Obama's Choice for Supreme Court

That would be Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Not the flaming Liberal I would have preferred but a darn good choice that puts the Republicans in a bit of a pickle.

Any significant attempt to block her confirmation is going to make them look like the self centered obstructionists they are. Just a gaggle of arrogant SOBs ready to oppose anything simply for partisan reasons rather than considering what's good for the country.

And they call themselves patriots.

However, on the down side I see that the Center for Inquiry is extending a tentative endorsement. CFI thinks Sotomayor's stand on the Separation of Church and State is a tad murky.

Somehow I doubt she's going to line up with Scalia and Thomas and try to erase the idea that government must be neutral with respect to religion versus non-religion as well as neutral with respect to different religions.

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

The California Supreme Court today decided that it’s ok for voters to amend the Constitution in order to outlaw same sex marriage.

The decision is a disappointment, but not really surprising. On the plus side, the court ruled that the 18,000 marriages performed while it was legal stand.

This decision implies that there is something fundamentally different about the minority called gays. For some reason you’re allowed to discriminate against gays and gays don’t have the same rights as other minorities.

I’d like to ask the California Supreme Court exactly what that fundamental difference is?

I’d also like to ask the African American and Catholic voters who for voted for Proposition 8 why, since it’s ok to discriminate against gays, it’s not ok to discriminate against Catholics and Blacks?

I’d especially like to hear it from Blacks. Why was it ok for non-blacks to fight to help them secure their rights in the 1960s but now they believe it’s ok to vote away someone else’s rights? I remember the fire hoses, the dogs and the blood. Apparently too many Black Californians don’t.

Ok, enough with the whining. There's only one more thing I'd like to say. This isn't the end of the fight. It's a setback yes, but only a temporary one. It's a longer journey but now we'll just have to get Proposition 8 repealed by doing a better job of explaining to the voters why it's so terribly wrong to let it stand.

Victory is certain. The only questions are how long will it take and what will be the cost. “So comrades, come rally, and the last fight let us face.”

The Word of God?

I got hit with the last ditch Creationist defense the other day, “Evolution can’t be right because it contradicts the Word of God.”

Of course by the Word of God the fundie meant the Book of Genesis in the Bible. That’s when it hit me. If you’re looking for the Word of God in some book, allow me to suggest that you are looking for it in the wrong place. If the Word of God is to be found, it’s to be found in Nature. It’s to be found in the wondrous variety of living things and in the laws of the universe.

Ironically it’s science that is searching in the right place and the faithful who are looking in the wrong place. You will excuse me, but if Nature contradicts some musty old book, I’ll go with Nature.

The Republic is Safe

As soon as I saw this picture any doubts that I may have had about the safety of the Republic vanished in a twinkling.

As long as we have men with the courage to engage in combat wearing pink “I love NY” undies and flip-flops, we have nothing to fear from anyone.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

A Christian's Grip on Reality

Here's a wonderful quote from a Christian on Global Warming.

"The average global temperature has DROPPED over the past 12 years. Don't give me this man-made global warming nonsense. God, and God alone is responsible for the climate conditions here on earth. It is nothing short of presumed arrogance to think that we can destroy what God has made."

The global temperature has been dropped for the past 12 years? Really? Where are you getting your information from, your pastor?

Here’s a quote from the Earth Policy Institute about 2007, the second warmest year on record.

“The year 2007 fits into a pattern of steadily increasing global average temperature, with the eight warmest years on record all occurring in the last decade.”

Don’t take my word for it though, check it out here http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008.htm.

Don’t take their word for it either, check out any of a dozen or so sites with the same information. Are they all in a vast conspiracy with Al Gore to destroy Christianity and Capitalism?

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The average global temperature has been getting warmer; that’s a fact. The warmer average temperatures are melting glaciers, ice caps and ice pack; that’s also a fact. If this trend continues much longer the effects could be catastrophic; that is also a fact.

The only questions are whether this is part of a natural warming cycle or caused by human activity and whether or not there is anything we can do about it. The general consensus in the scientific community is that human activity is at least partially responsible.

If your god is controlling the global temperature then he’s pushing the world toward the brink of disaster. Maybe you should ask him to knock it off.

Hello Ida Baby!

Or should I say GRANDMA!

Ah yes, Darwinius Masillae, nicknamed Ida, is a 47 million year old fossil unveiled in New York after being under study in relative secret for over two years at Oslo University. Ida may be from a species on the branch of the tree that connects primates to the rest of the animal kingdom.

The media is going ga-ga over the specimen and Evangelical Christians are calling it everything from meaningless to bogus.

As far as I can tell Ida looks like another rock on the mountain of evidence supporting evolution. It’s unlikely she’s anyone’s direct Great lots of times Grandma though because she appears to have been about only nine months old when she died.

I’m never amazed by the Faithfull’s ability to arbitrarily dismiss anything that doesn’t fit their narrow view of reality. You think we could fool them into thinking the Rapture is occurring and dump them all somewhere in Kansas?

What’s in a name?

The "Christian Children’s Fund" (CCF) has apparently decided to change its name. As of July 1st it will be "ChildFund International."

Fox news had a segment with a clearly incensed female interviewer interviewing a clearly incensed female interviewee. The interviewee was called the “ex-donator” because she would no longer support the organization after the current child she is sponsoring leaves the program. Of course they were incensed about CCF’s decision to drop the “Christian” in its name.

After the general ranting and raving, they went on to exclaim how Christians were eventually going to rise up from their pews and put an end to such rampant political correctness.

Apparently the interviewee had called CCF and complained. She reported they told her two things. First they said they believed in “truth in advertising.” Then later, after that had clearly failed to soothe her outrage, explained that despite the change in name they were going to continue doing “what they’ve always done.”

Now here’s the good part. CCF is a nonsectarian organization. Despite the name, they do no missionary work. As a matter of fact in 2004, Wall Watchers, a Christian Watch Dog organization, sent an alert saying that CCF wasn’t “Christian” in the way most Christian organizations are viewed because it didn’t bring the gospel along with the more practical charity. Wall Watchers actually accused CCF of purposely misleading people with their name.

Clearly our interviewer and interviewee were of the impression that CCF was a Christian missionary organization that was dropping the “Christian” due to pressure from left wing atheist liberals. It’s a little unlikely they were both incensed about a non-Christian organization dropping the misleading “Christian” from its name isn’t it? Far more likely the wrath was because what was believed to be a Christian organization was dropping “Christian” from its name in order to be more “politically correct,” whatever the hell that means.

So I guess that’s where the “truth in advertising” bit comes in. At first the person she spoke to was being perfectly honest with our enraged interviewee and then, I guess after he or she figured out the interviewee had never bothered to find out that a charity she had supported for years upon years wasn’t a missionary organization, sort of planted the tongue into the cheek a little bit by assuring her they would continue doing “what they’ve always done.”

Of course “what they’ve always done” wasn’t what our incensed Christian apparently thought they’ve always done.

In the meantime the incensed interviewer never pointed out to the interviewee that CCF does no missionary work and thus the name is a tad misleading so I suspect she didn’t have the right scoop either.

So what’s the point of this? The first is to point out that Fox news is run by a bunch of morons for morons. But that’s obvious to anyone who’s ever watched it.

The second is to poke some fun at the incensed interviewee. Apparently based upon the name she thought she was supporting a missionary organization. I can’t say as I blame her, it’s an honest mistake and easy to understand, but if she had really cared that much, she could have checked it out.

