Illinois Abolishes Death Penalty

The moratorium of the last 12 years has now been transformed into an abolition of the Death Penalty in the state of Illinois.

There had been 12 executions in the state since the Death Penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976. Governor George Ryan suspended executions in 2000 after of number of death row inmates were found to have been mistakenly convicted and, three years later, commuted the sentences of the 167 death row residence to life without parole.

Illinois becomes the 16th State to abolish the Death Penalty.

In the rest of the country there have been 9 executions so far in 2011. There have been 1243 executions since 1976; 1022 have been in the South, 147 in the Midwest, 70 in the West and 4 in the Northeast.

In God We Trust

The House of Representatives is considering House Concurrent Resolution 13 which states that, the Senate concurring, “Congress reaffirms ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.”

The resolution provides a fairly long list of “whereas” justifications, most of which are simply fact and others, perhaps, one could argue with.

You’d think we weren’t $14 trillion (yes that’s trillion with a “T”) in debt that the House has time to worry about this kind of stuff.

Considering that the courts have already decided that “In God We Trust” is not unconstitutional, I have to wonder about the point of this resolution.

I disagree with that decision.

As I’ve said before, I think this is a case where one has to consider intent, and in this case the clear intent is for “God” to refer to the Christian God and the Christian God alone. Therefore the reference is inexorably entangled with the Christian Religion and is therefore unconstitutional.

The fact that I might be right is, of course, irrelevant. The chances of every court, up to and including the Supreme Court, acknowledging that are somewhere between zero and nonexistent.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why “In God We Trust” is constitutional other than what amounts to a historical precedence argument. If historical precedence arguments were valid, then blacks would still be segregated and women wouldn’t be able to vote.

The Cure Homosexuality App

Exodus International, a ministry that specializes in “curing” gays, released an iPhone application that was dubbed a “useful resource.” Exactly what it was supposed to be useful for is a bit unclear but lots of folks immediately figured out it must be for “curing” homosexuality.

Actually it looked more to me like a list of events and seminars about “curing” homosexuality.

Then Apple put its foot in it by rating the APP as having “no objectionable material.”

Needless to say the whole thing set off a firestorm of protest. Actually, it set off two firestorms. The first was by those outraged by the App and the second by those outraged by what they called a double standard. The attempt to censor Exodus International’s free speech.

So what’s the deal here?

Here’s the problem. In 2009 the American Psychological Association (APA) officially issued a statement opposing what is known as Reparative Therapy, therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation because it concluded that there was insufficient evidence that it worked.

The APA also expressed concern that “the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image.”

In other words, there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Telling someone they can change inevitably leads to a failed attempt which leads to distress and a negative self-image. Both of which can be precursors to a suicide attempt.

Now, the people most at risk are younger people still struggling with their sexual orientation. The precise group aimed at by the Exodus International App.

So, the bottom line is, the App could, in extreme cases, harm someone that took its message to heart and then failed trying to follow that message.

Is this WHY people protested? I don’t know. I’m not those people. But it’s why, after initially being somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing, I finally came down on the side of maybe this App isn’t such a good idea.

Under the mounting pressure Apple has removed the App from its stores which was probably the right thing to do.

As to all those Right Wingers screaming about double standards and Freedom of Speech, allow me to suggest that, just for a change, you consider the potential impact on people that are very different from yourselves.

Filming of The Hobbit finally begins

The often delayed prequel to The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, has started filming in New Zealand. I have to admit though I’m a bit confused about the inclusion of Cate Blanchett as Galadrial, Elijah Wood as Frodo and Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown as none of these characters appear in The Hobbit.

In The Hobbit Tolkien’s world is much less developed. Elrond’s Rivendell and the Kingdom of the Dwarves are the major overlaps. Even The Shire is not terribly developed. I don’t even think it’s called The Shire.

Then again, nobody ever accused Peter Jackson of staying with the original material so who the hell knows what we’ll get.

Martin Freeman gets the title role as Bilbo Baggins which sounds like a fine choice to me. I wonder if they will have all 13 dwarves or cut the list down? So far I’ve only heard about Balin and Nori and Kili. I also saw a reference to Thror and Thrain which means there will be flashbacks in the movie. Perhaps that’s where Galadrial comes in as well.

How close Jackson stays to The Hobbit should give us plenty to argue about in December of 2012 and 2013 when the movies are expected to be released. This is assuming of course that the country doesn’t descend into civil war before then and I haven’t kicked the bucket yet.

More Attacks on Libya

There are reports this morning that US, French and British aircraft destroyed tank columns headed toward rebel positions.

So I can only assume that the western governments have decided that whatever type of government the rebellion ushers in will be better than Gadhafi. I'd be curious to know how they came to that conclusion.

This strikes me as a "rush to action" with little or no justification. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do but I'd like to understand a little better why it was determined that it was the right thing to do.

Assault on Libya

U.S. and European Naval forces have begun attacking Libyan defensive positions along the Mediterranean coast. U.S. Destroyers and a British submarine have firing cruise missiles to take out the defense installations.

The military action is supposedly to enforce the U.N. no fly zone and to prevent Gadhafi from continuing to attack the Libyan rebels.

I have two questions about all this. First, how is this not interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? I guess quaint things like that got buried sometime during the last century.

My second question is will the U.N. compensate us for the 112 cruise missiles fired? A Tomahawk costs about $1.2 million and we fired 112 of them. That's $134 million just for the goddamned missiles and that's not to mention the cost of deploying the destroyers.

You'd think we weren't $14 trillion is debt wouldn't you?

Why does everyone have to always start shooting? WTF?

Marriage Equality Fails in Maryland

The bill to legalize Gay Marriage in Maryland has been sent back to committee where it will most likely die a quiet death.

A black bishop, Harry Jackson by name, is saying that credit for the defeat of the bill resides with the black churches of Maryland which had warned African American legislators that there would be price to pay if they supported the legislation.

So again we see blacks standing firm against Gay Marriage.

And why is that?

It’s a question that Gay Marriage supporters really need to grapple with. The black community has consistently opposed Gay Marriage by a wide margin.

Some of that, I would guess, is driven by a conservative Christian outlook and some of it out of pure ignorance. No one has ever accused the black community of being the sharpest tools in the shed.

Back in the day when blacks were fighting for their rights, the unions forgot for a while what it was like to be on the outside looking in and now blacks appear to have forgotten what it’s like to have to fight for simple equality under the law.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the same people who are spearheading the fight against gays are the spiritual descendants of those that spearheaded the fight against integration and, if given the chance, would like nothing better than the return of Jim Crow.

You think I’m exaggerating? The Zeitgeist never stands still. Either it moves forward or it moves back. If they can restrict the rights of gays today, they can restrict your rights tomorrow. You are being used by those who will have no use for you after your usefulness is over.

Dear Bishop Harry, when them good old boys come looking for your black ass with a rope, don’t come running to me for help. I fought that battle once, and if you’re going to voluntarily give up what was won, then you’re just flat out of luck the next time around.

Japan

All I can say is ouch.

An 8.9 earthquake and a massive tidal wave has completely devastated the northeast coast of the country. The official death toll is at 2,800 but the fear is that it’s going to go higher, much higher.

Then there’s the nuclear power plant in Fukushima that is threatening a meltdown. There have already been several explosions and the U.S. has repositioned the U.S.S Ronald Reagan for fear of radioactive contamination. Supposedly an exposure of the fuel rods has already occurred although, supposedly, the radiation levels are still within acceptable levels. I having a bit of trouble understanding exactly how that could be the case when helicopter crews from the Reagan had to be decontaminated.

I sent $200 to the Red Cross which is like completely inadequate. I’ll probably send more later in the week. There’s not much else I can do. What an absolute mess.

Welcome to the Republican Party

There are a number of jokes going around that end “Welcome to the Republican Party” and, I have to admit, they are pretty good pieces of propaganda.

All are related to the idea that someone is getting something for nothing at the expense of hard working Americans and if you’re opposed to this gross injustice, then the Republican Party is for you.

The latest one I heard had the young daughter of a Liberal couple explaining to her Republican neighbors how when she grew up she was going to make sure that the unemployed and homeless had enough to eat and a place to live. The neighbor said to her she didn’t have to wait; she could come over to her house, do some chores and the neighbor would pay her. Then she could take what she earned and use it to help the unemployed and homeless.

After thinking about it for a while, the child asked why the unemployed and homeless didn’t just come and do the chores themselves. The punch line then followed, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

So being a Republican means giving up your job so an unemployed or homeless person can have it?

Because that’s what’s happening in the story. You will excuse me, but I suspect it will be a cold day in hell before anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent does that.

Nor is anyone proposing that; nor is anyone proposing that the unemployed or homeless be maintained at anything approaching the economic level of even the lowest level worker. The much repeated story of people living high off the hog on welfare is a myth. Tell you what, if you think they're doing so well, how about you change places with them?

