Peace of the Gods

A few posts ago, I commented on the insane theodicy of an Iowa Pastor and the Midwestern flooding. This morning after doing some research into global warming, I have come to reconsider my position. I hope that I will not be accused of being a flip-flopper, as reasonable people change their positions when new information comes to light.

Doubts Arise
It all started with reading the blogs at Lake Country Living and the hard skepticism on global warming. I did some further reading by these hard skeptics on how the science of global warming is wrong and the whole premise is false, which quickly led me to the conclusion that the underlying methodology of the scientific method that atmospheric and meteorological science is predicated upon is completely flawed! Science does not work!

A breathtaking conclusion indeed!

If this is true that global warming is not contributing or driving adverse climate change, then what can possibly explain all these disasters and the weirdness like an iceless North Pole this year? As Jane Poulsen describes about the flooding, “We’ve never seen the water level up this high,” Poulsen said. “This is unprecedented."

Therefore, some agency has to be responsible for these unprecedented disasters like Katrina and the recent Midwestern flooding. Humans are not to blame and science is false. Just what is going on here?

And suddenly...the answer came to me. Of course!

Some History First
Fast forward to the past, 4th and 5th century Rome.

As Christianity began to assert its dominance through various factors and mostly by the assistance of the Roman state, the worshiping of the traditional gods of classical society was criminalized by Holy Roman Imperial Authority.

Justinian, emperor from 527-65, declared:

All those who have not yet been baptized must come forward, whether they reside in the capitol and in the provinces, and go to the very holy churches with their wives, their children, and their households to be instructed in the true faith of Christianity. And once thus instructed and having sincerely renounced their former error (paganism), let them be judged worthy of redemptive baptism. Should they disobey, let them know that they will be excluded from the state and will no longer have any rights of possession, neither goods nor property; stripped of everything, they will be reduced to penury, without prejudice to the appropriate punishments that will be imposed on them."

Despite the decline of paganism during the period an the subsequent criminalization, the worshiping of other gods did not fall out of favor with the local populaces even when these strict laws were enforced around the common era. Christian biographers, then and now, frequently claim that once the faith was introduced to the people, millions converted overnight and of their own volition. This is not so. From the chronicles of the time, we see a confluence of worshiping both Christian and Pagan gods, at public festivals, often celebrating a Christian celebration and a Pagan celebration together like Easter. Also, Christians never stopped believing in the pagan gods, and instead of outright disbelief, the old gods were now believed to be demons.

Remember, what happened when Christianity finally took hold over all of Europe? That's right, the Dark Ages began when the old gods were no longer worshiped.

And remember that during the Renaissance when old pagan gods and stories began to be represented in art and literature? That's right, the Dark Ages ended and science and the Enlightenment came!

Coincidences? I think not.

Revelation
The conclusion, the pagan gods are still very much alive and trying to get our attention.

And how are the gods doing this? We have a whole list of human afflictions to draw from. Here is a small sampling:

1. The Iraq War. We need to get out and win this thing. Therefore, we must appeal to Mars for his help. You support the troops right?


2. Female Infertility. You must appeal to Venus, she is the goddess of motherhood, then and only then we can end the debate over human embryos and stem cells. It might also help to worship Nona too.


3. The Asian Tsunami. Killing thousands and thousands and destroying millions and millions of dollars in property. Those people were killed because you Christians, stopped worshiping Neptune.


4. Insomnia. Only when we appeal to the god, Somnus, will all overworked Americans finally get a good nights sleep. I'm going to get my alter together before tonight. I could use some sleep.


5. Earthquakes and volcanoes. More frequent now. Injuring and destroying millions throughout the world. Remember the enormous earthquake in china last month? Vulcan we need to appease.


6. Hurricanes. The number, severity and frequency of hurricanes has increased every year, destroying millions of dollars of property, and injuring and killing hundreds. Again, Neptune, just trying to get your attention.


7. Greenhouse emissions, and Global Warming. Threatening humanity's entire existence. We need to appeal and appease, Veiovis, only he can heal the planet. Oh except, global warming is not true.
   

