interviewee had called CCF and complained. She reported they told her two things. First they said they believed in “truth in advertising.” Then later, after that had clearly failed to soothe her outrage, explained that despite the change in name they were going to continue doing “what they’ve always done.”
Now here’s the good part. CCF is a nonsectarian organization. Despite the name, they do no missionary work. As a matter of fact in 2004, Wall Watchers, a Christian Watch Dog organization, sent an alert saying that CCF wasn’t “Christian” in the way most Christian organizations are viewed because it didn’t bring the gospel along with the more practical charity. Wall Watchers actually accused CCF of purposely misleading people with their name.
Clearly our interviewer and interviewee were of the impression that CCF was a Christian missionary organization that was dropping the “Christian” due to pressure from left wing atheist liberals. It’s a little unlikely they were both incensed about a non-Christian organization dropping the misleading “Christian” from its name isn’t it? Far more likely the wrath was because what was believed to be a Christian organization was dropping “Christian” from its name in order to be more “politically correct,” whatever the hell that means.
So I guess that’s where the “truth in advertising” bit comes in. At first the person she spoke to was being perfectly honest with our enraged interviewee and then, I guess after he or she figured out the interviewee had never bothered to find out that a charity she had supported for years upon years wasn’t a missionary organization, sort of planted the tongue into the cheek a little bit by assuring her they would continue doing “what they’ve always done.”
Of course “what they’ve always done” wasn’t what our incensed Christian apparently thought they’ve always done.
In the meantime the incensed interviewer never pointed out to the interviewee that CCF does no missionary work and thus the name is a tad misleading so I suspect she didn’t have the right scoop either.
So what’s the point of this? The first is to point out that Fox news is run by a bunch of morons for morons. But that’s obvious to anyone who’s ever watched it.
The second is to poke some fun at the incensed interviewee. Apparently based upon the name she thought she was supporting a missionary organization. I can’t say as I blame her, it’s an honest mistake and easy to understand, but if she had really cared that much, she could have checked it out.
Lastly I want to consider a little the right and wrong of the situation. Clearly CCF is right to drop the Christian out of the name. It is definitely misleading.
Our incensed interviewee is sort of right too. If there are multiple charities performing the same sort of work, and there are several similar to CCF including Save the Children and World Vision, and one prefers a charity that also includes missionary work or vice-versa, then one should be able to choose to which charity one donates. Our interviewee was apparently fooled by the name and made an unwarranted assumption. Not realizing that CCF was doing the ethical thing and getting upset over it made her look like a real dummy.
Fox news however has no excuse. They’d aired an interview based upon a total lack of research into the topic. At the very least they should have talked to CCF to get their side of the story. Instead they looked more than a little silly.
Of course it is possible that Fox understood the situation quite well but thought this would be a better story for their bible thumping audience, but I try not to attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity.
Monday, May 18, 2009
What are you afraid of?
I was watching a video between a lady from the Family Research Council (FRC) pitching the idea of “teaching the controversy,” by allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) alongside Evolution in science classrooms, and someone opposing the idea.
During the exchange the FRC type asked “what are you afraid of?” The implication of course being there was reason to fear that students would choose ID over Evolution.
I had to think about that one for a second. Normally it’s the religious types that are trying to censor discussion. I’ve asked that question myself saying let’s put our “truths” on the table and let the light of reason shine on them and see which one wins.
However, there is a hidden assumption here. The hidden assumption is that those making the decision are competent to make that decision and knowledgeable enough to spot spurious claims. You will excuse me but most high school students don’t meet either criterion.
I reject placing ID upon an equal footing with Evolution simply because ID has not demonstrated it is science. The ID proponents have not published in peer reviewed journals and have not impressed even a minuscule portion of the scientific community that what they are pitching is science. There is almost universal agreement that ID is religion and that it violates the scientific assumption of naturalism.
Naturalism is a necessary restriction for science because non-naturalistic hypotheses cannot be falsified and a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. Even if ID or Creationism is correct, they are still not science!
I know that sounds a bit weird but its true. Science has a blind spot. It cannot include any hypothesis that relies upon the supernatural.
So ID is not science just like Holocaust Denial is not history. Deborah Lipstadt, the author of “Denying the Holocaust,” was once asked why she doesn’t debate Holocaust deniers; didn’t she want to defend her position against the other side? Lipstadt replied that there is no other side and debating a denier would extend to Holocaust Denial a recognition it did not deserve.
Same thing with the Theory of Evolution, there is no scientific alternative and to treat ID or Creationism as if they were an alternative would be to extend to them a recognition they do not deserve.