What we’re really talking about is a small percentage of income for the general good and this includes caring for those that have fallen on difficult times. Clearly there is much to discuss here about how small a percentage and how much caring is necessary. Personally I like “as little as possible” and “just the basic necessities” as answers to those questions.

But I suppose the real moral of the story could be something like why don’t those lazy bums earn their own living?

Well, the truth is that the overwhelming majority would be quite happy to earn their own living. Are there some people jobbing the system? Absolutely. My mother-in-law used to work for the welfare department and had stories that would make you grit your teeth. My favorite (or perhaps “favorite” isn’t exactly the right word) was the one about the women who arrived, in a taxi cab, to establish her daughters own welfare account on the daughters 18th birthday. There is clearly a chronic welfare society in our culture that needs to be addressed. The anecdotes are depressing, but the reality is that the dollars involved are fairly small.

The overwhelming majority of people getting financial assistance are not chronic welfare recipients. There are some of those, but there are also the temporarily unemployed and those with ongoing unemployment issues.

There are a number of reasons why an unemployed person might not be unable to get a job. The most obvious reason would be there aren’t any available. The same Republican politicians that tell you to moan about contributing to unemployment and welfare appear to be ok with corporate America outsourcing millions of manufacturing jobs overseas in order to make more money for the wealthiest segment of society.

They want you focused so much on the nickels and dimes taken from your paycheck to help the less fortunate that you overlook the $5 bills and $10 bills that never make it into your paycheck. Why don’t they make into my paycheck you ask? They don’t make it in due to the unfair share of American income diverted to the already rich in order to make them richer.

While the real income (in other words adjusted for inflation) of the bottom 80% of American wage earners has increased by 19% over the past 30 years, the real income of the top 20% has increased by 88%, the top 5% by 245% and the top 1% by a whopping 345%.

Please explain to me how this is right, fair or even rational?

In contrast, in the 30 years prior to that, the real income that marked the top of the lowest income quintile rose by 99.5%, the 2nd quintile by 95.4%, the 3rd quintile by 107.9% and the 4th quintile by 109.9%. At the tippy top of the income scale, the minimum income to be in the top 5% rose by 103.4%.

No wonder so many people remember those as the good old days of economic prosperity. It wasn’t so much that there was more prosperity, the prosperity was simply shared more evenly.

A second reason the unemployed might not be able to get a job might be the jobs are simply not where the unemployed are. If you live in Nevada or Florida, a job in Nebraska doesn’t do you a whole lot of good. If you live in Buffalo or Syracuse, a job in New York City may not do you much good either.

But the third, and most troubling reason, is that you just may not be qualified for that job.

The minimum educational requirements for well paying jobs in the U.S. has steadily risen over the past 20 or 30 years. Some of that rise is real, and some of it is illusionary; a matter of employers wanting employees to be better educated whether it’s necessary or not. Yes there are still jobs where you can make a decent salary without a college degree, but they are getting fewer and fewer.

This all goes along with the manufacturing jobs being outsourced. You could do a fine job on the assembly line with a High School diploma. Dedication and a willingness to work hard for an honest day’s pay meant more than being computer literate, knowing how to calculate sales margins or being able to do calculus.

Those days may well be gone. Even if a college degree might be unnecessary, a technical degree or specialized training might be. Retraining is often the key to helping people get back into the work force. So part of that welfare you’re complaining about goes for retraining and isn’t simply doled out as cash.

Now, in fairness, let’s address the strongest argument against welfare and unemployment compensation.

One can argue hey, wait a minute, why isn’t the contribution to the general good voluntary? What gives the government the right to decide who deserves my charity? The choice should be mine and not some politician’s.

This is a fair observation and, in a perfect world, or even a significantly less complex world, this would be the best solution. But things are just too complicated these days for private charity decisions to work well. The first problem would be that funds would tend to be readily available in prosperous areas and scarce in areas with severe economic problems. Unfortunately, as inefficient as it often is, government is probably the best suited for addressing the issue on the local, state and federal levels.

So while the jokes are clever, a little objective analysis shows them to be what they are, well designed, but very inaccurate, propaganda, intended to leave you with a totally misleading set of impressions.

Wisconsin Anti-union Bill

Well, the Republicans figured out a way around the requirement for 20 Senators; they simply pulled the key provisions eliminating collective bargaining for municipal unions out of the revenue bill and made it a separate non-revenue based measure.

I’m not going to criticize them for the end-run. It’s the same sort of trick the Democrats pulled in Congress on Health Care Reform to get around the Republican filibuster. It just goes to show how difficult it is to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

I am going to criticize them for taking away what has been a basic right in American society for most of this century, a right that has been paid for in blood by past union members, the right to collectively bargain.

For those that are condemning the municipal workers for having pensions and other benefits which are too lucrative, allow me to remind you that these things were accepted for years in lieu of pay raises. For decades this kept municipal workers behind private sector employees in salaries. I don’t remember anyone in the private sector complaining when they were making more money than municipal employees.

Now, thanks to big business outsourcing all of those lucrative manufacturing jobs, what the municipal unions “settled for” in the past has suddenly become something they don’t deserve.

New realities are new realities, and everyone has to work within the new rules going forward and the unions were clearly ready to do that. Stripping them of the primary benefit of a union, the ability to collectively bargain, however strikes me as more aimed at union busting that resolving a budget crisis.

I’d like to think the Republican Party will pay dearly for this, but they won’t. They’ll find someone to pin the blame on for something and distract the electorate again. Someone else taking nickels and dimes out of the electorate’s tax dollars while the Republicans divert $5 and $10, which never make it into the electorate’s paychecks to begin with, to the already wealthy.

Let’s face it, the American electorate is just too stupid to realize that big business, and its partner the Republican Party, have just robbed them blind again.

Atheists Don’t Exist

One of the more delusional positions I’ve encountered taken by theists is that atheists don’t actually exist. There are two approaches to this position. The first is based upon some sort of “logical” argument (I place “logical” in quotes because, as usual, the theist is being anything but) and a second based upon biblical authority which I’m going to ignore for the moment.

I found a typical essay espousing this position by a gentleman using the name of Dante Tremayne. Below are excerpts, with commentary.

“I do not believe in the existence of atheists. “

You’re off to a really bad start. What you believe, or do not believe, is irrelevant. Reality has a way of persisting in spite of our “beliefs.”

“By ‘atheist’ I am referring to the ideal person who does not believe in the existence of God, not the person who labels themselves as an atheist.”

What the hell is the difference? Usually one arrives at a conclusion first and then accepts the label. Ah, but I suppose we must await further elucidation which is, I presume, yet to come.

“All people who label themselves as ‘atheist’ are not, by definition, atheists, because they all believe in the existence of God.”

I see. So should I presume that any self-label implies the opposite of the label? So are theists then non-theists, stamp collectors then non-stamp collectors and chess aficionados then non-chess aficionados.? Ah, but again, perhaps we just need to be patient and an explanation of this quixotic statement may yet be forthcoming.

“I know they believe in the existence of God by their irrational behavior. I am not referring to the inconsistency of their lives with their claims. For instance, the nonbeliever (I believe I will refer to our “atheist” friends by that term for the duration of this article) necessarily holds the belief that we are the result of time plus matter plus chance, merely evolving accidents, the product of random collisions of matter.”

Well, I have to admit that this is a rather unique description of Cosmology, Abiogenesis and what I suppose is Evolution. Let’s see, where does one start with this one. While chance plays a part, there is nothing random about Organic Chemistry or Natural Selection. Both follow well defined sets of rules and can be relatively easily modeled with mathematics. Is it possible some super intelligent deity designed and enforces those rules? Sure it’s possible, it just doesn’t seem all that likely.

“Yet they wish to believe that these accidental collisions produce truth, fact, and a coherent understanding of the universe.”

No, but the Big Bang, the formation of the stars and planets and the emergence of life and its evolution on planet Earth has left hints and evidence which can be studied and analyzed by a logical mind following the rules of scientific investigation. After several hundred years of doing this we have a vague sort of understanding of the way things might work. If you think it is totally coherent you’ve missed out on the lack of a unified theory and haven’t delved much into Quantum Mechanics. What we have is a series of as yet unconnected areas of fairly well substantiated conclusions separated by complex questions and gaps in our knowledge. It’s unclear to me why the fact that we are steadily expanding our knowledge and understanding is always a source of abject fear for the theist. Perhaps because the more we learn, the less need we have of the god hypothesis.

“The irrational behavior I am referring to is the nonbeliever’s inability to admit when they have been defeated.”

What’s this? Am I to understand that someone has actually come up with adequate evidence for the existence of god? Stop the presses! Warn the television and radio outlets! Huh, what’s that? No, nothing new has in fact been put forward beyond the same old teleological, ontological and cosmological arguments that have failed to impress skeptics for hundreds of years? Then allow me to suggest that so-called “defeat” exists only in your own mind. It's just another delusion.

“Instead, he retreats to his study to continue his search for one — just one — argument or proof that God does not exist. And he will repeat this over and over.”