Sounds crazy? It is not. Christians are encouraged to find miracles in the everyday as proof of the God's work through the Holy Ghost. Pat Robertson and Jerry Farwell famously said that 911 was the direct result of God punishing the United States for homosexuality and abortion. For devout Catholics, the tireless Virgin Mary appears all over the world as oil stains on office windows, to knots in trees, to rust stains underneath highway bridges, to grilled cheese sandwiches in her never-ending mission to convince you. Don't have time to travel to these miraculous sites, take a chance and stare at the sun until you do. The truth will simply blind you.

You see, we simply live in a world where the supernatural manipulates the natural world.

Refuting the Skeptics
Only the unprejudiced reader, without reservation of doubt and a true open mind will come to the same logical conclusion that I have made. As God is invisible to man, like Zeus, Apollo, or any of the other pagan gods, makes belief that much more plausible. The more miraculous the claim, the inverse is equally true as to the level and quality of evidence which is needed substantiate the claim. That's why it is called faith. It is this type of faith which was praised as virtue from Paul who wrote his letters before the gospels were penned and before St. Augustine of Clement penned his theology on submission to God. In fact, this type of faith is encouraged as a virtue. And do you think your smarter that Paul or St. Augustine? Are they not authorities on God and on faith?

Whereas, an atheist believes in one less god than a monotheist, it is not much of a leap of faith to believe in one more god or gods for a theist. After all,the Burden of Proof is up to the skeptics that any of the old pagan Gods, like Zeus, do not exist. The skeptic can dispute these facts I've outlined and even argue successfully on the evidence, but all that requires is faith despite whatever the clever skeptic may introduce. As everybody knows, skeptics hate America and are known for doing the work of the Satan, poisoning the well for a peoples faith.

Therefore, Christians, you can say all you want that you do not believe in the old pagan gods, but that does not make them just go away and not exist. The Bible supports other gods and even mentions them (i.e. Saturn, Baal), this is why God tells the Israelites they should have "no other gods" before him, acknowledging that they do exist.

And why not? Paganism is far older and was more widely practiced than even the great monotheistic religions of today. Are you so foolish to say that all those countless people were wrong?

Conclusion
Since God came down from Heaven to be Himself as His Son, to sacrifice Himself to Himself, thus satisfying the Old Testament that He in His plan put into motion before His return back to Heaven, it is only wise that monotheists again worship the old gods and must include the old pantheon in their duties. (Here's a quick how-to.) We have all been saved, otherwise all that sacrifice that Jesus did was for nothing. God has not destroyed the Pagan Gods in the supernatural realm as we continue to be rocked by disaster after disaster and disease after disease that pagan gods lack of involvement clearly shows. Even the liberal media can not cover this fact up. This is all evidence that is needed.

Therefore Christians, is the time for you to make the sacrifices and rebuild the temples and attend them, like last year when a sect of Rabbis decided to resume animal sacrifices on the Temple Mount. Since America is founded on Judaeo-Christian principles, we ought to follow the Rabbis example. We simply need the protections that the Pagan Gods used to provide and has since withdrawn because they are longer worshiped. In doing so, you are showing your love to your neighbors as well as God's enemies (i.e. other gods) that even Jesus said was a high moral principle. Once again, you will be securing the gods protection from natural disasters. I can not think of a better use of our tax money in this new faith based initiative to rebuild the temples and supply meat and incense in sacrifices to the gods.

Only when the peace of gods has been secured, peace on earth will once again be secured.

_____________________


FYI: I originally posted this on exchristian.com and a few other places a few years ago. I've rewritten this piece to make it current and to make my argument stronger. Also, an award to the person who can name as many logical fallacies I relied on in formulating this argument. :)

Saturday Soundbites

For today, I thought gather up some videos and keep it centered mostly around one subject.

Creationism
In yesterday's post, I addressed the straw man fallacy committed by creationists. The following video comments further on this fallacy.




Evolution
Another outright lie by creationists is that evolutionary theory is false because it does not have the necessary transitional fossils that the theory predicts. We have plenty of transitional fossils in a number of species from whales, to horses, and humans.

Also, we have multiple lines of evidence and we do not need to rely on fossils alone. Our genes (and DNA) provide additional lines of evidence. In this video, Dr. Kenneth Miller talks about the evidence from gene pairing.