During the exchange the FRC type asked “what are you afraid of?” The implication of course being there was reason to fear that students would choose ID over Evolution.
I had to think about that one for a second. Normally it’s the religious types that are trying to censor discussion. I’ve asked that question myself saying let’s put our “truths” on the table and let the light of reason shine on them and see which one wins.
However, there is a hidden assumption here. The hidden assumption is that those making the decision are competent to make that decision and knowledgeable enough to spot spurious claims. You will excuse me but most high school students don’t meet either criterion.
I reject placing ID upon an equal footing with Evolution simply because ID has not demonstrated it is science. The ID proponents have not published in peer reviewed journals and have not impressed even a minuscule portion of the scientific community that what they are pitching is science. There is almost universal agreement that ID is religion and that it violates the scientific assumption of naturalism.
Naturalism is a necessary restriction for science because non-naturalistic hypotheses cannot be falsified and a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. Even if ID or Creationism is correct, they are still not science!
I know that sounds a bit weird but its true. Science has a blind spot. It cannot include any hypothesis that relies upon the supernatural.
So ID is not science just like Holocaust Denial is not history. Deborah Lipstadt, the author of “Denying the Holocaust,” was once asked why she doesn’t debate Holocaust deniers; didn’t she want to defend her position against the other side? Lipstadt replied that there is no other side and debating a denier would extend to Holocaust Denial a recognition it did not deserve.
Same thing with the Theory of Evolution, there is no scientific alternative and to treat ID or Creationism as if they were an alternative would be to extend to them a recognition they do not deserve.
The Shift to the Right on Abortion Access
The latest Gallup and Pew polls show that, for the first time, a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life rather than pro-choice.
A considerable part of the shift is the result of younger voters apparently being more opposed to abortion access than in favor.
This isn’t much of a surprise. Things have been slowly shifting in this direction over the past few years and, if the truth must be told, the pro-life forces have done a better job of pitching their position than the pro-choice forces.
The primary reason for this is that the pro-life side has much better ammunition. It’s hard to not feel queasy about terminating what you can see in an ultra-sound projection. The secondary reason is that the main battle of the pro-choice side, feminism and woman’s rights, has essentially been won. No one considers it a major issue these days so abortion access, always a secondary issue in the feminist movement, no longer has the push behind it that it had in the 1970s.
Women take their rights for granted these days so they don’t consider the abortion access question a part of that rights pantheon.
I think that the abortion debate has also matured. Most people, including myself, would prefer abortion as a choice of last resort. Still, I stand by the assertion that making that choice is not up to me or a gaggle of politicians. Only the woman involved, with advice from her advisers, can make it.
A considerable part of the shift is the result of younger voters apparently being more opposed to abortion access than in favor.
This isn’t much of a surprise. Things have been slowly shifting in this direction over the past few years and, if the truth must be told, the pro-life forces have done a better job of pitching their position than the pro-choice forces.
The primary reason for this is that the pro-life side has much better ammunition. It’s hard to not feel queasy about terminating what you can see in an ultra-sound projection. The secondary reason is that the main battle of the pro-choice side, feminism and woman’s rights, has essentially been won. No one considers it a major issue these days so abortion access, always a secondary issue in the feminist movement, no longer has the push behind it that it had in the 1970s.
Women take their rights for granted these days so they don’t consider the abortion access question a part of that rights pantheon.
I think that the abortion debate has also matured. Most people, including myself, would prefer abortion as a choice of last resort. Still, I stand by the assertion that making that choice is not up to me or a gaggle of politicians. Only the woman involved, with advice from her advisers, can make it.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Holocaust Denial on Facebook
Facebook has come under criticism for allowing accounts used to promote Holocaust denial, the position that the Holocaust of World War II, during which an estimated 6 million Jews and 4 million other people including homosexuals, Gypsies and the mentally handicapped were murdered by the Nazis, never happened or at least has been greatly exaggerated.
Let’s understand right up front that this is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment restricts the government and does not apply to private companies. Facebook need only answer to its customer base for its actions here. It would be well within its legal rights to restrict accounts which promote what it considers an objectionable message.
Facebook has chosen not to shut down the Holocaust denial accounts. The question is should it?
Holocaust Denial is total nonsense and often uses a façade of history for what is really anti-Semitism. But Creationism is total nonsense as well and uses a façade of science for what is really religion. Should Creationists be banned as well?
What about people who criticize religion? Should that be considered hate speech and banned too?