Err, no, you have it backwards. The atheist has no burden of proof as he makes no positive claim. Disbelief is the null hypothesis; the default position. If you claim that a god exists, that is a positive statement and the burden of proof is upon you. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, then you don’t understand what an atheist is. Perhaps that’s why you, mistakenly, don’t believe they exist.

“If God were just some unicorn theory that had no real affect on a person’s life, as some nonbelievers claim, then why don’t they treat it as such? Why don’t they just shrug and go on?”

God, as he doesn't exist, may have no effect upon a person’s life but, unfortunately, his followers do. Personally I would love to simply “shrug and go on.” The problem is Muslims hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings and their Christian counterparts push their special brand of delusion into the public square every chance they get. As Chris Hitchens says, religion poisons everything. Left to their own devices Christians would have Christian prayers in the public schools, the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings and Creationism taught in lieu of the science of Evolution. I don’t really care if they want to wallow in their delusions and ignorance in the privacy of their own home or church but, when they infringe upon me and mine with their lunacy then I cannot “just shrug and go on;” I have to waste some of my precious existence defending my right to be free from their delusion.

“Here is how this works, and how I know I’m right. When the believer is discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever, ask them why they don’t like God. Every one of them will present a list.”

Whoa, hold up a second there Tonto. That list relates to the believer’s CONCEPT of god and not to god as a real entity. Concepts can exist in and of themselves. I can acknowledge the “concept” of a unicorn and the “concept” of a leprechaun without accepting that these things exist. Similarly I can recognize the existence of the “concept” of a god, such as the Christian god, without having to accept his (her? Its?) existence. The point is that it is unclear to us why you would even desire such a god to exist. Luckily, he doesn’t.

“There are no atheists. If you were to find one real atheist, as G.K. Chesterton says, you will have found a madman.”

Nope. Sorry, but you’re wrong again. I’m a true atheist and I’m about as sane as anyone can be in this insane world. Actually, I wish I was insane, then perhaps the world might actually be sane and I could sleep much better at night.

To be honest the position is so ludicrous that the only way you can respond is to laugh at it. I suspect that it is rooted in the deep fear of the theist that his god may in fact not exist.

Those that espouse the biblical argument are usually very conservative fundamentalist Christians that claim the bible is inerrant and for them the stakes are even higher. The biblical argument is based upon Romans 1:20 where Paul makes the argument that god’s “eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.”

So clearly that everyone, by definition, knows he exists. Now Paul wasn’t talking about atheists, but about pagans for he goes on to say they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”

But I suppose one could argue that an atheist is a special kind of pagan.

Now I say the stakes are higher because accepting that Paul is WRONG means the bible isn’t inerrant and the entire foundation of their religion collapses.

In the final analysis however both arguments rest upon the theist not understanding what an atheist believes and the long road most of us have taken to get where we are. I’ve encountered many theists that have never really thought about their beliefs. They just sort of accepted what they were taught and never saw any particular need to question things.

I’ve met very few atheists that haven’t spent a considerable amount of time thinking things through and the more religious their upbringing, the more thinking they’ve done. This is not an area that theists untrained in the realm of Apologetics should venture into. I saw many well meaning people walk into buzz saws on the now defunct General Apologetics Forum. A forum disbanded by Christian Forums because it became a deconversion pit.

So much for Christianity’s obvious truths.

The Question of Abortion

I have made it no secret that I have been struggling with doubt in relation to the question of abortion. I have now resolved that doubt. 

Allow me to make a definitive statement, the only good number for the number of abortions per year is ZERO. Unfortunately, there are instances where an abortion may be justified or necessary. Don’t ask me to articulate what those instances are. I freely admit that I’m not smart enough to identify them and, I’m a hell of a lot smarter than 98.3% of politicians, so they aren’t smart enough to identify them either. 

So who can identify them? Only the people involved on a case by case basis. I don’t trust generalities here at all. It is no one else’s business so I cannot, under any circumstances, support any arbitrary restrictions upon abortion access regardless of how reasonable they might sound. Nor can I support measures designed to intimidate someone from making one decision or the other such as forcing pregnant women to have an ultrasound before having an abortion performed. 

So what about the “abortion is murder business?” Well, by definition abortion is not murder because murder is illicit killing and abortion is not illegal. What about the sixth commandment which says “Thou shalt not kill?” Well, actually the sixth commandment doesn’t say that. The King James Version has the wrong translation and this has been corrected in the New King James Version to “You shall not murder.” The updated translation is actually correct. “Kill” applies to all killing regardless of whether it is legal, illegal, justified or unjustified. You can “kill” in self defense. You cannot “murder” in self defense because “murder,” by definition, applies only to illegal and unjustified killing. The Hebrew word equivalent to the English “kill” is “harag.” The word used in Exodus 20:13 is “ratsach,” which refers to criminal acts of killing and is properly rendered “murder” in English. So, guess what, the bible doesn’t actually condemn “killing,” but only “criminal killing” or murder. 

Please don’t tell me I’m picking nits here. This is a lot more than a nit. The other biblical passage said to be related to abortion, and often quoted by anti-abortion folks, is Exodus 21:22-25 which states: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. “ 

he problem with using this as a prohibition for abortion is that the woman involved did not determine that the abortion was justified or necessary. In fact, the choice has been removed from her by an act of violence. It’s not nearly the same thing. 

Abortions have been practiced for thousands of years and for various reasons. It’s hard to believe that midwives in Judea 3,000 years ago weren’t armed with the same herbal remedies for an unwanted pregnancy as their Ancient Greek counterparts. 

I’m not defending abortion in general. I am saying that I understand that sometimes it may be justified, and the only person that can decide if it is justified, is the woman involved. I am also saying that who she consults with before reaching a conclusion, is also her decision so I also must reject attempts to play upon her emotions as a type of intimidation. 

How do you insure that she understands the implications of her decision? Unfortunately, I don’t believe you can. Like war, this is something that cannot be completely understood without experiencing it. So, I guess I’ve sort of come full circle back to where I was to begin with. Except, perhaps, now I better understand why I’m there.

There are Nuts Under Every Tree

Democrats in Pima County Arizona are mumbling about making a new state because they’re upset with the “extremist policies” of the state legislature.

The new state would be called Baja Arizona.

There is only one small problem with this idea (actually there are several but I’ll focus on one). The small problem is Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution which reads:

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

I find it hard to believe that the "extremist" legislature of Arizona would approve the seperation and neither would a Republican Congress.

West Virginia was formed out of a section of Virginia but only because Virginia, as part of the Confederacy, was in rebellion at that time.

Guys, at least READ the document you are sworn to preserve and protect.

The Deal with DOMA

Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage, for federal law, as between one man and one woman regardless of what the states say. In other words, two males may be married according to the state of Iowa or Massachusetts or Vermont but, as far as the federal government is concerned, they’re not married.

The distinction is vitally important for things like federal income taxes and Social Security and this is the sole exception to the rule that the states determine who is married.

There are several cases working their way through the courts challenging the constitutionality of the law. It has already been declared unconstitutional in a federal court in Massachusetts.

In the latest development, Attorney General Eric Holder has sent notification to the U.S. Congress that the Obama Administration believes that any law affecting lesbians and gay men deserves “heightened scrutiny” by the courts, that section 3 of DOMA is discriminatory and the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot, and will not, defend it in court.

Now, this has nothing to do with not enforcing DOMA as some fundies out there appear to think it does. The administration must, and will, enforce all laws. Only the courts can overturn a law and only Congress can repeal one.

What it does mean is that (1) the DOJ will not defend DOMA in the case in the 2nd circuit nor in the current California case. It has already defended it in the 1st circuit but, should the ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional be upheld there, the administration will not appeal.

Congress can decide to assign its own special counsel or a private group can petition to defend DOMA as was done for Proposition 8 in California when both the governor and attorney general refused to defend it.

Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has indicated that congress will appoint a special counsel. So you see, the Republicans have no problem spending money on some things. Actually, given the rapid anti-gay marriage position of a good portion of the Republican under 80 IQ trailer park base, I don’t see how they could possibly do anything else. Still, it should be very entertaining to hear how congressmen that declare the federal government can’t regulate health care explain how it can regulate marriage.

But make no mistake, this is a BIG deal. Why? Because the courts tend to listen to the Justice Department and should the courts choose to use “heightened scrutiny” on cases involving homosexuals, defending legal differences between gays and straights becomes much more difficult as the burden of proof becomes greater.

Of course Maggie Gallagher, of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) which is fiercely anti-gay marriage and is currently defending Prop 8 in California, is touting the DOMA announcement as the death knell for both Obama and Gay Marriage. I doubt it. The issue is still a legal one and the American electorate probably isn’t going to equate the administration announcement as having anything to do with the upcoming legal decisions.