Furthermore, an important study was released a couple of weeks ago showing that natural selection is a mechanism for evolutionary change. Michigan State researcher Doctor Richard Lenski has been engaged in a 20 year study of the bacteria e coli. Starting from one single line of e coli, Lenski et al has able to show that around the 31,500 generation the e coli was able to adapt to the environmental pressures by evolving new genes to use glucose as a nutrient source. Read more about it here.

Incidentally, Lenksi is in engaged in a debate over his research with Andy Schalafly, a noted creationist and founder of Conservapedia. Read Lenski's second reply and subsequent smack down.

Church and State
Last Saturday I reported and commented on the "Academic Freedom Bill" that passed Louisiana house. These stealth laws are a dishonest way of corrupting honest teaching of science in the classroom. So much so, they have to disguise this intent with euphemism of "Academic Freedom." No surprise, its been signed by Louisiana's creationist Governor Bobby Jindal.

Interesting to note how the language has "evolved" eh? This following video is a great, short document about the evolution of intelligent design rhetoric and a few transitional fossils uncovered from its own agit prop.


And lastly...

George Carlin
While much is touted about his famous 7 words, not much was said in the media about his skepticism of religion.



George, I am glad I got to see you once. You were a hero. You will be missed.

The Friday Fallacy // Straw Man

Introduction
The Straw Man fallacy is often committed by creationists in their defense of a literal creation by a supernatural agency when attempting to refute evolution.

This fallacy can be quite effective - if you are not on guard for it, or do not understand or aware of the opponents position.

Defined
Instead of representing the opponents argument accurately, the petitioner rephrases or misrepresents the oppositions argument as to make it easier to defeat. The petitioner then declares victory over this invented argument.

Therefore the allusion of a straw man. They are easy to knock down.

Example

According to his (Charles Darwin) evolution scenario, inanimate substances came together by chance to give rise to the first living cell.

------

"Living things did not come into being through the imaginary processes of evolution."

This example is from the Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya. A Muslim creationist. Yes, thats right a Muslim creationist.

Like many creationists, Harun Yahya, restates evolution as a theory on the origin of life. Evolution is a theory on the origin of species. Meaning, Darwinian evolution starts after life begins.

Therefore, evolution can not account for abiogenesis. Because Yahya uses a straw man, it allows for an easy victory, despite the fact that it came at the expense of intellectual honesty.

Conclusion
Straw Man arguments are an intellectually dishonesty way of arguing against a position that one wishes to refute. The victory allegedly won is therefore useless.

Arguments and positions should be honestly confronted and then rejoined on the merits of the position, not one imagined.

Why Punk Rock is Better and More Civic Minded than Radio Crap

I grew up in eighties and punk rock and skateboarding were my life in high school. The alternative was hair metal bands. No thanks... For the most part, the metal guys would beat up on me and I wanted no part of that culture. Besides, with my shaved head, I still looked like a guy and not a chick.

Of course, there was always radio music. Pop. No thanks. Seriously, how many love songs must we listen too? How many broken hearts for Snake?

Punk rock and skateboarding. Yes. Here were lyrics that had something to say. A lifestyle that fit my teenage dissent and suburban rebellion. I did not have many friends in school and it was through this culture that I finally made friends. And as punk kids we made and produced our own culture - music, zines from all around the Milwaukee/Madison nexus. I became a self-funded author, well traveled, and my zine was widely distributed as far as Germany. I did all this while in high school and without the aid of the internet. Life was good.

The Vandals @ Odd Rock Cafe. Circa 1988. Photo by Eric Stein.

Yesterday at work, the Circle Jerks were playing in my iTunes queue. Yah, I know the name is shocking to some of you. I once got an LP because one of my buddy's parents were outraged that their son had such a record. We attended the same church, so instead of taking the heat and owning it, he said they were mine. In order to get these objectionable records, I had to come over to his parent's mansion to collect them. Score!

So, the song "Deny Everything" is playing.

I'm innocent
until I'm proven guilty
deny everything, deny everything
I'm being framed
it's all a set-up
deny everything, deny everything

And it suddenly it occurred to me, that what I was listening too was not just a song, but really a civic lesson on my Fifth Amendment rights. Just about any song by Bad Religion is a civic lesson, or the Dead Kennedys for that matter.