The problem is if you can justify banning Holocaust deniers then you can also justify banning Creationists who often fall into attacking what they call “Darwinists,” atheists and agnostics. Are anti-atheists hate mongers?
You can then make the same argument for anyone who attacks religion and declare them anti-Muslim or anti-Christian or whatever.
Ignoring the argument that this is simply the slippery slope fallacy for the moment, there are other issues that stir the kind of passions in people that Holocaust denial stirs. Should Facebook ban those types of accounts as well?
Now let’s talk about the slippery slope. Is this concern just that old fallacy? You can only claim the slippery slope fallacy if you can make the case that Holocaust denial is fundamentally different than the other cases. I don’t think it is other than it might be easier to debunk.
As much as I find Holocaust denial distasteful, I have to stand with Facebook on this one. The Holocaust denial accounts should not be banned.
Let’s understand right up front that this is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment restricts the government and does not apply to private companies. Facebook need only answer to its customer base for its actions here. It would be well within its legal rights to restrict accounts which promote what it considers an objectionable message.
Facebook has chosen not to shut down the Holocaust denial accounts. The question is should it?
Holocaust Denial is total nonsense and often uses a façade of history for what is really anti-Semitism. But Creationism is total nonsense as well and uses a façade of science for what is really religion. Should Creationists be banned as well?
What about people who criticize religion? Should that be considered hate speech and banned too?
The problem is if you can justify banning Holocaust deniers then you can also justify banning Creationists who often fall into attacking what they call “Darwinists,” atheists and agnostics. Are anti-atheists hate mongers?
You can then make the same argument for anyone who attacks religion and declare them anti-Muslim or anti-Christian or whatever.
Ignoring the argument that this is simply the slippery slope fallacy for the moment, there are other issues that stir the kind of passions in people that Holocaust denial stirs. Should Facebook ban those types of accounts as well?
Now let’s talk about the slippery slope. Is this concern just that old fallacy? You can only claim the slippery slope fallacy if you can make the case that Holocaust denial is fundamentally different than the other cases. I don’t think it is other than it might be easier to debunk.
As much as I find Holocaust denial distasteful, I have to stand with Facebook on this one. The Holocaust denial accounts should not be banned.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Afghanistan and Pakistan
Not all wars are bad. The war in Afghanistan and the emerging war in Pakistan are wars which most definitely need to be fought. The enemy there consists of fundamentalist Muslim fanatics that would happily march the world back to the 12th Century.
These bozos are even worse than their American Christian counterparts. It’s too bad there isn’t some way we could let the Muslim Taliban and the Christian Taliban kill each other while the rest of us watch and munch popcorn.
Trust me, the total annihilation of fundamentalist Muslims and Christians would be no great loss. The average world IQ would skyrocket while intolerance, ignorance and brutality would plummet to an all time low.
Sounds like a worthwhile objective to me. Now where did I put my AKM?
These bozos are even worse than their American Christian counterparts. It’s too bad there isn’t some way we could let the Muslim Taliban and the Christian Taliban kill each other while the rest of us watch and munch popcorn.
Trust me, the total annihilation of fundamentalist Muslims and Christians would be no great loss. The average world IQ would skyrocket while intolerance, ignorance and brutality would plummet to an all time low.
Sounds like a worthwhile objective to me. Now where did I put my AKM?
Thursday, May 07, 2009
And then there were Five
Maine has become the fifth state to legalize gay marriage and almost immediately opponents have begun attempts to collect enough signatures to force a referendum to repeal the law in November.
In the meantime, the New Hampshire legislature has passed a marriage equality measure and sent it to Governor John Lynch.
Resistance to gay marriage is collapsing at an unbelievable pace in the Northeast. This is far beyond anyone’s expectations and one can only hope that the momentum will continue.
Then there is the latest Washington Post/ABC Poll where, for the first time by a 49%-46% margin, more respondents favored gay marriage than opposed it.
Then there is California.
The decision in California is monumental. Should the California Supreme Court throw out Proposition 8 it would change the battle lines. Such a decision would establish Gays as a beleaguered minority. Just as one cannot restrict the rights of Blacks, Muslims or any other minority, one would not be able to restrict the rights of Gays.
Then we can all fight over whether marriage is a right or a privilege. That should be a relatively short fight, but a downright dirty and vicious one.
Of course if the California Supreme Court allows Proposition 8 to stand that would sort of imply that gays are fundamentally different from Blacks, Muslims or other minorities. They would be a minority that it’s OK to discriminate against because that discrimination is religiously based. Well, why not make it OK to discriminate against non-believers then? After that we can establish discrimination against those who believe in the wrong religion. Then, as the final step, we can legalize discrimination against different sects of the same religion.