Lastly I want to consider a little the right and wrong of the situation. Clearly CCF is right to drop the Christian out of the name. It is definitely misleading.

Our incensed interviewee is sort of right too. If there are multiple charities performing the same sort of work, and there are several similar to CCF including Save the Children and World Vision, and one prefers a charity that also includes missionary work or vice-versa, then one should be able to choose to which charity one donates. Our interviewee was apparently fooled by the name and made an unwarranted assumption. Not realizing that CCF was doing the ethical thing and getting upset over it made her look like a real dummy.

Fox news however has no excuse. They’d aired an interview based upon a total lack of research into the topic. At the very least they should have talked to CCF to get their side of the story. Instead they looked more than a little silly.

Of course it is possible that Fox understood the situation quite well but thought this would be a better story for their bible thumping audience, but I try not to attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity.

What are you afraid of?

I was watching a video between a lady from the Family Research Council (FRC) pitching the idea of “teaching the controversy,” by allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) alongside Evolution in science classrooms, and someone opposing the idea.

During the exchange the FRC type asked “what are you afraid of?” The implication of course being there was reason to fear that students would choose ID over Evolution.

I had to think about that one for a second. Normally it’s the religious types that are trying to censor discussion. I’ve asked that question myself saying let’s put our “truths” on the table and let the light of reason shine on them and see which one wins.

However, there is a hidden assumption here. The hidden assumption is that those making the decision are competent to make that decision and knowledgeable enough to spot spurious claims. You will excuse me but most high school students don’t meet either criterion.

I reject placing ID upon an equal footing with Evolution simply because ID has not demonstrated it is science. The ID proponents have not published in peer reviewed journals and have not impressed even a minuscule portion of the scientific community that what they are pitching is science. There is almost universal agreement that ID is religion and that it violates the scientific assumption of naturalism.

Naturalism is a necessary restriction for science because non-naturalistic hypotheses cannot be falsified and a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. Even if ID or Creationism is correct, they are still not science!

I know that sounds a bit weird but its true. Science has a blind spot. It cannot include any hypothesis that relies upon the supernatural.

So ID is not science just like Holocaust Denial is not history. Deborah Lipstadt, the author of “Denying the Holocaust,” was once asked why she doesn’t debate Holocaust deniers; didn’t she want to defend her position against the other side? Lipstadt replied that there is no other side and debating a denier would extend to Holocaust Denial a recognition it did not deserve.

Same thing with the Theory of Evolution, there is no scientific alternative and to treat ID or Creationism as if they were an alternative would be to extend to them a recognition they do not deserve.

The Shift to the Right on Abortion Access

The latest Gallup and Pew polls show that, for the first time, a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life rather than pro-choice.

A considerable part of the shift is the result of younger voters apparently being more opposed to abortion access than in favor.

This isn’t much of a surprise. Things have been slowly shifting in this direction over the past few years and, if the truth must be told, the pro-life forces have done a better job of pitching their position than the pro-choice forces.

The primary reason for this is that the pro-life side has much better ammunition. It’s hard to not feel queasy about terminating what you can see in an ultra-sound projection. The secondary reason is that the main battle of the pro-choice side, feminism and woman’s rights, has essentially been won. No one considers it a major issue these days so abortion access, always a secondary issue in the feminist movement, no longer has the push behind it that it had in the 1970s.

Women take their rights for granted these days so they don’t consider the abortion access question a part of that rights pantheon.

I think that the abortion debate has also matured. Most people, including myself, would prefer abortion as a choice of last resort. Still, I stand by the assertion that making that choice is not up to me or a gaggle of politicians. Only the woman involved, with advice from her advisers, can make it.

Holocaust Denial on Facebook

Facebook has come under criticism for allowing accounts used to promote Holocaust denial, the position that the Holocaust of World War II, during which an estimated 6 million Jews and 4 million other people including homosexuals, Gypsies and the mentally handicapped were murdered by the Nazis, never happened or at least has been greatly exaggerated.

Let’s understand right up front that this is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment restricts the government and does not apply to private companies. Facebook need only answer to its customer base for its actions here. It would be well within its legal rights to restrict accounts which promote what it considers an objectionable message.

Facebook has chosen not to shut down the Holocaust denial accounts. The question is should it?

Holocaust Denial is total nonsense and often uses a façade of history for what is really anti-Semitism. But Creationism is total nonsense as well and uses a façade of science for what is really religion. Should Creationists be banned as well?

What about people who criticize religion? Should that be considered hate speech and banned too?

The problem is if you can justify banning Holocaust deniers then you can also justify banning Creationists who often fall into attacking what they call “Darwinists,” atheists and agnostics. Are anti-atheists hate mongers?

You can then make the same argument for anyone who attacks religion and declare them anti-Muslim or anti-Christian or whatever.

Ignoring the argument that this is simply the slippery slope fallacy for the moment, there are other issues that stir the kind of passions in people that Holocaust denial stirs. Should Facebook ban those types of accounts as well?

Now let’s talk about the slippery slope. Is this concern just that old fallacy? You can only claim the slippery slope fallacy if you can make the case that Holocaust denial is fundamentally different than the other cases. I don’t think it is other than it might be easier to debunk.

As much as I find Holocaust denial distasteful, I have to stand with Facebook on this one. The Holocaust denial accounts should not be banned.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Not all wars are bad. The war in Afghanistan and the emerging war in Pakistan are wars which most definitely need to be fought. The enemy there consists of fundamentalist Muslim fanatics that would happily march the world back to the 12th Century.

These bozos are even worse than their American Christian counterparts. It’s too bad there isn’t some way we could let the Muslim Taliban and the Christian Taliban kill each other while the rest of us watch and munch popcorn.

Trust me, the total annihilation of fundamentalist Muslims and Christians would be no great loss. The average world IQ would skyrocket while intolerance, ignorance and brutality would plummet to an all time low.

Sounds like a worthwhile objective to me. Now where did I put my AKM?

And then there were Five

Maine has become the fifth state to legalize gay marriage and almost immediately opponents have begun attempts to collect enough signatures to force a referendum to repeal the law in November.

In the meantime, the New Hampshire legislature has passed a marriage equality measure and sent it to Governor John Lynch.

Resistance to gay marriage is collapsing at an unbelievable pace in the Northeast. This is far beyond anyone’s expectations and one can only hope that the momentum will continue.

Then there is the latest Washington Post/ABC Poll where, for the first time by a 49%-46% margin, more respondents favored gay marriage than opposed it.

Then there is California.

The decision in California is monumental. Should the California Supreme Court throw out Proposition 8 it would change the battle lines. Such a decision would establish Gays as a beleaguered minority. Just as one cannot restrict the rights of Blacks, Muslims or any other minority, one would not be able to restrict the rights of Gays.

Then we can all fight over whether marriage is a right or a privilege. That should be a relatively short fight, but a downright dirty and vicious one.

Of course if the California Supreme Court allows Proposition 8 to stand that would sort of imply that gays are fundamentally different from Blacks, Muslims or other minorities. They would be a minority that it’s OK to discriminate against because that discrimination is religiously based. Well, why not make it OK to discriminate against non-believers then? After that we can establish discrimination against those who believe in the wrong religion. Then, as the final step, we can legalize discrimination against different sects of the same religion.

Yes, yes, I’m well aware that I’m engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. But think about it in reverse. If you don’t think it’s OK to ban Blacks or Muslims from getting married, why is it OK to ban gays from doing so?