As to her assessment that this will help win the legal case for DOMA, I don’t see it. The courts are becoming more and more hostile to homosexual discrimination as are the legislatures. It’s only the general electorate that hasn’t caught up. And they haven’t caught up primarily because of the kind of unsubstantiated swill peddled by organizations like NOM. Judges aren’t swayed by fear mongering and that’s about all the anti-gay marriage forces have left. It’s only a matter of time before the electorate realizes there must be a good reason for all those legal decisions in favor of gay marriage.

In the gay marriage fight victory is assured. The only questions are how long will it take, and what will be the cost. I look forward to seeing Gallagher and the rest of NOM boiled in their own bullshit. We’re not quite there yet, but the days of the long march appear to be over and the time for a new offensive appears to have come.

This just in...

After getting fed up with what it considered Westboro's publicity seeking accusations, Anonymous has brought down the church's web site just seconds after, in a video exchange, being told it couldn't manage it.

“The world (including Anonymous) disagrees with your hateful messages, but you have the right to voice them. This does not mean you can jump onto Anonymous for attention."

This is vigilante justice but, you know what, it feels right.

SCOTUS Rules for Westboro Baptist Church

The United States Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, decided that “Reverend” Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing of soldier’s funerals carrying signs such as “God hates fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” was protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

Judge Samuel Alito dissented.

This is one of those rulings that makes you grind your teeth. Albert Snyder, the father of Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq, sued the church for “emotional distress” after it picketed his son’s funeral and posted a poem on its web site attacked how Matthew’s parents had raised their son.

Snyder originally won an $11 million judgment against the church, which was later reduced to $5 million, but the decision was overturned by a Federal Court in Virginia which also assessed Snyder $16,000 in legal fees which he refused to pay until the Supreme Court had ruled on the case.

The legal fees are almost a moot point because Bill O’Reilly has said that he’s going to pay them if Snyder loses. This is probably the first thing O’Reilly and I ever agreed upon.

I understand the theory that if everyone’s speech isn’t protected then no one’s speech is protected and the idea of supporting the right of people to say things you don’t like, but there are limits. As I said the last time, the issue wasn’t WHAT Phelps was saying but WHERE he was saying it.

Veteran’s Groups, forty-eight states and 42 U.S. Senators supported Snyder claiming that what the Westboro Church was doing amounted to “psychological terrorism” but it didn’t do any good.

The conclusion in the decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts was as follows:

“Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. It did not disrupt Mathew Snyder’s funeral, and its choice to picket at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”

Judge Alito in his dissent said:

“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.

Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right…The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.”

I cannot agree either. Remember the old saying, your rights end where my rights begin. The court got this one wrong.

Conservatives with their heads where the sun don’t shine

So what else is new?

The latest conservative absurdity is playing itself out in Tennessee where a state legislator from Murfreesboro has introduced legislation that would make following some portions of the Islamic Shariah law a felony.

The bill was provided by the Eagle Forum and, apparently, was drafted by an Arizona lawyer by the name of David Yerushalmi. This dodo represented “Stop the Madrassa” in NYC a while back in the witch hunt over the assignment of Arab American Debbie Almontaser as principal of a dual language Arabic-English elementary school. In that case, despite repeated assurances that it was a public school with no intention of teaching Islam, the group managed to get Almontaser replaced but did not stop the school from being opened anyway.

Of course the result, despite all the hysteria, was a perfectly benign public school that was part of a larger dual language school program in the city.

This time around, according to Yerushalmi, "The legislation simply states that Shariah that follows the law of jihad, which calls for the violent overthrow of the Tennessee and U.S. government, is the Shariah that is at issue.”

And you’re a lawyer? Here’s a news flash for you sport, it’s already illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of a state or the U.S. government. That would make your legislation redundant if that’s all it covers.

There are two things I’ve found conservatives good at, lying and coming up with really stupid ideas based upon complete misconceptions. This looks to me like a little engaging in the former in order to cover the extent of the latter.

The First Amendment Center has called the bill a "really distorted understanding of Shariah law."

Again, I have to ask, so what else is new? Conservatives are famous for making decisions and coming up with policies based upon really distorted understandings. Would you like a few examples? Let’s try Slavery, Segregation, Gay Marriage, Evolution, Health Care Reform, Fiscal Policy, War and Peace, Economics and so on and so forth.

The world would be a dramatically different place if they would take their heads out from their rear ends and look up THE FACTS before forming their opinions. Of course that would require reading and thinking, neither of which are skills conservatives are very good at.

Let’s talk Libya

Mommar Gadhafi has made it clear that he doesn’t intend to be the latest domino in the Arab World. The protests in Libya have quickly become violent as forces loyal to Gadhafi appear trying to quell the latest unrest.

At least one Libyan city, Zawiya, has been taken by the rebels and an assault to retake the city appears to have failed. There are reports that elements of the army have joined the gathering rebellion. At least two Libyan pilots are reported to have fled to Malta rather than bomb their own countrymen.

In the meantime the U.N. is levying sanctions and American and European Union military forces appear to be moseying into the area just in case.

I don’t know where this one is headed but it doesn’t look encouraging.

In the tiny country of Bahrain the government appears ready to negotiate with protesters. I suspect the problem is going to be finding someone that can speak with authority for the people in the street. In Saudi Arabia the government is reported to be showering gifts on the populace to head off any possible disturbances there where, at least so far, things have been quiet.

Overall a dose of democracy in the Arab World could be a good thing or it could be a disaster. I don’t think democracy is the right sort of government for everyone. I mean, look at how Americans tend to screw it up by electing people like Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul. The danger of course is either a slide into theocracy or the emergence of a new strongman after it becomes obvious that things aren’t going to get enormously better overnight.

Still, a least for the moment, we can hope that things turn out positively but I’m not all that optimistic.

The Eye of the Beholder

It seems Iran is upset with the logo for the 2012 London Olympics. So upset they’re threatening a boycott.

Now anyone with a sense of artistic style would be upset with the logo because, to be quite honest, it looks like stuff shoved hastily into a closet. But the Iranians aren’t concerned with condoning sloppiness, they see a far darker implication.

The Iranians claim that the logo spells out the word “Zion” and is therefore racist.

Well, I guess if you start in the upper left that could be a “Z;” then go down to a lower case “I” with the dot displaced to its right side; then go catty corner to the upper right where we find a filled in “O;” finally it’s straight down to a sort of drunken “N” and, voila, “Zion.”

You have got to be kidding me.

If this isn’t a conspiracy by the art world to get the dumb looking thing scrapped, than I say screw them. Let them stay home if that’s what makes them happy.

Facts and Opinions

I’ve been down this road a few times before. Concept, there are “facts” and there are “opinions.” And, guess what, they are different things.

A fact is anything that can be objectively verified. You cannot challenge a fact once it has been established as accurate. You can challenge its accuracy, but once its accuracy has been established, you have to deal with it.

Allow me to provide an example. In a conversation about global warming I made the statement that a Pew Research study showed that 80% of scientists accept that global warming is occurring. Someone “challenged my numbers.” Well, you can’t challenge what I said because it is an absolute fact. The Pew Research study did exist and 80% was the number it published. You can challenge Pew Research’s methodology or conclusions or whatever, but that’s much harder than challenging what you thought was my opinion.

If I had simply said “80% of scientists accept global warming,” then the challenge, as stated, would have been appropriate. If I couldn’t produce a citation, then it’s simply my opinion and, by definition, opinions are subjective. Even if I could produce a citation, it might just be the opinion of someone else.

Now, it’s been my experience that Liberals understands this more than Conservatives (yes, that is an opinion that you would be within your rights to challenge). It’s also been my experience that the reason for this (here comes another opinion) is that the evidence is more often on the Liberal side.

To the Liberal, Correct = True. To the Conservative, Correct = Moral and, unfortunately, True is not always the same thing as Moral. The Conservative tends to look at things through a prism of subjective morality. The Liberal tends to look at things through prism of objective truth (there’s another opinion you can challenge to your heart’s content). Keep in mind however that either the Conservative’s Morality or the Liberal’s Truth can be challenged as wrong.

Why do I say this? Well, let’s consider some of the hot button issues shall we?

Abortion
To the Conservative this is murder and therefore morally wrong = Subjective Morality. To the Liberal there are cases where an abortion may be necessary = Objective Truth. So who decides when, if ever, an abortion is necessary?

Religion
To a Conservative, faith is a virtue = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, show me the evidence = Objective Truth.

Evolution
To a Conservative, the bible says it and that settles it = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, the scientific evidence indicates…=Objective Truth.

Global Warming
To a Conservative, God is in charge and man cannot undo God’s creation = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, the scientific evidence indicates…=Objective Truth.

Vaccinations
To a Conservative, my mommy sense tells me… = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, the scientific evidence indicates…=Objective Truth.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? One more.

Balancing the Budget
To a Conservative, cut taxes (especially for the rich), reduce spending and depend upon Supply Side Tax Growth = Wishful Thinking Stupidity. To a Liberal, raise taxes and keep spending = More Wishful Thinking Stupidity.