Yes, yes, I’m well aware that I’m engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. But think about it in reverse. If you don’t think it’s OK to ban Blacks or Muslims from getting married, why is it OK to ban gays from doing so?
Please don’t give me the procreation and tradition arguments. We all know that there are marriages that were never intended to produce offspring and I could argue that claiming the tradition covers one white Christian man and one white Christian woman would be as accurate as claiming it covers simply one man and one woman. What do I base that on? I base it on all the restrictions, de jure and de facto, that up until recently were built into the marriage process.
Ok, I’ve beat this to death and then some. All eyes are now on New Hampshire.
In the meantime, the New Hampshire legislature has passed a marriage equality measure and sent it to Governor John Lynch.
Resistance to gay marriage is collapsing at an unbelievable pace in the Northeast. This is far beyond anyone’s expectations and one can only hope that the momentum will continue.
Then there is the latest Washington Post/ABC Poll where, for the first time by a 49%-46% margin, more respondents favored gay marriage than opposed it.
Then there is California.
The decision in California is monumental. Should the California Supreme Court throw out Proposition 8 it would change the battle lines. Such a decision would establish Gays as a beleaguered minority. Just as one cannot restrict the rights of Blacks, Muslims or any other minority, one would not be able to restrict the rights of Gays.
Then we can all fight over whether marriage is a right or a privilege. That should be a relatively short fight, but a downright dirty and vicious one.
Of course if the California Supreme Court allows Proposition 8 to stand that would sort of imply that gays are fundamentally different from Blacks, Muslims or other minorities. They would be a minority that it’s OK to discriminate against because that discrimination is religiously based. Well, why not make it OK to discriminate against non-believers then? After that we can establish discrimination against those who believe in the wrong religion. Then, as the final step, we can legalize discrimination against different sects of the same religion.
Yes, yes, I’m well aware that I’m engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. But think about it in reverse. If you don’t think it’s OK to ban Blacks or Muslims from getting married, why is it OK to ban gays from doing so?
Please don’t give me the procreation and tradition arguments. We all know that there are marriages that were never intended to produce offspring and I could argue that claiming the tradition covers one white Christian man and one white Christian woman would be as accurate as claiming it covers simply one man and one woman. What do I base that on? I base it on all the restrictions, de jure and de facto, that up until recently were built into the marriage process.
Ok, I’ve beat this to death and then some. All eyes are now on New Hampshire.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
A Really Weird Dream
I have some pretty weird dreams. I used to have the classic recurring dreams about the final exam approaching in the college class I never attended and the one about my teeth falling apart. A recurring dream that, as far as I know is unique to myself, and which has always bothered me the most is the one where I'm not married to my wife yet but we seem to have drifted apart because I haven't seen her or called her for several weeks. Recently however, all my dreams seem to be of the one of a kind variety.
The other night I had a really strange one.
It started out with me on horseback. The horse was in a leisurely trot and I remember feeling that there was no rush. As a matter of fact I had the distinct impression that I was arriving much too early. I was riding through grassy fields and I remember adjusting the cloak on my back. I was also definitely wearing a helmet of some sort as I could feel the nose guard. There were people all around, men, women and children and they seemed to be enjoying themselves, picnicking perhaps. They all seemed happy.
I remember greeting a number of youngsters with a smile and a pat on the head, but the smile was phony. I rode down to the bottom of a hill and there was a road leading along the walls of a city. The walls of the city were high enough to block the sun and the road was in shadow.
Along the road, perhaps near the entrance to the city, was an older woman up upon a dais or at least she was on something that put her up high enough so that, even from horseback, I had to look up slightly when I spoke to her. I didn’t know her name but I knew she was the queen. I stopped the horse and simply said “They are coming.”
She nodded, thanked me, said that she would give orders for the people to take shelter within the city and gave me permission “to go back.” I remember being tremendously happy even though I knew with absolute certainly that going back would mean my death. I distinctly remember a feeling of absolute joy that I would be in one more battle where I could die. I drew my sword, saluted the queen and began to gallop back down the road. People were already streaming towards the city. They were no longer happy. They were frightened.
Along the road I passed battered and beaten soldiers retreating toward the city. Finally I came to a cathedral surrounded by a very high chain link fence, a chain link fence that was totally out of place with all the 17th or 18th century symbolisms. I was at the bottom of a slope and the cathedral was about half way up towards the top. Along the far side of the fence I saw cavalry moving down the slope of the hill in single file. I immediately recognized them as the queen’s elite guard. They had snow white cloaks and silver helmets topped with thick flopping black feathers. I remember thinking that if the elite guard is retreating, then the end must be very near.