Please don’t give me the procreation and tradition arguments. We all know that there are marriages that were never intended to produce offspring and I could argue that claiming the tradition covers one white Christian man and one white Christian woman would be as accurate as claiming it covers simply one man and one woman. What do I base that on? I base it on all the restrictions, de jure and de facto, that up until recently were built into the marriage process.

Ok, I’ve beat this to death and then some. All eyes are now on New Hampshire.

A Really Weird Dream

I have some pretty weird dreams. I used to have the classic recurring dreams about the final exam approaching in the college class I never attended and the one about my teeth falling apart. A recurring dream that, as far as I know is unique to myself, and which has always bothered me the most is the one where I'm not married to my wife yet but we seem to have drifted apart because I haven't seen her or called her for several weeks. Recently however, all my dreams seem to be of the one of a kind variety.

The other night I had a really strange one.

It started out with me on horseback. The horse was in a leisurely trot and I remember feeling that there was no rush. As a matter of fact I had the distinct impression that I was arriving much too early. I was riding through grassy fields and I remember adjusting the cloak on my back. I was also definitely wearing a helmet of some sort as I could feel the nose guard. There were people all around, men, women and children and they seemed to be enjoying themselves, picnicking perhaps. They all seemed happy.

I remember greeting a number of youngsters with a smile and a pat on the head, but the smile was phony. I rode down to the bottom of a hill and there was a road leading along the walls of a city. The walls of the city were high enough to block the sun and the road was in shadow.

Along the road, perhaps near the entrance to the city, was an older woman up upon a dais or at least she was on something that put her up high enough so that, even from horseback, I had to look up slightly when I spoke to her. I didn’t know her name but I knew she was the queen. I stopped the horse and simply said “They are coming.”

She nodded, thanked me, said that she would give orders for the people to take shelter within the city and gave me permission “to go back.” I remember being tremendously happy even though I knew with absolute certainly that going back would mean my death. I distinctly remember a feeling of absolute joy that I would be in one more battle where I could die. I drew my sword, saluted the queen and began to gallop back down the road. People were already streaming towards the city. They were no longer happy. They were frightened.

Along the road I passed battered and beaten soldiers retreating toward the city. Finally I came to a cathedral surrounded by a very high chain link fence, a chain link fence that was totally out of place with all the 17th or 18th century symbolisms. I was at the bottom of a slope and the cathedral was about half way up towards the top. Along the far side of the fence I saw cavalry moving down the slope of the hill in single file. I immediately recognized them as the queen’s elite guard. They had snow white cloaks and silver helmets topped with thick flopping black feathers. I remember thinking that if the elite guard is retreating, then the end must be very near.

I rode through a gate in bottom of the fence and there were other cavalry there. They were dismounted and waiting on the grass just in front of a very low wall along the right front of the cathedral courtyard. They weren’t dressed in as fancy a uniform as the elite guard. I rode up to a youngish man with very black hair and a thin black beard. His eyes were very tired. I believe he was the commander of the cavalry waiting near the wall. He looked at me and simply asked if I had delivered the message. I nodded.

At that moment a cardinal or bishop came riding into the fenced in area. He was riding a black horse, was dressed in a black gown with red trim and had on the traditional churchman’s cap. Not a miter, just the informal gap that goes with the day to day ecclesiastical cassock. I could see the elite guard continuing its retreat behind him along the bottom of the fence. Then the Bishop cried out in desperation “Will no one stay and defend the church?”

No one answered him.

Then I heard shouting that the rear guard was collapsing. I looked toward the top of the hill and I could see walls and barricades being pushed inward. I was still on horseback. The rest of the men in the courtyard strapped on helms, mounted and drew their swords. I drew mine as well although I don’t remember having put it back in its sheath. The youngish man with the black hair waved us out a side gate and we started up the hill to reinforce the rear guard.

That’s when my alarm clock went off.

I’m not even going to try and figure this one out. It was totally bizarre, crystal clear and burned into my memory. The thing that left the strongest impression was the feeling of total happiness that I was going to die in a known and familiar fashion. The suspense was over. I knew how it was going to end.

I went to a few dream interpretation web sites, but I found nothing even close to this. I read somewhere that dream images are borrowed from people or things you encounter while awake. The queen reminded me of Queen Beatrix of Holland which isn’t too surprising because I had just seen her on a news clip after that maniac drove his car into the royal procession.

The queen’s elite guard I’m pretty sure I got from news footage I’d seen of Imperial German Cavalry from just prior to world war one. The bishop was perhaps the result of me having just watched the trailer for Angels & Demons. If not, then I’ve seen plenty of pictures and films of cardinals and bishops. The black haired officer I can’t place anywhere. I’d say John Derek as Joshua in the Ten Commandments but Derek’s hair was much curlier than this man's hair.

I didn’t see much of the city but it could have been borrowed from the ruins of Lordaeron in World of Warcraft. The cathedral was made of very dark rock. I have no idea where I got that from nor do I have any idea why it would be surrounded by a very high chain link fence. A wrought iron fence I could understand but chain link?

Maybe some night I’ll go back and find out more. I’d like to know who “they” were and why the bishop thought the church needed defending. I had the feeling that “they” may not have been human.

The most interesting thing was that throughout the entire dream, I never felt afraid. The sitution was hopeless but that didn't seem to bother me. I was content. Here's hoping I manage to go out in real life that calmly.

Was Jesus Rich or Poor?

The conventional wisdom is that Jesus came from an impoverished family. Let’s take a closer look shall we.

Born in a Cave and Laid in a Manger
This certainly congers up a picture of homeless poverty, but why where they in the cave? It was because there was no room at the inn. This is roughly the equivalent of sleeping on the beach because you couldn’t find a motel with a vacancy. It says nothing about your economic status.

As a matter of fact, that they tried for a room at the inn implies at least enough liquid funds to afford a room, something well beyond the means of the very poor. If Joseph and Mary had actually been poor, they would have been resigned to sleeping on the side of the road.

First Joseph and then Jesus were Poor Carpenters
The bible never actually says this. As a matter of fact the word normally translated as “carpenter” is the Greek “tekton.” While John Dominic Crossan believes a better translation would be “laborer,” Greeks I’ve spoken to say “builder” or “architect” would be closer to the mark.

In other words it denotes a skilled craftsman more like a general contractor than a table maker.

They could only afford two doves or pigeons as an offering
This is by far the strongest evidence that Joseph and Mary were poor. Leviticus 12 instructs that following a purification period a woman who has given birth must bring as an offering “a year-old lamb” and “a young pigeon or a dove.” But “If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons”

Luke says “Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord… and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: ‘a pair of doves or two young pigeons.’”

Granted this implies they were too poor to afford a lamb but let’s consider the circumstances. They were 70 miles away from home. If Joseph was a builder or carpenter it’s not likely he kept too many lambs around anyway. That means they probably would have had to purchase the sacrificial animals at the Temple. Birds take up less room than lambs, so possibly that was all that was available. Or perhaps Joseph had limited cash and since he needed it for food for the trip home, needed to conserve what little he had.

Granted this is evidence they were poor but one has to consider it in context. I might point out that Luke’s not mentioning the lamb at all could be taken to imply that everyone by that time sacrificed two doves or pigeons. Luke certainly doesn’t make a point about they’re not being able to afford a lamb.

He had no where to lay his head
In Matthew 8 and Luke 9 Jesus says “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

Yes, but this strikes me as a little poetic license. Jesus, as a wandering sage, clearly has no permanent home but just as clearly it was a choice he made to live that type of life and not something forced upon him.