Compare this to Foreigners "I want to know what love is, from around the same time:"

I wanna know what love is
I´m gonna take a little time
A little time to look around me
I´ve got nowhere left to hide
Looks like love has finally found me
In my life there´s been heartache and pain
I don´t know if I can face it again
Can´t stop now
I´ve travelled so far to change this lonely life

I want you to show me
I wanna feel what love is
I know you can show me

What a pussy of a song. Seriously, you can practically see the tears pouring from this guy's eyes as he is combing the snarls out his hair preppin' for his bitchin' date.

But radio hasn't changed. Same formula. Same content. Clue me in, but do people actually listen to the radio for music anymore? From the scant times I've been around it, the music has the same content - even if the music is more sexually innuendoed.

There are exceptions to every rule and a few pop bands rise above this formula. For instance U2, who have been more socially consciousness, of course, draw heat because of it. And in the punk world, we had Green Day, even before they made mainstream, singing about girls and crushes.

At the root of it, we punks deeply cared for America, democracy, the environment, and the world. We took on issues and we tried to influence the hearts of minds of others in our rags and nappy hair, even though we were preaching mostly to the choir. Underground, non-mainstream punk is still a creature of the basements, writing protest music and singing about issues. I hope it continues long after I am dead.

Although, my taste in music has broaden quite a bit since then, my knees are damaged from skating and snowboarding, and my hearing is blown from the intense volume of countless basement shows, I still love many of the bands I listen to from that era. I've only mentioned the prominent bands and there are countless others that should deserve recognition. It is safe to say that the music had a tremendous influence on my political, social, and religious leanings as a young man. I actually had to think about what was being said.

It wasn't about how much "I love you" for sure.

Help me with this one // Obama is not a real African American?

Yesterday on my way to a photoshoot, I was browsing the dial trying to find something on talk radio to listen to. (No juice in the iPod = no podcasts.) When I am not listening to a podcast, or music, I usually have sports-talk radio on. I wasn't in the mood for Rome and there was commercials on ESPN radio. Anyway, I heard Rush's familiar voice. "My friends..." Thought I give him a listen.

Rush was making an argument that since Obama was of Kenyan descent (2nd generation on his fathers' side) he knows nothing about slavery, or what its like to be a black man of this heritage. (Correct me if my paraphrasing of the argument is wrong, I didn't have a way to make notes while driving.) Nothing in talk radio is not echoed elsewhere. I found this article and it states "Some insist he is not African American and is unsuited to be a black candidate, because he is not a direct descendant of slaves and hasn't had what they see as an authentic African American experience."

Does this argument play well to partisans? I mean, does this convince them that Obama is not a "real" African American? Does this argument play well in the African American community? Do they reject Obama on the basis of a slavery heritage? And what does it matter? Shouldn't he be scrutinized for his policies or values, or even his experience rather than his heritage, or lack of heritage as this argument asserts? And isn't rather odd that a white guy like Rush would be arguing that Obama isn't black enough? Unh?

Obama was born and raised in Hawaii. His mother is
right from the heartland of Kansas. If he's not an authentic African
American then what is he? Is he separate from the rest of African Americans by descent, but equal in his race? Where's Kenya? Is that in Canada?

So what's the deal?

Lefties, righties...anyone please explain the argument to me. I just don't get it.

Nauseating Theodicies

Apparently, the recent Midwestern flooding, like we experienced in the Lake Country and in Iowa, is a judgment from God.

The pastor also recalled televangelists who in 2005 said Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on New Orleans.

 

"In a sense it is God's judgment because it's part of the curse. On the other hand, it's God's mercy because it's less than what we deserve and we're still alive and have the opportunity to repent," Schumacher said.

If you believe that Bible is literally true like this pastor does, then you have no choice but to accept that this catastrophic flooding and the misery that it has created is the will of God. In fact, there is great Biblical support for it: "I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the LORD, do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7) In this sense, the pastor's conclusions are coherent within their own worldview. The pastor is obligated to turn evil events into good events. A reasonable person will find this type of "up is down" reasoning incoherent.

It's also nauseating.

Theodicies are a response to criticism against Gods existence (The Problem of Evil) by Christians or other theists like our dear pastor above.