Ok, so that one didn’t precisely work out.

The reality is that none of these positions are facts. All of them are simply opinions and opinions can always be challenged. Whether the opinion is driven by one’s view of morality or one’s view of reality doesn’t really matter. It’s still all a matter of opinion.

It’s been my experience that both Liberals and Conservatives tend to forget that little point and often equate opinion with knowledge. Perhaps that’s why we no longer seem to be able to arrive at a working compromise.

Assault on the Unions

Republican Governor Scott Walker, backed by a Republican legislature, is attempting to strip state workers in Wisconsin of the right to collectively bargain.

Here we go again. The Republicans have no problem with protecting, or even enhancing, the wealth of the upper 5% or 10% on the economic ladder and doing so by screwing the middle and working classes.

I continue to be amazed at how the Right Wing under 80 IQ trailer part idiots in this country, sometimes known as the Republican base, will stand up and cheer not restoring a 3% income tax increase on the wealthiest Americans, and at the same time cheer stripping American workers of the right to protect their jobs and wages.

Who’s side are you on anyway?

Even if there are significant budget issues, the state’s workforce shouldn’t be asked to shoulder an unfair share of the burden in addressing those issues.

Now let’s talk about what really concerns me.

The Wisconsin State Journal claims that nonpartisan budget figures indicate that Walker is actually creating an artificial deficit in the latest budget with lavish spending items on special interests allied with his administration.

You got that one? Any budget issues are due to “LAVISH SPENDING ITEMS ON SPECIAL INTERESTS!”

Now, this is an accusation levied by one newspaper, and I personally have no way of knowing if this accusation is true, but one would think that the Wisconsin electorate would DEMAND the resolution of this accusation before anything is allowed to move forward.

In the meantime the Democratic legislators have left the state in order to ensure that the State Senate doesn’t have the necessary quorum for a vote. Unbelievably I see Right Wing assholes calling them cowards. You will excuse me, but that’s called fighting evil anyway you can.

The world is upside down.

In Washington the Republicans ensure that the rich get to keep their 3% tax reduction, based in part on an argument that it would have only raised $35 billion in revenue, but the Republicans bally-hoo themselves as saviors of the Republic because they’re going to cut $65 billion in services to the middle and working classes.

So, the $35 billion from the rich was going to cripple the economy but the $65 billion isn’t? I don’t necessarily have a problem with the cuts. As a matter of fact I agree with a lot of them. But far too many of them, like what’s going on in Wisconsin, smack of being politically motivated.

“NPR and PBS are honest and don’t lie for the Republican cause like Fox News? Well goddamn, we can’t have that, cut their funding.”

“Planned parenthood provides sex education and birth control advice? Well goddamn, that upsets the Religious Right which votes Republican 99% of the time. Kill the funding for Planned Parenthood even if it means more unwanted pregnancies which would mean more abortions.”

“What’s that? More abortions? Goddamn, that’s even worse than birth control, let’s make sure no tax dollars are available for abortions. So what if poor women die from lack of a medically critical abortion, back alley abortions or self-abortions. They don’t vote for us anyway.”

That’s the Republican version of democracy, free speech and caring for those unable to care for themselves. Jesus would weep. It’s lucky for him that he doesn’t exist.

To everyone that voted Republican, and is not in the top 5% of income earners, YOU ARE A MORON.

Watson

I watched the “Watson Challenge” on “Jeopardy!” the last couple of nights.

Watson is a computer developed by IBM that, by using plain language recognition and deep information search algorithms, can actually compete like a human contestant in the quiz show “Jeopardy!”

The opponents for Watson were Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, both of whom had won several million dollars playing “Jeopardy!” and are the unchallenged champions of the game. Or at least the unchallenged human champions of the game.

The competition took place over three nights and covered two full rounds of Jeopardy! At stake was $1.5 million dollars. $1 million for the winner, $300 thousand for second and $200 thousand for third.

It was a massacre. Watson crushed the two Champs winning a total of $77,147 over the two rounds compared to Jennings’ $24,000 and Rutter’s $21,600.

It was absolutely amazing to watch the computer convert the quirky “Jeopardy!” clues into answers, which were of course properly phrased as a question, returned in a pleasant, quiet male voice. After a while I thought Alex Trebek was going to start asking Watson about his background and family.

The win was a stunning victory for IBM Research and opens the door for literally thousands of potential applications down the road for this technology. Perhaps the most important potential application would be for medical diagnostics where most of the information is only available in plain language descriptions.

Watson wasn’t perfect and, while he ran roughshod over his two human opponents in the first round, Jennings and Rutter made it a bit of a dogfight in the second round. But, in the end, Watson was unstoppable. Despite occasionally coming up with the wrong answer, and occasionally not being able to isolate the answer before his opponents, it was clear who was king of the hill. The funniest moments came with Watson’s bizarre dollar amounts put up for the Daily Doubles he uncovered. His bets of highly uneven amounts, such as $1,236, brought chuckles from the audience at IBM Research where the shows were taped.

IBM indicated that Watson’s winnings of $1 million would be given to charity and Jennings and Rutter also indicated that they would donate half of their prize money to charity.

It was impressive and a lot of fun as well. Hats off to IBM and hats off to “Jeopardy!” and ABC for taking part in the challenge.

Creationism in the Classroom

Two researchers from Penn State University have published an article in the January 28th issue of Science in which they claim that only 28% of High School Biology teachers were what they termed “Advocates of Evolutionary Biology” while 13% were “Advocates of Creationism.” The other 60% they concluded were neutral.

Needless to say this created a bit of a stir.

Personally however I found the conclusions a little hard to accept so I downloaded and reviewed the raw data.

The article was based upon a survey of 926 science teachers conducted between March and May of 2007. The survey consisted of a series of multiple choice questions. The Penn State Researchers focused in on a group of questions related to the teaching of Evolution and Creationism.

I understand their approach but I’m not sure it’s valid. In order to be categorized as an Advocate of Creationism, one had to devote at least some classroom time to teaching it and agree with (1) Creationism or Intelligent Design is presented as a valid scientific theory or (2) it is presented that many reputable scientists view Creationism or Intelligent Design as a valid alternative to Evolution or both.

On the other hand, in order to be classified as an “Advocate of Evolutionary Theory,” one had to agree with (1) the broad consensus that Evolution is fact is presented and (2) Evolution serves as the unifying theme of the course and disagree with (3) it is possible to offer an excellent biology class with no mention of Darwin or Evolution. In addition, at least two of the three answers had to be the strong position of “Strongly Agree” for (1) and (2) and “Strongly Disagree” for (3).

I’m amazed that 28% met that criteria.

When one looks at the raw data, the picture is perhaps not as bleak but still a bit concerning.

Let’s start with the fact that 14% of the respondents declared that they personally believed that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”

Given that, is the 13% number so surprising?

All the following statements only include states with at least 10 respondents.
States that had the most teachers saying that they believed God created humans as is within the last 10,000 years were Oklahoma with 54%, Tennessee with 45% and Louisiana with 40%. States with 0% that believed that man was created in the last 10,000 years were Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon. Of the larger states the percentage of High School Biology teachers that said they believed man was created as is within the last 10,000 years was, in California 6.7%, in New York 7.7%, in Texas 27%, in Florida 13% and in Michigan 9.3%. In Indiana it was 16% and In New Jersey 0%.

Of all respondents, 74% agreed that they emphasize the broad scientific consensus that Evolution is fact. The only state where 100% of the respondents said that they teach Evolution as fact was Utah (Utah? WTF?). Other states over 80% were Ohio 90%, Minnesota 89%, Kentucky 86% (Kentucky? WTF?), Massachusetts 85%, South Dakota 85%, New Jersey 83% and Kansas 82% (Kansas?).

The states where the fewest teachers taught that Evolution was considered a scientific fact were Alabama with 54%, followed by Nebraska with 55% and then Arizona with 60%. In Indiana 65% taught it as fact compared to 83% in New Jersey.

This brings us to how many teachers teach that Creationism or Intelligent Design is valid science. Of all respondents, 15% said that they teach Creationism as science and a valid alternative to Evolution. The states where the most teachers taught Creationism as valid science were Alabama 39%, Georgia 28%, Kansas 27% and Texas 26%.

The states where the fewest taught that were Connecticut 0%, Oregon 0%, Virginia 0%, Missouri 4.2% and California 6.7%. In New Jersey 16.2% taught Creationism was science and in Indiana 16.1%. Now isn’t that embarrassing?

As for whether Creationism or Intelligent Design is viewed by many reputable scientists as a valid scientific alternate to Evolution, 17.6% overall said they taught that. The states where the most teachers taught it were Arkansas 44%, Texas 37%, Alabama 31% and Louisiana and Maryland both 30%.

The states where the least teachers taught it were Oregon 0%, Virginia 4.0%, Illinois 5.9% and Ohio 6.5%. In New Jersey 18.9% taught that Creationism or Intelligent Design is recognized by many reputable scientists and in Indiana 22.6% taught that.