They went to Jerusalem for the Holy Days
Luke 2:41 says “Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.”

Does that sound like they were poor? Every year they journeyed 70 miles to Jerusalem for the holidays? Only people who were reasonable affluent could afford to make the trip every year and could afford to not work during that time.

Jesus was educated
He could clearly read and quote scripture and knew enough to argue the law with the Pharisees. He also had followers who were literate. John and Matthew come to mind immediately. If they wrote gospels, then they must have been literate.

In the first century only the upper 5% or so of the population was literate; literacy was a clear sign of enough wealth to have the leisure for an education.

The Wedding at Cana
This doesn’t sound like the description of a poor man’s wedding. Jesus, his mother and all the disciples are invited. There is a “Master of the Banquet” and when the wine runs out Jesus turns six twenty to thirty gallon stone jars into wine. This clearly wasn’t a small gathering. Whoever was throwing this wedding must have been quite wealthy.

He had rich or influential acquaintances
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are the most obvious but there is also Lazarus, the Centurion in Matthew 8 and Luke 7, Simon the Leper and the woman with the alabaster jar in Mark 14 and Matthew 26 and the Rich Young Man in Mark 10, Matthew 19 and Luke 18 (Luke actually transforms him into a “ruler”).

Jesus also seems to have some personal knowledge when he wryly observes "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Could a poor man have attracted a following?
People are people and the poor are generally meek and not particularly viewed with admiration regardless of their talents while the rich tend to be more outgoing and aggressive and are generally accorded some level of respect by default, even in a so-called egalitarian democracy.

A few years back some folks tried a little experiment. They had the same man stay at a stop light after it had turned green but had him driving different cars. Eventually the cars behind him would honk to bring to his attention that the light was green. What was interesting however was that the more expensive the car the man was driving, the longer on average people waited before honking.

Pilate was his judge
If he was a poor nobody why did Pilate get personally involved? One possibility is as the ranking military officer in Jerusalem at that time it was simply normal military operating procedure. But another possibility is because the accused man came from a well to do, and perhaps even influential family, Pilate felt it prudent to give the situation his personal attention. This could also have been why he was reluctant to execute Jesus.

Pilate Released the Body
Normally the bodies of condemned men would have been flung to the dogs, burned or left hanging as a warning to others yet, if one believes the story of Joseph of Arimathea, Pilate released the body to a friend or relative with little or no hesitation.

This might have been simply to insure no protest over violating the Sabbath in always volatile Jerusalem but it also smacks of deference to the wealthy or influential.

What do you suppose happened to the bodies of the criminals crucified with Jesus?

James took over after Jesus’ Death
Who steps in and takes over after Jesus’ death? Not Peter or any of the other disciples but Jesus’ brother James. Again this smacks of the aristocrat. None of his peasant followers ascended to leadership but rather his brother takes over.

When you put it all together, I think that the preponderance of the evidence is that Jesus and his family weren’t abjectly poor. They were clearly more affluent then most and may even have been among the relatively wealthy. He may have turned his back on the family money when his started his ministry, but it seems to me that he was at least much more affluent than the average.

The Resurrection

The bottom line miracle of Christianity is The Resurrection. It is The Resurrection which completes the act of atonement; it is The Resurrection which establishes the promise of eternal life.

Without The Resurrection Christianity loses much of its allure for the masses.

Fundamentalist Christians claim The Resurrection is a historical fact based upon the following:

- Jesus was executed
- Jesus was entombed
- Jesus’ tomb was found empty
- Jesus after his resurrection appeared to many eye witnesses
- Jesus’ appearance emboldened the apostles to preach Christianity at the risk of their lives

They then move on and address “theories” that supposedly attempt to explain the events as if these theories were the only issues to resolve. These “theories” are typically fairly weak straw men and include things like he didn’t really die on the cross and the apostles stole his body.

The problem of course is once you’ve moved into this ballpark, you’ve already accepted the empty tomb or the appearance of a walking, breathing Jesus subsequent to his crucifixion.

To my mind these theories are irrelevant. I want to go back to the five basic points identified above.

Jesus was executed
Undoubtedly this is a true statement if you accept that Jesus was a historical figure. Despite the paucity of evidence, I believe he was. But who was this Jesus and why was he executed? And not just executed, but executed by crucifixion; a method of execution reserved by the Romans for political insurrection or especially despised criminals.

Crucifixion was intended to be highly visible. It could take days to die. Even after death the victim would be left hanging as a warning to others. Crucifixion was designed to be a deterrent. Crucifixion by Rome would not be a penalty for something viewed as blasphemy by the Jews.

This raises three questions. First, what was it that Jesus did, or that Pilate was convinced he did, to warrant an insurrectionist’s execution? Second, why did Jesus die after only a few hours? Crucifixion was often death by suffocation as the body weakened and couldn’t support itself to breathe. It was not unusual for a victim of crucifixion to suffer for several days. Yet according to the gospels, Jesus’ death was relatively quick. The Gospel of Mark alludes to this point in Mark 15:44 “Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.” Finally, why would the Romans be willing to release Jesus’ body rather than leave it as a warning to others?

Exactly what act of insurrection Jesus got executed for isn’t clear in the gospels. John Dominic Crossan believes it was the uproar he caused in the temple. Others have pointed out that Jesus may have hung around with a bad crowd. Simon Zelotes is thought by some to have been a Zealot and there is some debate over whether the Iscariot in Judas Iscariot indicates a place of origin or that Judas was a member of the Sicarii, a first century group of political assassins that took out their victims at close quarters with daggers.

If Judas was an assassin, turning in Jesus in exchange for saving his own hide makes some sense. But why would the Jewish or Roman authorities look upon Jesus as a bigger catch than a known assassin?

If Jesus really did go around claiming he was King of the Jews, that would have done it.

The Romans generally took a dim view of claims of that sort by people that weren’t on their payroll or acting with their approval. They would have been especially touchy about it if it occurred in a Roman Province. Even a class three province looked upon as the armpit of the empire.

I suspect that Jesus was a wandering Rabbi that might have gone a little overboard while basking in the “adulation” of his adoring fans. He really came to believe that he could trigger the onset of the Kingdom of God on earth by riding into Jerusalem and declaring himself king.

He would have no conception of the real balance of power between Rome and Judea. He only knew what he saw. A limited Roman presence of auxiliary troops up against 50,000 Passover Pilgrims that I’m sure he was convinced would support him. Didn’t seem to have worked out that way though did it?

As for why he didn’t linger for days on the cross, I imagine that might have been related to the physical abuse he is reported to have suffered. It wasn’t totally unknown for the trauma of being crucified, especially if by nails, or the loss of blood to lead to a rapid death rather than a lingering one. He could also have died from internal bleeding or a massive stroke brought on by a subdural hematoma. There’s no lack of explanations as to why Jesus died relatively quickly.

Pilate, or whoever was making the decisions, may have yielded to taking down the body simply to keep the peace. It was the Passover falling on the Sabbath after all. The Joseph of Arimathea story implies it could also have been to placate a rich or influential family. The question is what happened to the body after it was taken down?

Jesus was entombed
Well, maybe. The four Gospels differ slightly on the details here. Certainly John’s account of the legs of the prisoners being broken to speed up death before being taken down seems accurate, although I doubt they would make an exception with Jesus. Soldiers are very literal, especially when disobeying an order can be fatal.