I rode through a gate in bottom of the fence and there were other cavalry there. They were dismounted and waiting on the grass just in front of a very low wall along the right front of the cathedral courtyard. They weren’t dressed in as fancy a uniform as the elite guard. I rode up to a youngish man with very black hair and a thin black beard. His eyes were very tired. I believe he was the commander of the cavalry waiting near the wall. He looked at me and simply asked if I had delivered the message. I nodded.
At that moment a cardinal or bishop came riding into the fenced in area. He was riding a black horse, was dressed in a black gown with red trim and had on the traditional churchman’s cap. Not a miter, just the informal gap that goes with the day to day ecclesiastical cassock. I could see the elite guard continuing its retreat behind him along the bottom of the fence. Then the Bishop cried out in desperation “Will no one stay and defend the church?”
No one answered him.
Then I heard shouting that the rear guard was collapsing. I looked toward the top of the hill and I could see walls and barricades being pushed inward. I was still on horseback. The rest of the men in the courtyard strapped on helms, mounted and drew their swords. I drew mine as well although I don’t remember having put it back in its sheath. The youngish man with the black hair waved us out a side gate and we started up the hill to reinforce the rear guard.
That’s when my alarm clock went off.
I’m not even going to try and figure this one out. It was totally bizarre, crystal clear and burned into my memory. The thing that left the strongest impression was the feeling of total happiness that I was going to die in a known and familiar fashion. The suspense was over. I knew how it was going to end.
I went to a few dream interpretation web sites, but I found nothing even close to this. I read somewhere that dream images are borrowed from people or things you encounter while awake. The queen reminded me of Queen Beatrix of Holland which isn’t too surprising because I had just seen her on a news clip after that maniac drove his car into the royal procession.
The queen’s elite guard I’m pretty sure I got from news footage I’d seen of Imperial German Cavalry from just prior to world war one. The bishop was perhaps the result of me having just watched the trailer for Angels & Demons. If not, then I’ve seen plenty of pictures and films of cardinals and bishops. The black haired officer I can’t place anywhere. I’d say John Derek as Joshua in the Ten Commandments but Derek’s hair was much curlier than this man's hair.
I didn’t see much of the city but it could have been borrowed from the ruins of Lordaeron in World of Warcraft. The cathedral was made of very dark rock. I have no idea where I got that from nor do I have any idea why it would be surrounded by a very high chain link fence. A wrought iron fence I could understand but chain link?
Maybe some night I’ll go back and find out more. I’d like to know who “they” were and why the bishop thought the church needed defending. I had the feeling that “they” may not have been human.
The most interesting thing was that throughout the entire dream, I never felt afraid. The sitution was hopeless but that didn't seem to bother me. I was content. Here's hoping I manage to go out in real life that calmly.
The other night I had a really strange one.
It started out with me on horseback. The horse was in a leisurely trot and I remember feeling that there was no rush. As a matter of fact I had the distinct impression that I was arriving much too early. I was riding through grassy fields and I remember adjusting the cloak on my back. I was also definitely wearing a helmet of some sort as I could feel the nose guard. There were people all around, men, women and children and they seemed to be enjoying themselves, picnicking perhaps. They all seemed happy.
I remember greeting a number of youngsters with a smile and a pat on the head, but the smile was phony. I rode down to the bottom of a hill and there was a road leading along the walls of a city. The walls of the city were high enough to block the sun and the road was in shadow.
Along the road, perhaps near the entrance to the city, was an older woman up upon a dais or at least she was on something that put her up high enough so that, even from horseback, I had to look up slightly when I spoke to her. I didn’t know her name but I knew she was the queen. I stopped the horse and simply said “They are coming.”
She nodded, thanked me, said that she would give orders for the people to take shelter within the city and gave me permission “to go back.” I remember being tremendously happy even though I knew with absolute certainly that going back would mean my death. I distinctly remember a feeling of absolute joy that I would be in one more battle where I could die. I drew my sword, saluted the queen and began to gallop back down the road. People were already streaming towards the city. They were no longer happy. They were frightened.