Now, like all surveys, there are two types of questions here. Some are related to your opinion and some are related to your knowledge of facts. The question as to whether Creationism or Intelligent Design is valid science, asks for an opinion and, apparently, 17.6% of the science teachers in the survey think that it is. Personally, I think they’re wrong but they’re entitled to their opinion.

However, the question about whether many reputable scientists recognize Creationism or Intelligent Design as valid science is really a matter of fact. I don’t know of any reputable scientists that accept Creationism as valid science; there are a handful that appear to accept Intelligent Design as valid science. Therefore when students are taught that “many reputable scientists” recognize Creationism or Intelligent Design as valid science, they are being given false information.

The fact that these are supposedly Science Teachers gives one pause doesn’t it?

Even in states like Massachusetts 15.4%, New York 11.5%, New Jersey 18.9% and California 8.9%, students are being told that “many reputable scientists” view Creationism or Intelligent Design as valid science and this is just flat out not true.

While I may not agree with the articles numbers and categorization, I can’t help but agree with its conclusion that we still have a ways to go here. Winning in the courts is not the same thing as winning on Main Street.

Fox News Strikes Again

A survey by Maryland University has revealed the total misinformation that impacted the last election. Basically the Republicans lied and the electorate bought it. Who were the most misinformed? Fox News viewers were by far the most misinformed about national events. And, surprise, surprise, they were always misinformed to the conservative Republican side of the issue.

In case you haven’t noticed, the Republicans lie and Fox News swears to it.

Now guess which folks tended to be the least misinformed? Those who got their news from Public Broadcasting (NPR and PBS). I guess that explains why the Republicans are trying so hard to kill the appropriations for those two organizations.

Let’s get to the numbers shall we.

The Reality: Most economists that have studied the effect of the stimulus package estimate that it has created between 2.0 and 2.5 million jobs.

The Misinformation: 88% of the general public, and 91% of those who watch Fox News, believed the Republican line that it created very few jobs or it actually lost jobs. The least misinformed viewers were MSNBC, "only" 64% got it wrong.

The Reality: The CBO has concluded that the health care reform bill would either not raise the budget deficit or slightly reduce it.

The Misinformation: 53% of the general public, and 72% of those who watch Fox News, believe that economists felt it would increase the budget deficit. The least misinformed viewers were Public Broadcasting, only 40% got it wrong.

The Reality: The U.S. economy began to recover in the 4th quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then.

The Misinformation: 55% of the general public, and 72% of those who watch Fox News, believe the economy is still getting worse. The least misinformed viewers were Public Broadcasting, only 34% got it wrong.

The Reality: Since January of 2009 (under the Obama Administration) Federal Income Taxes have gone down.

The Misinformation: 38% of the general public, and 49% of those who watch Fox News, believe that taxes have gone up. The least misinformed viewers were CNN, only 26% got it wrong.

An informed electorate is essential to the proper working of a democracy. Based upon this study, the American electorate just elected members of congress under gross misconceptions of the state of the economy which was cited as the single most important issue.

One more point, although it probably had nothing to do with the elections, The National Academy of Sciences has concluded unambiguously that climate change is occurring. Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not they are right, but simply with what is the scientific view. Well, incredibly, 60% of Fox News viewers believe that either scientists do not believe that climate change is occurring or that scientists are evenly divided.

The list goes on and on. The only conclusion that any intelligent human being can reach is that Fox News is purposely skewing their “news” content. Either that or they’re incredibly incompetent. Either way, we’d all be much better off if people stopped watching them altogether.

Mubarak Resigns

Well, let's hear it for the power of the people. Much to my surprise, President Mubarak of Egypt failed to weather the storm and has resigned.

Exactly what happens now is a bit unclear. At the moment the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is in charge but, at least so far, the Army appears committed to civilian rule and an open election of the next president. Of course that could take a while.

Before we begin celebrating a victory for democracy, allow me to make the point that, according to Pew Research, 82% of Egyptian Muslims think it' proper to stone an adulterer to death. You got that one? And considering just about everyone there is Muslim, that's close enough to 82% of the entire population.

Democracy requires an electorate whose heads are not completely up their asses. Democracy could turn into a nightmare in Egypt the same way it's a nightmare in Mississippi and Oklahoma.

Let's not forget that lurking in the background is the Muslim Brotherhood. They may not be Al-Quida but I don't trust them one bit. The world probably got a little more dangerous on Friday but that's not necessarily a bad thing. A true working democracy in Egypt would be a great leap forward for the region and perhaps that possibility makes it all worth while.

What the U.S. needs to do is support the Egyptian's attempt to build a working democracy even if things are a little rough to begin with. I think Obama is smart enough to do that, but I'm not sure of the Republicans in Congress.

Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defense

Alvin Plantinga is a philosopher that developed what is known as the “Free Will Defense” to address the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil has been attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus and is typically quoted as follows:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God?”

Plantinga’s summarizes his defense as follows:

“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if he does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil; and he can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.”

Get it?

It seems that most philosophers accept Plantinga’s argument as resolving the Problem of Evil.

A number of noted philosophers, including Anthony Flew, disagree and have criticized the argument because it assumes what is known as an “incompatibilist view” which postulates that free will and determinism are incompatible. Apparently they hold that “free will” and determinism are compatible.

I don’t buy that one. I have to admit that I consider free will and determinism incompatible so I’m not impressed with that criticism.

So, is the Problem of Evil resolved?

No, for three reasons. First, let’s consider the proposition “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.”

What would be more valuable, a world were 51% of the freely performed actions were morally good or a world where 52% of the actions were morally good? What about 52% versus 53%? 53% versus 54%?

Allow me to suggest that the fewer the number of evil actions, the more valuable the world. Given unlimited resources, I could create an environment for people where they may still retain the ability to do evil, but it would be extremely unlikely they would choose to do so because there would be no need.

If I were a God, I think I would also refrain from creating sociopaths or psychopaths who are almost guaranteed to do evil.

Yet God apparently chooses not to do either of these things. Instead we get a world with limited resources. A world in which it is a struggle to simply survive, never mind be happy, and he chooses to create creatures virtually guaranteed to do evil.

Second, let’s consider the question of choosing to do evil versus the ability to execute that choice.

If I knew that someone had kidnapped a child with the intent of torturing and abusing that child and I was capable of taking action to prevent it, you can be damn sure I would prevent it. I think it’s safe to say that 99% of humanity, including those currently locked up for choosing to do evil, would prevent it as well.

The free choice has been made. By allowing the execution of that choice I maintain there is no added value. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God should know about the intended evil action, be capable of stopping the action and desire to stop the action. I suspect convincing the parents of the child that allowing the execution of the freely chosen evil action was more “valuable” would be a long, hard sell.

Third, and by far the most damning objection, is that Plantinga’s argument only accounts for “moral evil,” evil perpetrated by human beings. It does not address “Natural Evil” such as tornados, earthquakes and plagues.

Plantinga’s response to this objection is that it is possible that these things are caused by non-human creatures with free will. In other words, devils and demons and jinns oh my! My immediate reaction upon hearing this idiocy was to simply toss the whole argument into the trash. But that would have been a sort of reverse argument from authority. What is important is what is said, not who said it. Just because the source has some ideas too stupid to be taken seriously (don’t we all?) shouldn’t invalidate everything he says.

So, the bottom line is I’m not impressed. I may not be a philosopher (how does one become a philosopher anyway?) but I have my share of intelligence. Perhaps God could not have created a world with no evil, but he should have been able to do a hell of a lot better than he did.

One other question. If God cannot create a world with no evil, does that mean that there is evil in Heaven? If there is, why is it Heaven? If there isn’t, then Plantinga’s proposition is false isn’t it?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I keep running into this thing which theists seem to view as the holy grail. Well, you will excuse me but I’m not all that sure.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a logical argument attempting to demonstrate the existence of God. It is an argument championed by possibly the leading contemporary Christian Apologist Dr. William Lane Craig. The argument, as described by Craig, is as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

There are a whole host of objections floating around to this argument but note something interesting, even if you accept the argument as valid, it only establishes that the Universe had a cause and not what that cause was nor that the cause, whatever it was, still exists.

The objection I find most entertaining was put forward by Dan Barker. Allow me to paraphrase Barker’s argument.

The premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause,” implies that there are two sets of things. Set BE which contains all the things which “Began to Exist” and NBE which contains all of the things which did “Not Begin to Exist.”

Now let’s consider NBE. Where the theist is going with this argument is that NBE consists of only the Primal Cause and that this Primal Cause is God. But if that’s the case, then the first premise becomes indistinguishable from “Everything but God had a cause.” This therefore assumes the existence of God in the premise and makes the argument circular.

There are also objections to the first premise based upon counter examples that appear to exist at the quantum level. Radioactive decay appears to be a random, causeless function. Carbon 14 decays into Carbon 12, but it’s a random occurrence. There is no particular “cause” at the instant it occurs.