All the gospels agree that Jesus was laid in a tomb cut out of rock. There is an inconsistency as to whether it was Joseph of Arimathea acting alone (Mark, Matthew & Luke) or with Nicodemas (John), whether it was Joseph’s tomb (Matthew), whether the tomb was in a garden (John), whether the tomb was sealed (Matthew) and whether the tomb was guarded (Matthew).

We only have the gospels word that Jesus was placed in a rock tomb. A rock tomb also sounds a big extravagant for a peasant nobody doesn’t it? Perhaps that’s because Jesus wasn’t a peasant nobody. Typical Roman procedure would be to have tossed the bodies of the condemned to the dogs or had them burned. That would have made a bodily resurrection a tad difficult so clearly it would be necessary to figure out a way to avoid that. Enter the shadowy Joseph of Arimathea.

Joseph is not mentioned previously and never mentioned again. He is described as a member of the Jewish Council (Mark, Luke), a member of the council who had not consented to their decision regarding Jesus (Luke), a rich man (Matthew), a man waiting for the Kingdom of God (Mark, Luke), a disciple of Jesus (Matthew), a secret disciple of Jesus who feared the Jews (John) and from the Judean town of Arimathea (Luke).

About the only thing this incident has going for it is that Joseph is identified as claiming Jesus’ body in all four gospels. It’s one of the few things that are consistent in all four accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. Other than that, I find this tale highly suspicious for a number of reasons.

The first is it’s just too convenient. Is it possible that a member of the Jewish Council would act in such a manner if he felt an injustice had been done? It’s possible, but to be honest, not bloody likely unless there was some tie between Joseph and Jesus.

Aside from the issue of getting the Jewish authorities all bent out of shape let’s remember that Jesus was most likely executed for an act that was viewed by the Roman authorities as one of rebellion. What was to prevent the Roman authorities from deciding that Joseph was in collusion with the rebel Jesus and should get a cross all his own?

The second is the tinkering with the tale that evangelists other than Mark feel is necessary. The story in Mark is fairly straightforward. Joseph is a member of the council waiting for the Kingdom of God. Pilate, after checking with a centurion that Jesus was in fact dead, simply releases the body.

Mark presents no rationale for Joseph’s intervention.

Matthew, perhaps finding this a tad unlikely, makes Joseph a rich man and a disciple of Jesus. That Joseph was rich implies possible additional influence or perhaps that some money changed hands. Making him a disciple of Jesus provides a rationale for Joseph’s intervention.

The problem with Matthew’s tinkering is that it makes it more likely for the Romans to take a dim view of Joseph. If Jesus was a rebel then his disciples would be considered rebels as well. Wasn’t this why they were all supposedly hiding and why Peter denied knowing Jesus? Plus, if he was rich, that would make him a potential financier of rebellion and a prime target for Rome’s attention. He would be a bigger prize than Jesus.

Luke also provides a rationale. He labels Joseph an honest and upright man and a member of the council that did not consent to condemning Jesus. It’s actually a better rationale than Matthew’s. Men have been known to do strange things based upon conscience.

John really does damage control. Not only does he have Joseph accompanied by Nicodemus, who was Jesus’ foil in the famous play on words about being reborn in John 3, he makes Joseph a secret disciple of Jesus so the Roman suspicions aren’t aroused.

Then there is the question of where exactly is Arimathea? There is no record of a town of exactly that name. Various towns in the vicinity of Jerusalem have been suggested as possibilities but no one has any concrete evidence as to where Arimathea was or even if it actually existed.

All of this implies to me that Joseph of Arimathea may be a work of fiction whose sole purpose is to rescue the body of Jesus from destruction.

In other words I find the story that Jesus’ body was placed in a rock tomb shaky.

This doesn’t necessarily negate the accuracy of the resurrection. It simply makes the story of the empty tomb unlikely.

But, let’s assume Joseph did exist and he did claim the body. Why did this rich and powerful man choose to intervene? This seems unlikely without some sort of tie to Jesus or his family. If it was due to some sort of family tie, then why does he decide to bury the body himself, without any of the familial mourning and ceremony required, rather than return it to the family for burial?

Allow me to suggest that the sketchiness of the story implies that his intention was to return it to the family. Why would he bother? Perhaps it was as a courtesy from one rich, influential family to another?

I can hear the protests even before the ink dries. What do you mean rich? Jesus came from a poor family. Not necessarily, but that’s a topic for another day.

Jewish practices call for the body to be buried as soon as practical as long as the burial did not violate the Sabbath. Unfortunately the Sabbath was about to begin so it was either bury the body before sundown or wait until the end of the Sabbath the following sundown.

Dawn in Jerusalem during the early spring would be around 6 A.M. Sunset would be a little after 7 P.M. According to Mark and Matthew Jesus was still alive at the ninth hour which would be around 3 P.M.

That would be cutting it a little close. Assuming Joseph of Arimathea actually existed, then it seems like he was making temporary arrangements until a final resolution could be worked out after the Sabbath.

Luckily for the peasant portion of Jesus’ disciples, who were unlikely to have much to do with a rich member of the Jewish council, several women from Jesus’ entourage saw where Joseph put the body. They then showed up Sunday morning intending to perform the formal preparation for burial but, according to the story, when they arrived, the tomb was empty.

Jesus’ tomb was found empty
The women arrive at Jesus’ tomb a full twelve hours after the end of the Sabbath. The account of what they find varies wildly among the four gospels.

The simplest tale is from Mark. The woman find the stone rolled back and a young man dressed in a white robe who tells them “Don't be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

Take out the “He has risen” and this could almost be someone at the tomb explaining that the body has been removed and is being returned to Jesus’ home in Galilee for final burial.

I find this a lot more likely than he rose from the dead but it has a number of problems with it not the least of which is the time it would take to get the body to Galilee.

At the other extreme is Matthew’s description. Matthew really lets himself go. In his version the tomb is sealed and guarded which would sort of contradict the idea that the internment was temporary.

When the women arrive they’re treated to a violent earthquake and the sight of an angel descending from heaven that rolls back the stone. The guards are so afraid they start shaking and become “like dead men.” Note that since the stone is rolled back after the women arrive, either Jesus didn’t need the stone rolled back to leave or, for some bizarre reason, it had been removed and then replaced.

The angel is also dressed in white (what else?) and gives a similar speech to the women as the young man. The women then leave “filled with joy” as opposed to trembling, bewildered and afraid which is how they leave according to Mark.

Just as a side note, Matthew then has the guards being bribed by the chief priests to say that Jesus’ disciples came and stole the body while they were asleep. Ooops. If these were Roman troops sleeping on duty wouldn’t keep them out of trouble (as Matthew has the priests claim), it would get them a death sentence. If they were temple guards, then what the Roman governor thought would be irrelevant. Of course they couldn’t be Jews and work on the Sabbath. In my humble opinion, the story of the guards has almost zero chance of being true.

In Luke the women find the stone rolled back and enter the cave but fail to locate the body of Jesus. Then two men, “in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them,” and then proceeded to give a slightly more instructional explanation including reminding them that Jesus had told them “The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.”

John’s story is more than a little different. Here it’s Mary Magdalene alone who approaches the tomb and finds the stone rolled away. She runs to get Simon Peter and “the other disciple, the one Jesus loved.” The three return to the tomb and find the linen and the shroud but no body. The two disciples then leave and Mary remains outside the tomb weeping.

Mary then looks into the tomb and sees two angels who ask her why she is crying. She replies “They have taken my Lord away, and I don't know where they have put him.”