Along the road I passed battered and beaten soldiers retreating toward the city. Finally I came to a cathedral surrounded by a very high chain link fence, a chain link fence that was totally out of place with all the 17th or 18th century symbolisms. I was at the bottom of a slope and the cathedral was about half way up towards the top. Along the far side of the fence I saw cavalry moving down the slope of the hill in single file. I immediately recognized them as the queen’s elite guard. They had snow white cloaks and silver helmets topped with thick flopping black feathers. I remember thinking that if the elite guard is retreating, then the end must be very near.
I rode through a gate in bottom of the fence and there were other cavalry there. They were dismounted and waiting on the grass just in front of a very low wall along the right front of the cathedral courtyard. They weren’t dressed in as fancy a uniform as the elite guard. I rode up to a youngish man with very black hair and a thin black beard. His eyes were very tired. I believe he was the commander of the cavalry waiting near the wall. He looked at me and simply asked if I had delivered the message. I nodded.
At that moment a cardinal or bishop came riding into the fenced in area. He was riding a black horse, was dressed in a black gown with red trim and had on the traditional churchman’s cap. Not a miter, just the informal gap that goes with the day to day ecclesiastical cassock. I could see the elite guard continuing its retreat behind him along the bottom of the fence. Then the Bishop cried out in desperation “Will no one stay and defend the church?”
No one answered him.
Then I heard shouting that the rear guard was collapsing. I looked toward the top of the hill and I could see walls and barricades being pushed inward. I was still on horseback. The rest of the men in the courtyard strapped on helms, mounted and drew their swords. I drew mine as well although I don’t remember having put it back in its sheath. The youngish man with the black hair waved us out a side gate and we started up the hill to reinforce the rear guard.
That’s when my alarm clock went off.
I’m not even going to try and figure this one out. It was totally bizarre, crystal clear and burned into my memory. The thing that left the strongest impression was the feeling of total happiness that I was going to die in a known and familiar fashion. The suspense was over. I knew how it was going to end.
I went to a few dream interpretation web sites, but I found nothing even close to this. I read somewhere that dream images are borrowed from people or things you encounter while awake. The queen reminded me of Queen Beatrix of Holland which isn’t too surprising because I had just seen her on a news clip after that maniac drove his car into the royal procession.
The queen’s elite guard I’m pretty sure I got from news footage I’d seen of Imperial German Cavalry from just prior to world war one. The bishop was perhaps the result of me having just watched the trailer for Angels & Demons. If not, then I’ve seen plenty of pictures and films of cardinals and bishops. The black haired officer I can’t place anywhere. I’d say John Derek as Joshua in the Ten Commandments but Derek’s hair was much curlier than this man's hair.
I didn’t see much of the city but it could have been borrowed from the ruins of Lordaeron in World of Warcraft. The cathedral was made of very dark rock. I have no idea where I got that from nor do I have any idea why it would be surrounded by a very high chain link fence. A wrought iron fence I could understand but chain link?
Maybe some night I’ll go back and find out more. I’d like to know who “they” were and why the bishop thought the church needed defending. I had the feeling that “they” may not have been human.
The most interesting thing was that throughout the entire dream, I never felt afraid. The sitution was hopeless but that didn't seem to bother me. I was content. Here's hoping I manage to go out in real life that calmly.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Was Jesus Rich or Poor?
The conventional wisdom is that Jesus came from an impoverished family. Let’s take a closer look shall we.
Born in a Cave and Laid in a Manger
This certainly congers up a picture of homeless poverty, but why where they in the cave? It was because there was no room at the inn. This is roughly the equivalent of sleeping on the beach because you couldn’t find a motel with a vacancy. It says nothing about your economic status.
As a matter of fact, that they tried for a room at the inn implies at least enough liquid funds to afford a room, something well beyond the means of the very poor. If Joseph and Mary had actually been poor, they would have been resigned to sleeping on the side of the road.
First Joseph and then Jesus were Poor Carpenters
The bible never actually says this. As a matter of fact the word normally translated as “carpenter” is the Greek “tekton.” While John Dominic Crossan believes a better translation would be “laborer,” Greeks I’ve spoken to say “builder” or “architect” would be closer to the mark.
In other words it denotes a skilled craftsman more like a general contractor than a table maker.
They could only afford two doves or pigeons as an offering
This is by far the strongest evidence that Joseph and Mary were poor. Leviticus 12 instructs that following a purification period a woman who has given birth must bring as an offering “a year-old lamb” and “a young pigeon or a dove.” But “If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons”
Luke says “Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord… and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: ‘a pair of doves or two young pigeons.’”