Note that I don’t present these objections as demonstrating the invalidity of the Kalam argument, as I’m sure Craig has counter-arguments to the counter-arguments, but simply to point out that it’s not as easy as it might first appear.

Personally I find the whole gist of the argument reeking of fun with semantics. If one considers the Universe the set of all things, then saying the Universe began to exist implies that all things began to exist. But any cause must exist prior to its effect so therefore the Universe is not the set of all things. But if the Universe is not the set of all things, then where are these things that are not part of the Universe?

Clearly the theist implies these things include God, the Angels, Heaven and Hell, but this simply addresses what they are and not where they are. There is also the issue of Time. Time is a element of the Universe. Before the Universe existed the concept of Time is meaningless so how did these things outside the Universe differentiate between events such as the fall of Lucifer and the Creation without having them all occurring simultaneously and ad-infinitum.

I’m also not personally acquainted with everything that “began to exist,” so I can’t make the definitive statement that “Whatever begins to exist had a cause.” Such a statement would require exhaustive knowledge. I don’t have it and neither does Craig.

Words are meant as descriptions of reality but have no reality of their own. They can however be used to describe non-reality. Consider every fantasy story that has ever been written. The Kalam Cosmological Argument strikes a sour note with me. It seems to be just words without any reality behind them. A thought experiment that represents the worst form of philosophy because it is not supported by any foundation beyond the words. It’s all smoke and mirrors, all sound and fury but signifying nothing.

Super Bowl XLV

Ok, so age and treachery didn’t triumph although I was hoping Big Ben could pull it off in the last two minutes there. Three turnovers were just too much to overcome and Rashid’s Mendenhall’s fumble was probably the ultimate turning point.

With the final score 31-25 Packers over the Steelers, I finish up at 8-3 for the NFL play-offs this year. Hey, it could have been worse.

Speaking of things that could have been worse, SB XLV had its share.

Let’s start with the fans that thought they had tickets to the game. Apparently, Jerry “The Hitman” Jones,added some 15,000 temporary seats in his bid for a SB attendance record. Unfortunately some were apparently deemed unsafe and about 1,200 fans showed up at the game only to find they had no seats.

At first the luckless fans weren’t even allowed entry into the stadium but ultimately some 850 got seats. Another 400 were given access to a club area where they could watch on monitors or go to a standing room only section. The NFL has promised to refund three times the $800 face value of the tickets. The problem with that is some of these folks paid as much as $3,000 for the seats and then there are the travel expenses.

Next we learned that Christina Aguilera doesn’t know the words to the Star Spangled Banner. To be honest however, her mangling of the lyrics was the highlight of what I can only call a spectacularly uninspired performance. Man did she suck.

That brings us to the halftime show which had to be one of the worst I can remember. Does the phrase “cardboard cutouts yelling at you” conjure up an image? It was absolutely terrible as well as, given the probable average age of the fans in the stands, terribly age inappropriate. Holding off the second half for that garbage was downright criminal.

Luckily it was a good game and, when all is said and done, that’s what will be remembered. Ok, let’s move on to the draft.

Give me proof…

A not unusual “challenge” that many Creationists put on the table for advocates of Evolution takes the form “show me absolute proof, with 100% certainty, that…” any number of things ranging from how a given biological feature evolved to what existed prior to the Big Bang. Yes, I know the Big Bang is Cosmology and not Evolution but Creationists tend to confuse Evolution, Cosmology, Abiogenesis and atheism with sickening regularity.

There are several fallacies in these “challenges.”

The most obvious is that nothing in the natural world can be proven with 100% certainty. Absolute proof is only possible within the framework of mathematical systems. It is unattainable in the natural world. One can come close to absolute certainty, but the natural world deals in inference and probabilities.

The second fallacy is this that there is somehow something inherently wrong with saying “I don’t know.” If you don’t know, that’s ok. Perhaps someday you will know.

The final fallacy is what is known as a “false dichotomy.” In a false dichotomy questions are presented in an “either-or” manner which assumes only two possibilities. Since there are only two possibilities, if one can be proven FALSE that validates the second as TRUE.

The problem with that approach is that in the natural world there are a multitude of possibilities. Proving evolution wrong does not prove Creationism, or anything else for that matter, right.

Florida Federal Judge says Health Reform Law Unconstitutional

A Federal Judge in Florida has, apparently with some reluctance, has declared the Health Care Reform bill unconstitutional.

To quote Federal Judge Roger Vinson:

"... I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

In other words you can't force someone to buy Health Insurance.

This is an interesting twist. States force individuals to buy auto insurance if they wish to drive. Of course not having auto insurance doesn't keep people from driving. Guess who ends up paying if they have an accident and injure someone? The other insured drivers do. That's you and me. A part of our insurance payments establish a fund to cover accidents caused by uninsured drivers.

Now unless uninsured people who get sick are denied medical attention, us, the insured folks, will end up paying for that as well.

I'm not seriously proposing we deny uninsured people medical care so I guess that's the way it will have to be. I'm not about to instruct a Federal Judge on the law either. Undoubtedly the Obama Administration will appeal. I find it hard to believe they will prevail now that two judges have declared the individual mandate unconstitutional.

There comes a time in every game when the right move is to drop back 15 and punt. That time may have come for the current Health Care Reform legislation.

Egyptian Protests Still Going

Clearly Egyptian President Mubarak has become a man under siege. Some sources have reported that he is on the verge of giving up and resigning as President.Certainly nothing he has tried appears to have mollified the protesters. This could be big trouble.

Egypt is arguably the most religious country in the world. Open and free elections there could quite well turn the country over to the Muslim Brotherhood which is a fundamentalist Islamic group.

Democracy is not for everyone. As a matter of fact, I’m beginning to think that it’s not for anyone. I’m leaning toward an oligarchy of sorts where the right to vote is a privilege that needs to be earned rather than a right to which any idiot that happens to be born within the borders is entitled. And no, I’m not proposing a Star Troopers kind of requirement; I was thinking more along the lines of verifying basic knowledge on civics, history and how the government works.

But I digress.

Back to Egypt. Clearly Mubarak’s regime is teetering on the edge. Earlier I said that I didn’t think he was going anywhere and he is certainly fighting tooth and nail, but for every hole in plugs, two more appear to open. I still don’t think the end is a foregone conclusion but he better come up with something soon.

In the meantime I see that the under 80 IQ trailer park set, also known as the Republican Base, is blaming Obama for this. Blaming? Isn't Democracy a good thing? Oh well, never expect consistency from either a moron or a conservative. Oh, wait a minute, moron and conservative are redundant aren't they?

Arizona Law on Birth Rights

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This amendment was passed in order to guarantee that freed slaves and their offspring would be American Citizens. It’s unlikely that at the time anyone considered the question of the offspring of illegal immigrants.

Historically the phrase as been interpreted to simply mean that, other than under a few exceptions, if you are born within the territory of the United States, then you are an American citizen. Republicans in Arizona are preparing to challenge that interpretation.

Several bills have been introduced in the state legislature to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. Today, they would automatically be granted citizenship based upon the simple fact of being born here. Under the Arizona bills they would not.

How can they do this? Isn’t this in violation of the 14th Amendment and therefore the U.S. Constitution? Well, perhaps. What the Arizona legislators are really doing is setting up a challenge to the traditional interpretation in the Supreme Court and they are basing that challenge on the phrase “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

What exactly does that phrase mean? Well, suppose a visiting pregnant monarch gave birth prematurely? It might be a little awkward to say that the monarch’s child, and perhaps heir to a foreign throne, is a citizen of the United States.

The issue of course is that the visiting monarch is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States and neither are diplomats. In the landmark case “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” in 1898 the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment must be interpreted based upon English Common Law and included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

Unfortunately, if one goes back to the actual debates related to the 14th Amendment in 1866 one can make the case that the phrase is actually synonymous with the phrase “not subject to any foreign power.” This was precisely the phrase used in the Civil Rights act Of 1866 passed by the same Congress as the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights act declared a citizen to be “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

So, if that’s what they meant, why isn’t that what they said?

Possibly because there was an intent to change the citizenship definition by expanding it. What about the children of legal immigrants? Many countries maintain the principle that children born to their citizens are likewise citizens and subject to their jurisdiction. Would they be excluded from American citizenship if their parents had immigrated here and not yet taken out American citizenship?

What about an American with a foreign bride (which happens with some regularity given our military adventures abroad)? Any child born to such a union could be claimed by the brides home nation. Would the child then be “subject to a foreign power” and not entitled to natural born citizenship?

The Supreme Court decision made it simple. Other than the three exceptions noted, if you’re born here, you’re an American citizen, and a natural born citizen at that, eligible one day to sit in the Oval Office as President.

Now I’m sure Conservatives will claim that this is an egregious case of Judicial Activism and the court creating law rather than interpreting it. Perhaps, but if the law isn’t allowed to grow with the times, it ceases to provide justice; if it ceases to provide justice, then it is bad law and unworthy of being considered what the Constitution says.