She then turns and encounters someone she first believes is the gardener (remember the tomb was in a garden) who asks her why she is crying and who she is looking for. She replies "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” He calls her name and she then realizes that it’s not the gardener but Jesus himself who is standing there.

There is absolutely no way that these four accounts can be reconciled. The crucifixion accounts were reasonably similar. Some contained more details about certain things then others and there was some variation and poetic license but it all falls apart with the description of the alleged discovery of the empty tomb.

This has all the earmarks of a myth or an allegorical story that no one expects to stick to the facts. The taller the tale, the better seems to be the rule. I vote for Matthew as having the wildest, most improbable narration.

A simple sweep of Occam’s razor eliminates Joseph and the empty tomb altogether. Jesus’ body is removed from the cross and either tossed to wild animals or burned. When this becomes a problem because it makes a bodily resurrection harder to swallow by the unimaginative first century peasantry who are the earliest target of the Christian gospel, the rich council member and the empty tomb are invented.

As an alternative, the body of Jesus is claimed by Joseph, a friend or even possibly a member of Jesus’ influential family, and quietly buried in a dignified way without letting any of the peasant riff-raff he’s fallen in with get involved. The tomb was indeed empty because before Mary and the others arrive, it’s already been moved by Jesus’ family to its final resting place.

Mark, most likely the first evangelist, keeps it simple which is critical to a successful lie. The others can’t resist fancying it up a bit perhaps because the story wasn’t generally accepted as true anyway. It needn’t be accepted as true because it’s not essential to the resurrection.

Let’s face it; a God that created the universe wouldn’t have much of a problem restoring a body for his son regardless of what happened to the first one.

Jesus after his resurrection appeared to many eye witnesses
That sort of depends upon which gospel you read. Acts also gets into the act so to speak. It also depends, in the case of Mark, upon which version of the gospel you read.

According to the earliest manuscripts the gospel of Mark ended at Mark 16:8. Mark 16:9-20 are generally considered to be a second century addition. If this is true then either Mark had no post resurrection passages or those original passages have been lost.

A minority of scholars do argue that Mark 16:9-20 are in fact genuine. Since I can’t look at lost passages I’ll just assume that folks like F.H.A. Scrivener are correct and the passages are the originals.

According to Mark 16:9-20 Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene, then to “two of them” “who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping.”

Jesus then appears to the Eleven and rebukes them for “their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.”

That adds up to 1+2+11 = 14, but there’s no specific statement that these were the only people he appeared to although it would seem, if the passages are genuine, a little silly to leave other appearances out.

Jesus tells the Eleven, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

But of course Christians aren’t allowed to play with venomous snakes or drink deadly poison on purpose because that would be “testing God.” How’s that for a rationalization? So I suppose no believer has ever been poisoned to death? What about those in Jonestown that were forced to drink the Kool-Aid against their will? They survive that?

I’m not aware of any confirmed driving out of demons or healing through the laying on of hands either. If there is one passage that clearly demonstrates that the bible, or at least the bible with Mark 16:9-20, is not the inerrant word of God, this is the one. If you disagree then either drive out a demon, speak in a language you don’t know (and I’m not talking about the gibberish that Christians usually claim is speaking in tongues) or heal the sick.

Matthew, as opposed to his wild tomb story, has the simplest post resurrection description. According to Matthew, Jesus appears to the Eleven in Galilee and gives them The Great Commission, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

The first people Luke describes Jesus appearing to are “two of them,” which I assume refers to two of those that didn’t believe the women about the empty tomb, apparently named Cleopas and Simon. Interestingly they don’t recognize him until he sits down to eat with them.

Next Luke describes Jesus’ appearance as the two are relaying their experience to an unbelieving “Eleven and those with them.” They think he’s a ghost so he shows them his hands and feet and eats some fish to convince them it’s him in the flesh.

Jesus then opens “their minds so they could understand the Scriptures” and tells them “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

So, according to Luke, Jesus appeared to at least 13 people plus how many comprise “those with them.” But again Luke doesn’t claim these were the first or only people to whom Jesus appeared.

John has by far the most extensive post resurrection description. He has Jesus appearing to his disciples minus Thomas and saying to them "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."

He then breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Jesus then makes a special appearance to convince doubting Thomas when he utters the famous phrase “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

John then appears to end with the John 20:30-31, sometimes called “The Appendix,” which says “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

However there is a John 21, sometimes called “The Appendix to The Appendix” which continues the tale of post resurrection appearances. It describes the miraculous catching of 153 fish, a reinstatement of Peter, including a prophecy of Peter’s death, and some rather mysterious comments related to the “disciple whom Jesus loved.”

Despite all this “Appendix” stuff, there isn’t a single manuscript without John 21. So, if it’s a later addition, it wasn’t much later.

Acts then says Jesus stayed with the apostles for 40 days during which he commanded them "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

When they ask him when he will restore the Kingdom of God he tells them "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Well that’s a lot of background and sort of a sneaky way to get you to read the bible. Don’t take my word for it though, check. I used the New International Version (NIV) for the quotes.

Again we have wildly varying descriptions that really can’t be reconciled regardless of how hard apologists play the “but he didn’t say that didn’t happen” card. John has Jesus bestowing the Holy Spirit directly on the apostles, Luke and Acts has them waiting until Pentecost and Mark and Matthew don’t mention it at all. You would think it would be kind of a critical thing to at least mention wouldn’t you?

Like the empty tomb, this has all the earmarks of a myth or legend that grew with the telling and grew in different ways in different places. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe a word of it.

Jesus’ appearance emboldened the apostles to preach Christianity at the risk of their lives
Technically it was the alleged descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost that accomplished this but I’m willing to equate the two.

Is this really true? Popular myth has the disciples trembling and hiding from the authorities and then suddenly marching out as men going to war to preach the gospel.

A couple of points, first, people are capable of screwing themselves up to do some ridiculously brave things if the situation is right. This is especially true in the face of a shared or potential tragedy. Human nature being what it is the supernatural is not required for there to emerge a determination to do battle against insurmountable odds for a belief or a principle regardless of the danger. Think Socrates, Thermopylae, Sir Thomas More and Valley Forge.

Second, were their lives really in danger? There is this mistaken notion that Rome persecuted Christians continually and right from the start. The reality is that Rome was fairly tolerant of the myriad of different religions practiced in the empire. However, they didn’t have any concept of the separation of church and state. The state respected the gods and the gods blessed the state. Religion and politics were 100% interwoven. As polytheists the Romans had room for lots of gods and had no problem with you worshiping yours as long as you also respected and sacrificed to the empire’s gods.

The Jews were exempt. While the Romans didn’t particular find the Jew’s one and only one god philosophy particularly attractive, they did recognize that it was of immense antiquity and the Romans had a healthy respect for anything that old.

The trouble started when what the Romans viewed as just another new mystery religion called Christianity claimed the exemption accorded to the Jews. If you think the Romans were upset imagine how the Jews felt? Christianity and Judaism got off on the wrong foot right from the start.

There was some persecution but it was sporadic and there certainly wouldn’t be any right away. As long as they weren’t pitching rebellion, the disciples were probably fairly safe while simply pitching some new fangled religion. Not completely safe, but safe enough.

Third, while Christianity would like everyone to believe that its rise was a monolithic growth of apostolic based faith with the occasional heresy to squash, history tells a very different story.