Granted this implies they were too poor to afford a lamb but let’s consider the circumstances. They were 70 miles away from home. If Joseph was a builder or carpenter it’s not likely he kept too many lambs around anyway. That means they probably would have had to purchase the sacrificial animals at the Temple. Birds take up less room than lambs, so possibly that was all that was available. Or perhaps Joseph had limited cash and since he needed it for food for the trip home, needed to conserve what little he had.
Granted this is evidence they were poor but one has to consider it in context. I might point out that Luke’s not mentioning the lamb at all could be taken to imply that everyone by that time sacrificed two doves or pigeons. Luke certainly doesn’t make a point about they’re not being able to afford a lamb.
He had no where to lay his head
In Matthew 8 and Luke 9 Jesus says “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Yes, but this strikes me as a little poetic license. Jesus, as a wandering sage, clearly has no permanent home but just as clearly it was a choice he made to live that type of life and not something forced upon him.
They went to Jerusalem for the Holy Days
Luke 2:41 says “Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.”
Does that sound like they were poor? Every year they journeyed 70 miles to Jerusalem for the holidays? Only people who were reasonable affluent could afford to make the trip every year and could afford to not work during that time.
Jesus was educated
He could clearly read and quote scripture and knew enough to argue the law with the Pharisees. He also had followers who were literate. John and Matthew come to mind immediately. If they wrote gospels, then they must have been literate.
In the first century only the upper 5% or so of the population was literate; literacy was a clear sign of enough wealth to have the leisure for an education.
The Wedding at Cana
This doesn’t sound like the description of a poor man’s wedding. Jesus, his mother and all the disciples are invited. There is a “Master of the Banquet” and when the wine runs out Jesus turns six twenty to thirty gallon stone jars into wine. This clearly wasn’t a small gathering. Whoever was throwing this wedding must have been quite wealthy.
He had rich or influential acquaintances
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are the most obvious but there is also Lazarus, the Centurion in Matthew 8 and Luke 7, Simon the Leper and the woman with the alabaster jar in Mark 14 and Matthew 26 and the Rich Young Man in Mark 10, Matthew 19 and Luke 18 (Luke actually transforms him into a “ruler”).
Jesus also seems to have some personal knowledge when he wryly observes "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Could a poor man have attracted a following?
People are people and the poor are generally meek and not particularly viewed with admiration regardless of their talents while the rich tend to be more outgoing and aggressive and are generally accorded some level of respect by default, even in a so-called egalitarian democracy.
A few years back some folks tried a little experiment. They had the same man stay at a stop light after it had turned green but had him driving different cars. Eventually the cars behind him would honk to bring to his attention that the light was green. What was interesting however was that the more expensive the car the man was driving, the longer on average people waited before honking.
Pilate was his judge
If he was a poor nobody why did Pilate get personally involved? One possibility is as the ranking military officer in Jerusalem at that time it was simply normal military operating procedure. But another possibility is because the accused man came from a well to do, and perhaps even influential family, Pilate felt it prudent to give the situation his personal attention. This could also have been why he was reluctant to execute Jesus.
Pilate Released the Body
Normally the bodies of condemned men would have been flung to the dogs, burned or left hanging as a warning to others yet, if one believes the story of Joseph of Arimathea, Pilate released the body to a friend or relative with little or no hesitation.
This might have been simply to insure no protest over violating the Sabbath in always volatile Jerusalem but it also smacks of deference to the wealthy or influential.
What do you suppose happened to the bodies of the criminals crucified with Jesus?
James took over after Jesus’ Death
Who steps in and takes over after Jesus’ death? Not Peter or any of the other disciples but Jesus’ brother James. Again this smacks of the aristocrat. None of his peasant followers ascended to leadership but rather his brother takes over.
When you put it all together, I think that the preponderance of the evidence is that Jesus and his family weren’t abjectly poor. They were clearly more affluent then most and may even have been among the relatively wealthy. He may have turned his back on the family money when his started his ministry, but it seems to me that he was at least much more affluent than the average.
Born in a Cave and Laid in a Manger
This certainly congers up a picture of homeless poverty, but why where they in the cave? It was because there was no room at the inn. This is roughly the equivalent of sleeping on the beach because you couldn’t find a motel with a vacancy. It says nothing about your economic status.
As a matter of fact, that they tried for a room at the inn implies at least enough liquid funds to afford a room, something well beyond the means of the very poor. If Joseph and Mary had actually been poor, they would have been resigned to sleeping on the side of the road.
First Joseph and then Jesus were Poor Carpenters
The bible never actually says this. As a matter of fact the word normally translated as “carpenter” is the Greek “tekton.” While John Dominic Crossan believes a better translation would be “laborer,” Greeks I’ve spoken to say “builder” or “architect” would be closer to the mark.