The Problem of Evil persists because evil persists. This is why this Problem of Evil continues to be one of most challenging arguments against God's existence for Christians, or other theists, who attempt to reconcile evil in the world with a God who is alleged as an omni-benevolent, omniscient, and an omnipotent being. If we were to predict a universe without God, then we should expect to find that the world would have human suffering and environmental devastation as a necessary condition.

And this is exactly what we find.

Saturday Soundbites

There's been lots of stuff in the news about religion and it abuses over the past week, other church and state issues, human rights issues that I did not have time to comment on.

Here's a quick rundown.

Faith Healing
Remember this spring the case of Madeline Nuemann, the 11-year who died of a treatable diabetic condition because her parents sought to heal her by prayer over the phone rather than seeking a doctor? Now another case of failed faith healing ends the promising life of 16 year old Neil Beagley. Disgusting. Look, I don't think we should ban faith healing, however there should be strong penalties against parents who do not also take the necessary step and seek the aid of scientific medial advice and help. I understand that prayer does bring comfort to those that need it. By all means, pray. But do not risk the life of your child for your beliefs.

Religious Cannibalism
I don't even know where to begin with this one. Utterly horrific. A report from the Czech Republic of Ondrej Mauerova indicates that he was kept in a closet and "partially skinned" as part of some cult called the Grail Movement. I've never heard of this cult. So I did a quick Wiki. Apparently, the book that is based upon promises "...answers with clarity all the unsolved questions of human existence. The recognitions mediated with this book are so immense that they force the unprejudiced reader to ponder, investigate and go forward." In other words, read this bull-crap uncritically. It's no wonder why crimes against humanity like this happen.

More Abuse
John Freshwater, a former public school teacher was fired yesterday for branding a cross in the arm of two of his students. His friend defends him: "With the exception of the cross-burning episode. ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," Ha Ha. With the exception? Anyone want to bet he'll play the persecution card? You bet they will. The following counter law-suit will be over religious freedom and why can't Freshwater preach his Christian beliefs in class. Fine. Then not only is he guilty for the abuse of a student, but in violation of the separation clause. He'll lose doubly.

Creationism

The Louisiana Senate voted 36-0 Monday on a bill that would allow science teachers to bring in supplemental materials for subjects like evolution, cloning and global warming. These bills, like Bill 733, are under the guise of academic freedom. Sorry, but teachers do not have academic freedom. Science text books are highly vetted to be as scientifically accurate as possible, and by experts. What I've read that this bill will stage similar lawsuits in the country like the Dover case. Which is fine. More chances to expose creationism for the pseudo-science and religion that it is. Also, ever notice that subjects like history are never picked on? I would love to bring Turtledove books, or Graham Hancock books into the class room and teach those as valid histories.

Gay Marriage

Gay couples in California finally got a chance to marry one another. Congratulations! A canard that the religious right trumps is that gay marriage is supposedly a sign of Revelation when "men become lovers of men." I have to ask them, shouldn't they allow gay marriage? Wouldn't that bring Jesus back a little sooner?

Books

The family. I'm a little wary of this one. Conspiracy theories always require such a mechanism as to make the actual conspiracy impossible.

Devil in Dover is about the inside story over the dover case and the pious fraud of the school board.


That's it for now.

The Friday Fallacy // Poisoning of the Well

Political debate is rife with this one, and I've been the subject and a focus of this type of attack countless times at LCL.com. I thought it would be helpful to make it the focus of this weeks fallacy. Again, this article is not meant to be the exhaustive work on the subject.

Defined
Poisoning of the Well is very simple. The petitioner will offer some unfavorable information that they think will discredit their opposition. This information can be either true or false. The attack is made to spread suspicion without actually having to address the merits of the oppositions arguments or beliefs.

Examples:
01. Hamas had nice things to say about Barack Obama. Therefore Obama is a weak on defense and will destroy the county.

02. George Bush said "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier......just so long as I'm the dictator." Therefore, Bush will turn the US into a dictatorship and destroy the county.

In example one, whether or not some organization had nice things to say about Obama does not change what policies (Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006) and what statements (Obama's speech to AIPAC June 6, 2008) he has made in the past. Hamas later retracted, and McCain's campaign applied Hamas quote out of context in order to spread fear and suspicion.