There were many brands of Christianity from the Gnostic creeds to what Bart Ehrman calls the proto orthodox. Paul’s letters clearly show that he was constantly contesting against those preaching other creeds and Acts implies the tension that existed between Paul and his mission to the Gentiles and the more traditionally Jewish philosophy in Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus’ brother James.

To be honest I find this argument to be more wishful thinking than reality. What we know today as Orthodox Christianity as represented by the Nicene Creed doesn’t begin to emerge as a clear consensus until the church in Rome begins to exert its influence throughout the rest of the Mediterranean.

Therefore I’m sorry, but I pretty much reject this argument as well.

One more point that needs to be covered is Josephus, the only independent contemporary evidence for the resurrection. The Testamonium Flavianum states:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.] He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ;] and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, [for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;] and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

There are three opinions about this passage; that it’s completely genuine, that it’s completely a later Christian interpolation and that’s it’s a partial Christian interpolation represented by the bracketed phrases.

Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew would NEVER call Jesus the Christ nor is it likely he would blithely state that he appeared to them “alive again the third day” as the divine prophets had foretold after being crucified. Therefore it seems to me that at best this is a partial Christian interpolation.

Clearly the resurrection of Jesus is far from a historical fact. Feel free to believe the gospel accounts if that’s your inclination but there are clearly problems with the conflicting stories of the empty tomb and the post resurrection appearances.

You might even get me to accept the story of Joseph of Arimathea but that would be about as far as I would go. If Mary Magdalene and a group of women discovered an empty tomb, it was simply because the body had already been moved from its temporary place of rest by quite ordinary means.

Only slightly less likely is that Joseph and the tomb are a fiction created to get around the objection that Jesus could not have been bodily resurrected because his body had been destroyed.

I find either explanation far more likely than the one Christianity would like us to believe.

Arlen Specter is now a Democrat

In a surprise announcement Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has bolted the GOP for the Democrats.

Specter cited his belief that as a moderate he couldn’t survive an impending primary challenge in an increasingly conservative Republican Party.

Needless to say the Democrats, including President Obama, were delighted and immediately endorsed Specter in the next election.

I always sort of felt that Specter was a fish out of water or, perhaps more accurately, a Republican from a different era. While his defection makes sense, especially for him, the implication is disturbing. Specter is essentially conceding that the GOP is too far gone to salvage and is leaving it to the religious right wing.

This brings the Republican Party one step closer to a party of Religious Fascism. A party controlled by the likes of James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Sarah Palin. It’s not quite there yet, but it’s a little to close for comfort.

If the American center doesn’t recognize that the Republicans are flirting with being a party of the extreme right, there is the terrible risk of the election of a fascist majority that would make the Bush administration look progressive. If they do recognize it, there is the risk of the Republican Party becoming marginalized everywhere but in the deep South which would be almost as bad.

Personally I’d like to see the GOP return to its socially progressive but fiscally conservative roots but I’m not sure that’s possible any more.

The Swine Flu

I really did not need this and neither did the rest of the country. This sucks big time. You will excuse me but we have enough to worry about without a flu pandemic. Do you suppose I could take a short (long?) vacation to Ganymede? I’ve always wanted to tour the moons of Jupiter.

Something from Nothing?

Creationists tend to lump evolution, abiogenesis and cosmological questions relating to the origin of the universe into one topic which they call evolution.

Technically, neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life is part of evolutionary theory. Creationists also tend to get evolution and atheism confused.

It’s not unusual to see a Creationist who is claiming to attack evolution but who is really attacking atheism or to see a Creationist who is claiming to attack atheism but who is really attacking evolution.

When all else has failed, Creationists fall back on what they believe is the ultimate argument. With a sneer of contempt they pout “how do you get something from nothing?”

Damn good question. I’m glad you brought that up. So, how do you get “something from nothing?”

Well, first of all one has to define “nothing.” The colloquial “nothing,” such as there is “nothing” in that box isn’t at all accurate. In fact there are usually lots and lots of things in a so-called box containing “nothing” including air, microbes, dust and heaven knows what else.

So clearly “nothing” must mean something other than the colloquial “nothing.” Perhaps it means a vacuum such as the so-called vacuum of space. Of course space isn’t really a vacuum it’s simply very, very sparse. There is very little matter separated by fairly large distances.

Ok, let’s define “nothing” as a “true vacuum,” a steady state condition of no matter and no energy whatsoever.

Such a definition makes sense in a classical universe governed by the classical laws of Physics. Unfortunately it makes absolutely no sense in a quantum universe. The reason it makes no sense is that in a quantum universe quantum fluctuations are constantly creating and annihilating particles of matter and anti-matter.

Yup, you guessed it, in a quantum universe something comes from nothing all the time.

The “something” doesn’t last very long. Generally not more than a Planck Time which is 10^-43 seconds which is like a REALLY, REALLY short time. Since the particles created by quantum fluctuations don’t last long they’re called “virtual particles.” This isn’t just “fun with mathematics.” The effect of these particles has been observed and their existence pretty much confirmed.

Oh yeah, that’s right, I forgot to mention that we live in a quantum universe, governed by quantum mechanics, and not the classical universe that our senses tell us we live it. So “something,” sub-atomic particles, are being created from “nothing” all around us all the time.

“Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility.” - Heinz Pagels

All that it appears it would have taken to get the universe started way back when is a quantum fluctuation where the particles last a teeny, tiny bit longer than Planck Time. This would initiate what is called “inflation” and the creation of microscopic black holes from which all of the matter in the universe could have come as positive energy but precisely offset by the negative energy of gravity.

In other words, as crazy as it sounds, the universe may in fact be a big nothing. It may consist of zero energy but divided into positive energy (matter) and negative energy (gravity) parts.

Yes, it’s enough to make your head explode but Quantum Mechanics is far and away the most insanely counter-intuitive thing around. Niels Bohr said “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.”

If you’re saying to yourself “that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” congratulations, you’re on the way to understanding the universe we live it.

Do I buy the quantum fluctuation speculation explanation or any of the half dozen or so other origin of the universe hypotheses? Not really, but they’re at least as reasonable as the idea that an all-powerful Sky Daddy created the universe using magic. Besides, prior to Planck Time, prior to 10^-43 seconds, no one really knows what went on. It's all pure speculation. At least today it is. As for tomorrow, perhaps not. That's the beauty of science, it continues to try and move forward as opposed religion, which tends toward stagnation because "GOD DID IT."

But here’s the way I figure it. Religion has at one time or another declared every natural phenomenon to be the act of a god or gods. Lightening, thunder, earthquakes, pestilence, floods were all preached to be the result of some god’s wrath.

Religion has been WRONG about every single claim. As science has peeled the onion of nature, all of these divine acts have been explained as very non-magical, natural events. All that’s left to religion is the claim that creation itself was a divine act. Given religion’s track record, I’d say it’s a pretty sure bet its wrong about that too.

And then there are the Idiots

YouTube has some interesting stuff. I dabble from time to time when I’m looking for a source of amusement. Last night I was watching a clip of Pat Robertson interviewing Ray Comfort.

If you’re not familiar with Comfort, he’s one of the more outspoken Creationist types. He made himself sort of famous a short while back with a video explaining how the banana was what he called “The Atheist’s Nightmare” because it was so perfectly designed, in shape, texture and taste, for man’s consumption.

The problem of course is Comfort never bothered to find out that the domesticated banana we all know and love is man made. It’s a cultivated plant and utterly incapable of reproducing by itself because it has no seeds. Farmers have to make cuttings from a banana plant’s stem and replant them in order for new plants to grow.