In other words it denotes a skilled craftsman more like a general contractor than a table maker.
They could only afford two doves or pigeons as an offering
This is by far the strongest evidence that Joseph and Mary were poor. Leviticus 12 instructs that following a purification period a woman who has given birth must bring as an offering “a year-old lamb” and “a young pigeon or a dove.” But “If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons”
Luke says “Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord… and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: ‘a pair of doves or two young pigeons.’”
Granted this implies they were too poor to afford a lamb but let’s consider the circumstances. They were 70 miles away from home. If Joseph was a builder or carpenter it’s not likely he kept too many lambs around anyway. That means they probably would have had to purchase the sacrificial animals at the Temple. Birds take up less room than lambs, so possibly that was all that was available. Or perhaps Joseph had limited cash and since he needed it for food for the trip home, needed to conserve what little he had.
Granted this is evidence they were poor but one has to consider it in context. I might point out that Luke’s not mentioning the lamb at all could be taken to imply that everyone by that time sacrificed two doves or pigeons. Luke certainly doesn’t make a point about they’re not being able to afford a lamb.
He had no where to lay his head
In Matthew 8 and Luke 9 Jesus says “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Yes, but this strikes me as a little poetic license. Jesus, as a wandering sage, clearly has no permanent home but just as clearly it was a choice he made to live that type of life and not something forced upon him.
They went to Jerusalem for the Holy Days
Luke 2:41 says “Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.”
Does that sound like they were poor? Every year they journeyed 70 miles to Jerusalem for the holidays? Only people who were reasonable affluent could afford to make the trip every year and could afford to not work during that time.
Jesus was educated
He could clearly read and quote scripture and knew enough to argue the law with the Pharisees. He also had followers who were literate. John and Matthew come to mind immediately. If they wrote gospels, then they must have been literate.
In the first century only the upper 5% or so of the population was literate; literacy was a clear sign of enough wealth to have the leisure for an education.
The Wedding at Cana
This doesn’t sound like the description of a poor man’s wedding. Jesus, his mother and all the disciples are invited. There is a “Master of the Banquet” and when the wine runs out Jesus turns six twenty to thirty gallon stone jars into wine. This clearly wasn’t a small gathering. Whoever was throwing this wedding must have been quite wealthy.
He had rich or influential acquaintances
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are the most obvious but there is also Lazarus, the Centurion in Matthew 8 and Luke 7, Simon the Leper and the woman with the alabaster jar in Mark 14 and Matthew 26 and the Rich Young Man in Mark 10, Matthew 19 and Luke 18 (Luke actually transforms him into a “ruler”).
Jesus also seems to have some personal knowledge when he wryly observes "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Could a poor man have attracted a following?
People are people and the poor are generally meek and not particularly viewed with admiration regardless of their talents while the rich tend to be more outgoing and aggressive and are generally accorded some level of respect by default, even in a so-called egalitarian democracy.
A few years back some folks tried a little experiment. They had the same man stay at a stop light after it had turned green but had him driving different cars. Eventually the cars behind him would honk to bring to his attention that the light was green. What was interesting however was that the more expensive the car the man was driving, the longer on average people waited before honking.
Pilate was his judge
If he was a poor nobody why did Pilate get personally involved? One possibility is as the ranking military officer in Jerusalem at that time it was simply normal military operating procedure. But another possibility is because the accused man came from a well to do, and perhaps even influential family, Pilate felt it prudent to give the situation his personal attention. This could also have been why he was reluctant to execute Jesus.
Pilate Released the Body
Normally the bodies of condemned men would have been flung to the dogs, burned or left hanging as a warning to others yet, if one believes the story of Joseph of Arimathea, Pilate released the body to a friend or relative with little or no hesitation.
This might have been simply to insure no protest over violating the Sabbath in always volatile Jerusalem but it also smacks of deference to the wealthy or influential.
What do you suppose happened to the bodies of the criminals crucified with Jesus?
James took over after Jesus’ Death
Who steps in and takes over after Jesus’ death? Not Peter or any of the other disciples but Jesus’ brother James. Again this smacks of the aristocrat. None of his peasant followers ascended to leadership but rather his brother takes over.
When you put it all together, I think that the preponderance of the evidence is that Jesus and his family weren’t abjectly poor. They were clearly more affluent then most and may even have been among the relatively wealthy. He may have turned his back on the family money when his started his ministry, but it seems to me that he was at least much more affluent than the average.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