For example two, despite the fact that Bush stated this does not mean he wants to transform the U.S. into his own private kingdom and that every policy decision he makes is a step toward this goal. Whether the policy is domestic like No Child Left Behind (Vote), or foreign, like the Iraq War (Joint Resolution on Iraq) these would not have become reality with or without tacit compliance from Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike. Bush still has to rely on the legislative process in many cases. Also, this quote is often used out of context.

As a side note, I really wish I had a nickel every time when either some Democrat or Republican used one of these.

In Conclusion
Both of these examples are non-sequiturs as the conclusions we are being led into are not supported by the evidence. In fact, the evidence (if we bother to check) rebukes this type of indirect ad hominem attack. Honest debate should be about the merits of a policy or a belief, and not made as an attack through fear and suspicion.

The People's Business or God's Business?

Remind me again...

What do we elect and pay our state representatives for? Is it to represent our concerns and manage our commons, or is it spend legislative time to offer prayers to Jesus and turn our public financed buildings into churches and not courts of law?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent a letter requesting the assembly to end prayer at the commencement of legislative sessions in our state assembly. Apparently this tradition got its start in 1848, where the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a resolution establishing this practice. (Can someone help me find this resolution? I'd like to read it. Thanks.) This practice is very much like prayer in public schools.

Before 1962, teachers or religious educators lead daily prayers in our public schools. This was ruled by the Supreme Court (Engel v. Vitale) to be a violation of the separation clause. (Students can still pray in school all they want. Students can not be lead in prayer by a teacher during class time.) The Assembly's prayers are no different because they appoint speakers from a pool of our elected representatives to lead the prayer, even though the US Senate begins its sessions with prayer.

In 1983, the Supreme Court allowed prayer in the US Senate but stated that "the prayers must not be intended to coerce listeners into adopting the speaker's belief or favor one religion over another." Despite this, these coercive prayers have continued in our state legislature. Wisconsin Assembly Chief Clerk Pat Fuller, states that this practice does not violate the ruling because the assembly is a separate branch.  Wow. Just because there is a loophole and the Assembly is not explicitly cited, does not mean you go ahead and do it anyway. Our taxes pay these people. I fail to see how this is any different than school-lead prayer, except for a change in venue.  And, I think, the fact this is a public court makes these prayers more of an egregious offense to the separation of church and state and religious liberty.

The FFRF also observes that the prayers are "unnecessary, coercive" and notes that "thirteen of the prayers invoked Jesus Christ, eight quoted the Bible and three mentioned the Holy Spirit." But what would you expect? Christianity can not help itself as religions are mutually exclusive to each other and to a secular, civil society.

For example, the article cites:

• Accused Rep. Eugene Hahn, R-Cambria, of urging his colleagues to turn against faiths other than Christianity.



• "Those who don't love us, may God turn their hearts. And, if he doesn't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles, so we'll know them by their limping," he said, prompting lawmakers to burst into laughter. He added later: "Oh God, Our Judge, save us from holding a faith that cripples the future, and makes a better tomorrow an impossibility."



• Criticized Rep. Sheryl Albers, R-Reedsburg, for quoting a Bible verse that said laws were meant to allow individuals to lead godly lives. "So, man made laws, which are contrary to reason, become unjust. On that basis, laws we might make, if contrary to natural law, are a corruption of the law," she said on Oct. 24.

And that's only a small sample of thirteen. Imagine just how many prayers like this have been uttered since 1848?

I agree with the FRFF that initiating legislative sessions with prayer is unnecessary and most importantly, it is divisive to non-Christians and Christians alike. Last July, Harry Reid invited the first Hindu, Rajan Zed, to lead the Senate in prayer. Zed was met with protests by the Religious Right, claiming that Zed worshiped "false Gods." If a Hindu leading a bland prayer piqued enough anxiety for these Christians, what about the rest of us who are non-religious? Since you can not divorce the person from the type of belief held - which the Zed case demonstrates, so to does prayer causes friction among any of the religiously devoted. Furthermore, the way a Catholic worships is different than a Protestant. The small differences in religious practice between varieties of Christianity make those sects what they are.