Wild bananas, the ones Comfort’s god actually created, are essentially inedible due to the large number of hard black seeds. Oh well, so much for “intelligent” design.

The YouTube video begins with Comfort interviewing two young people who profess to accept evolution but who can’t answers the questions Comfort is hitting them with. There were two problems with the questions.

The first was these weren’t experts and while they might be expected to have a working knowledge of the principles of the Theory of Evolution, they’re certainly not qualified to address specific detailed questions.

The second, and far more important problem, is that Comfort wasn’t asking about the Theory of Evolution. He was asking about a straw man he’d concocted either out of ignorance or malice. The young man and young woman certainly weren’t qualified to detect what Comfort was doing.

Allow me to suggest that he might want to try his questions on Jerry Coyne or Ken Miller rather than two people that probably only took biology because it was forced on them. Come on Ray, have the courage to deal with educated adults rather than children or the ignorant.

Comfort’s straw man was based upon a total misrepresentation of speciation. The way he explained it to Robertson was that somewhere along the line the “first dog” appears. If that dog is male, then he has to go looking for a suitable female. But since the dog has just evolved, there is no female of his species so the dog is doomed to not reproduce. Comfort calls this the problem of the “missing female.”

This goes way beyond rapid speciation, this is instant speciation. Somehow it miraculously occurs not only within the same gene pool but within a single generation! I can’t think of a mutation more obviously destined to be weeded out by Natural Selection.

Of course that’s not how it works. Evolution occurs in very small genetic increments over millions of years and not in one fell swoop over a single generation. The next generation’s genetic mutations are not going to make them sexually non-viable with the previous generation.

I hate to break it to you but we are all mutants. Each of our DNA contains mutations that we may or may not pass on to our offspring. The more offspring we have, the higher the probability that a particular mutation will be passed on.

As a simplified example consider a population of animals, let’s call them Purple Unicorns, from which two groups split off for whatever reason. One groups heads south and the other north. Initially, since the two groups come from a common gene pool, they will be genetically similar to each other and to the Purple Unicorns that stayed behind. Not identical of course because no two biological entities, except for monozygotic siblings (i.e. identical twins), are genetically identical.

Since they have now separated and are no longer interbreeding, each group will have different genetic mutations occurring which cannot be exchanged with the other group, experience different genetic drift even on the genes they originally shared and experience different environmental pressures which may very well change which characteristics increase the probability of reproduction.

Keep the groups separate for several million years or so and our Purple Unicorns may now be Grey Nullicorns and Black Multicorns whose pheromones no longer attract members of the opposite sex in the other group. Purple Unicorns may or may not still exist, but if they do, they too, since they experienced their own genetic and environmental pressures, would most likely be somewhat different from the original Purple Unicorns and sexually incompatible with both of the new groups.

Comfort’s scenario would require a Purple Unicorn to suddenly give birth to a genetic Black Muliticorn with a vastly different genetic inventory, a genetic inventory so different as to make it sexually incompatible with the rest of its own herd. The Theory of Evolution says that this is essentially impossible. Such an extensive genetic change would take millions of years to occur. It doesn’t happen in a single generation.

If by some bizarre chance a mutation occurred which rendered the offspring non-sexually viable with its own species, then Comfort would be correct, it would be doomed to being unable to reproduce and its mutation would be removed from the gene pool. It could not survive as a new species. This is called Natural Selection. This would be an instance of a genetic mutation which provides a reproductive disadvantage. Hell, it renders the probability of reproducing equal to zero. That’s the ultimate disadvantage.

If this kind of mutation could really happen it would effectively falsify the Theory of Evolution. So essentially Comfort is proposing an event that would falsify evolution and then using it as an argument to falsify evolution. Can you say circular argument fast four times?

I thought I was going to split a gut when Robertson, with a straight face, asked Comfort why there wasn’t an intellectual rebellion against this obvious absurdity of evolution. Maybe it’s because the absurdity isn’t within evolution but within Comfort’s straw man.

Next, Comfort got into the old Paley’s Watchmaker argument that’s been shot down 50 or 60 thousand times since Paley made it. To paraphrase old Ray, he wants someone to show him a watch, or a car, or a building that didn’t have a builder.

Here’s the big problem with this argument Ray old boy. Evolution doesn’t apply to inanimate objects that don’t reproduce. That fact that there is no example of an inanimate object without a builder means absolutely nothing when it comes to biological objects that are quite capable of reproducing.

Let me ask you this old boy, once the egg has been fertilized, how do you think an offspring develops? The last time I looked is was through all natural processes without the intervention of any builder. Or do you believe that God or one of his angels gets involved in the development of every embryo like some sort of construction foreman? If they do, they suck at their job given the number of spontaneous abortions and birth defects that occur.

In other words what leads you to believe the universe is like a watch developed by a watchmaker rather than like a baby Purple Unicorn produced by two adult Purple Unicorns humping? One requires an intelligent designer but the other just requires natural processes.

Then we got into the nonsense that the Theory of Evolution is a moral philosophy intended to destroy society’s Christian values. If you listen to Comfort then Darwin was a bitter old man beaten down by the misfortunes of life that purposely constructed a philosophy to destroy belief in God and Christianity.

It’s all an atheist conspiracy and 40% of college professors are atheist members of that conspiracy. What’s the purpose you ask? The purpose is to allow atheists to live an immoral life style and not have to worry about God’s laws or something like that.

No Ray, I hate to break this to you but evolution is no more a moral philosophy than gravity or relativity.

To be honest with you by that time I was laughing so hard I wasn’t paying all that much attention and I couldn’t handle watching the thing again and taking notes. Robertson of course displays the appropriate indignation that no one was actively opposing this atheist travesty.

“Fear not” replied Sir Ray-Ray the Ignorant, “I and my organization hath prepared diverse videos and papers with diverse arguments which shall, forsooth, quash this foul conspiracy.”

Or at least he said something along those lines. Like I said, it’s hard to pay attention when you’re laughing yourself silly.

Unfortunately it’s not really that funny. This guy gives morons a bad name. It’s not all that hard to go on the Internet and learn about the basics of evolution. It’s not clear whether Comfort is just too goddamned stupid to do so or he knows perfectly well that his arguments are bogus but is relying on his audience not to know.

Christianity has a long history of preying upon the young, the ignorant and the frightened. This could just be another example of that but I suspect it’s not. Going with the principle of never attributing something to malice when simple stupidity will suffice as an explanation, I suspect that he just really is that dumb.

Interestingly enough I don’t think Robertson is however. I think, from the smirk on his face, Robertson was laughing at Comfort on the inside while he was agreeing with him on the outside.

Robertson may be a right wing fascist asshole but he’s smart enough to understand his enemy rather than attack straw men which ultimately are going to make him look silly. In my personal opinion, Comfort, based upon his banana fiasco and the YouTube video, isn’t.

Increasing Violence in Iraq

A suicide bomber in Iraq killed 60 pilgrims, mostly from Iran, at a Shiite Muslim shrine in Baghdad.

WTF is wrong with these people? It’s beginning to look like the drop in violence may have been only a temporary lull. Hopefully I’m wrong but with the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who the hell knows.

This is not good. The world cannot let the Taliban get control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Any threat in that direction can only lead to all out war and an invasion of Pakistan to make absolutely certain that doesn’t happen. If the U.S. and NATO don’t do it, then India may have no choice. Like I said, this is not good.

Here’s hoping I’m being overly paranoid again. I’m getting to be good (bad?) at that.