To my mind the Arizona legislators are wrong and, hopefully, the current Supreme Court will agree with the court of 1898 and see it that way as well.

Of Tunisia and Egypt

Tunisia’s dictator has been toppled thanks to the Army’s refusal to put down protesters and now similar demonstrations have broken out in Egypt.

On the surface this is reminiscent of the domino effect in the Eastern European countries in the 1980s but I wouldn’t get too excited. I doubt Mubarak is going anywhere and the jury is still out on whether Tunisia can manage to become the first Arab democracy.

The whole concept of democracy sort of runs counter to the Islamic culture of unquestioned divine authority. Still, stranger things have happened. We shall see what we shall see.

The Super Bowl

Oh boy, 2-0 for the Championship games and 8-2 overall for the play-offs. If I didn’t know better, I’d start to think I actually know what I’m talking about.

The reality of the situation is given the “parity” that the NFL has come pretty close to achieving, every game is probably not much better than a 55-45 breakdown and in the play-offs it probably drops pretty close to a 50-50 proposition.

Still, it feels good to finally get the better of my pet goat Frankie in predicting the NFL. He’s been sulking out back ever since Roethlisberger completed that 4th quarter pass which clinched it for the Steelers.

One word about Jay Cutler, personally I would never question a player's assessment as to whether he’s too injured to play. If Jay says he couldn’t play, I believe him, and that should be the end of the discussion. I’d like to get some of the blog wusses that are complaining about him out on the field for about 15 minutes. That would be more than enough time to shut them up. Let's not forget that we're talking about the man's livlihood here and there are many more games yet to be played.

So now, ta-da, on to the Super Bowl.

The Packers are the early favorite, not because Las Vegas believes they’re the better team, but simply because of the betting patterns up until now.

To my mind Aaron Rodgers looked like a much cooled off Quarterback against the Bears defense. Roethlisberger on the other hand did what needed to be done when it needed to be done.

As for the running game, two words, Rashard Mendenhall. He gives the Steelers the balance that I think is going to desert the Packers. Yes, their running game has been better than expected during the play-offs, but I think the Steelers will shut it down.

There’s no question that Rodgers and his talented receiver corps are capable of carrying the game without much of a running attack against most teams, but I don’t think they can do it against the Steelers.

Remember the old saying, "Experience and treachery will win out over youth and talent when all the chips are on the line." Well, all the chips are on the line. The Steelers will manage just enough offense to win. Let's call it 24-20 in favor of big Ben and the Steelers.

The NFL Championship Games

I was riding high there for a while last weekend. There I was going into the Jets-Patriots game 3-0 for the Divisional Play-offs and 6-1 overall basking in the confident glow that Tom Brady and company were going to put away the Jets as I had predicted.

Ooops! Well, I guess 6-2 isn’t that bad.

Hey, I’ve got one more right than I had through the Super Bowl last year and there are still three games to go. Unfortunately I’m quite capable of getting all three of them wrong. So, let’s get to the Championship Games shall we?

AFC Championship Game
Jets at Steelers
Hmmm, what to do here? The Jets beat the Steelers during the regular season and just managed to beat Payton Manning and Tom Brady on consecutive weekends. They seem to have the Golden glow this season. Things just seem to go right for them. On the other side, the Steelers seem a bit worn around the edges. I should go with the Golden Boy Jets, but I’m not. I’m staying on the dark side. Ben and the Steelers send the Jets home.

NFC Championship Game
Packers at Bears
I’ve never seen a quarterback as hot as Aaron Rodgers. The Packers have built up an incredible head of steam and I think they’re going to flatten the Bears. When in doubt, go with the best quarterback and I’ll take Rodgers over Cutler any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I’m going with the Packers.

The Divisional Play-offs

Hey, hey, hey, I got 3 out of 4. Of course the one I got wrong was the one I had the most confidence in. Go figure. Anyway, my pet goat Frankie is sulking because I finally out predicted him, but he's vowed revenge this week.

Ok, enough stalling. Let's get to it shall we?

AFC Divisional Play-offs
Ravens at Steelers
I haven't got the faintest idea! This is a tough one but I think I'm going to go with the Steelers at home.

Jets at Patriots
I'll take the Patriots. Brady and company are on a roll and I think the Jets left too much on the field in Indianapolis.

NFC Divisional Play-offs
Green Bay at Atlanta
Another tough one. To be honest with you I'm not all that familier with Atlanta. I don't think I've seen them play all year. Still, they are the #1 seed and they did beat Green Bay in the regular season, but I'm not all that impressed with their schedule. I'm going to stick with Green Bay.

Seattle at Chicago
I'll take Chicago. I don't believe that Seattle can win two play-off games.

The Shootings in Arizona

The attack in Arizona that left nine people, including a 9 year old child, dead and Representative Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded was a tragedy of the first order.

To be honest with you, the alleged gunman, Jared Loughner, sounds to me like a total nut case. I don’t think he had a political motive. I’m not even sure he was targeting Giffords. The choice may well have been totally random because it was a good target for someone who was looking for a target.

But here’s the big but, the very fact that a lot of people immediately looked to the increasingly heated rhetoric of our current political climate as the possible cause indicates that the American public is uncomfortable with that rhetoric.

And it damn well should be. If it didn’t cause this violence, it’s only a matter of time before some under 80 IQ trailer part moron with a gun decides it’s time to vote with a bullet rather than a ballot.

You will excuse me but the rhetoric is not evenly violent. If Right Wing assholes like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh don’t have a monopoly on it, it’s pretty damn close.

I’d like to think that somehow this tragedy will change things but I’m not all that optimistic. Palin is already trying to paint herself as the victim by throwing around the term “blood-libel” and her conservative booby supporters are cheering her on.

Reasonable men can honestly disagree on things. It’s been my experience that compromise solutions tend to work out best. In most cases neither extreme is the right way to go. The problem with the current political climate is that too many issues seem to immediately get classified as non-negotiable and if you can’t compromise, what’s left but to fight? We’re not spending enough time identifying the common ground from which we can move forward and both the Left and the Right are guilty of that.

The NFL Play-offs

I know that the world is waiting with baited breath to learn whether or not I intend to make a fool of myself again by predicting the NFL Play-off results. My pet goat Frankie has already made his picks by choosing the winners randomly with his hoofs.

Frankie almost always does better than I do.

Last year I only managed a dismal 5-6 record through the Super Bowl and, if I want to avoid another humiliation, I should keep my mouth shut this year.

But what’s the fun in that? There isn’t any, so here we go again.

NFC Wild Card Games
Saints at Seahawks – Absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Saints win this one.

Packers at Eagles – I’m going with the Packers. They are red hot and Philly is showing some wear and tear.

AFC Wild Card Games
Jets at Colts – Again I’m going to take the Wild Card team and go with the Jets.

Ravens at Chiefs – It’s a clean sweep for the visitors in my opinion. I’m going with the Ravens over the Chiefs.

I find it hard to believe I’m going with all away teams on the first weekend but I just don’t think the Seahawks even deserve to be in the tournament and the AFC South has been weak as well. As for the Chiefs, I’m not a believer. The hardest game for me to pick was the Packers and Eagles. I was sorely tempted to choose the Eagles at home, but the Packers seem to be the hottest team in the league at the moment.

Ah well, we shall see how poorly I do this year.

The Pope Takes the Middle Ground

Pope Benedict XVI has decreed that "The universe is not the result of chance” and that God’s mind is behind the great scientific theories.

I say this is the middle ground because to the Right of the Pope are the Fundamentalist Christians that believe Genesis is a science text and that the universe was literally created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. To the Left are the Atheists that claim that the hypothesis of God is no longer required and that all of existence is the result of natural processes.

So my question is whether or not this pronouncement is within the sphere of “Faith and Morals?” Because if it is, then according to Catholic doctrine, it is an infallible pronouncement that MUST be accepted by all Catholics. If they don’t accept the pronouncement, then they run the risk of committing the sin of disobedience.

This is a major difference between religion and the secular world. In the secular world there is no authority figure so powerful that all of his pronouncements must be accepted without question or criticism.

Are there people that one would be predisposed towards accepting what they say due to their recognized expertise? Of course there are, but none of them is immune to criticism or disagreement. No one has absolute authority.

In the religious world however God, the Prophets and some of the clergy, DO have absolute authority. If the Pope declares eating bagels dyed with green food coloring as an sinful act, then for all Catholics it becomes a sinful act. There are no if, ands or buts allowed.

For Protestant Christians this is a tad trickier since there is no central authority. Sola Scriptura rules. The problem with that idea is that while everyone may agree upon what the scripture SAYS, very often there is disagreement on what it MEANS.

This gets really dicey when one realizes that the arguments are taking place based upon texts that have been modified over time and may, or may not, accurately represent the originals in all cases.

As for me, like the Frenchman Pierre-Simon Laplace, when it comes to the question of God, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”