This spring, many Christians were up in arms over Reverend Wright's comments about "God damning America." Wright is a citizen that only represents his church and is not a lawmaker, unlike Chippewa Falls Republican Terry Moulton. During one such legislative prayer, Moulton stated that the nations that do not accept God "went into ruins and perished." Is this the kind of activity we want from our representatives when they should be engaged in writing laws and debating the merits over issues of economic and social priority? If you are offended by such statements like Wrights, be sure to email Moulton and let him know that his views are not your views and he should apologize for his damning of America.

Inevitably, the defenders of such traditions will cry foul that prohibiting such a practice in our state houses and courts is a threat to their religious liberty. This would be true if the law was prohibiting them for doing so in their homes, or in their churches. Context matters here. These prayers are being lead by our State representatives who are salaried through taxes, and as mentioned before, in our public courts. Christians do not have the right to Christianize and bash their religion over everyone else's heads and with the assistance of our tax dollars.

Source

Reply to Jim Hayett about Media Bias

JIM HAYETT STATES: "One liberal blogger bashed me for two days and then was so disturbed, he even wrote an entire blog on how wrong my three year study was about bias journalism in the Milw. JS. How did I come up with this data? The same way the QJE study did theirs: By reading the publications. Why? Well, not to upset this blogger, the only way to do a study with a paper is to maybe read it?"

---

@Jim Hayett, no... I did not write a blog specially about your study on whether it was correct or incorrect in its conclusions (how could I - you never provided it), I wrote a blog about the burden of proof. I suggest you read it again.

The Friday Fallacy // The Burden of Proof

Jim Hayett, you have not backed up your allegations in any meaningful way. You have not provided your study of JS liberal bias so that we readers here can determine if your conclusion is a valid one. You have not qualified what you mean by liberal, conservative, or centrist. Why should I offer you my working definitions, when A) You could possibly reject them; B) It is you who did the 3 Year Study. I want to know just what you determined as liberal to qualify why that particular column or editorial received the awarded point that you gave it. In short, I want to analyze your evidence. These are fair questions to ask. It is unfair not to answer them.

On this issue of what you mean by your terms Jim Hayett, I wrote a blog post about the Pledge of Allegiance. I, in fact, agreed with a Conservative (from the Cato Institute) about why would free people put the state before individualism in having to pledge. So, being a self-defined liberal, is this blog post liberally or conservatively biased? Reasonable people are not hung up on labels as reasonable people look at the merits of an argument, regardless of whether the person is a liberal, conservative, or not.

So Jim Hayett, instead of wasting so much virtual ink and wrongly assessing my mental state, show us the damn study you did. Define your terms. You've spent three years, which you proudly boast about over and over and over again, so showing us this study should be only one easy click away. So please, for the last time, post your 3 year exhaustive study in your next blog post already!

And here's the really sad thing Jim Hayett, you have the perfect opportunity to really knock a grand slam and prove to us all about JS's bias. I want to be convinced. My mind is left open to the possibility...you should be all over this chance to reform a liberal. Why do you refuse? Is it possible you never did a study?

---

As for the rest of your post....I wonder, do you throw the baby out with the bath water when your finished? Oh...never mind.

The Friday Fallacy // Shifting the Burden of Proof

In recent discussions with my fellow, passionate, bloggers here, its come to my attention that there some misunderstanding and confusion of what it means to support your claims. So, I'd like to help my fellow bloggers and readers to understand more about what it means when you have the burden of proof. I'll try to sum this up neatly and try not to get overly technical. I'll probably be skipping lots of other things I should mention though, so don't take this as a definitive work on the subject.

Arguments Defined

When making an argument you are making a claim about the nature of reality. All arguments have premises and conclusions, and all arguments are either strong or weak in various degrees. Arguments are not the final say on a proposition, they are at best, an approximation as to what we think is probably true. Arguments are not truth in themselves. A stronger argument may have some predictive quality. In this way, an argument functions like a scientific theory. It is open to criticism and revision as new evidence is uncovered. Basically, if an argument can not be falsified, then it is not an argument, but an assertion which can be dismissed.

Arguments always take the positive position, that is, they are trying to substantiate what is being claimed. Negative statements are not arguments, nor are they assertions. For instance the statement: I do not believe in God. There is no position being taken here.This is a negative statement. You can't prove a negative. Therefore, negative statements are free from the burden of proof.

The Burden of Proof Defined

If we apply this general principle to a positive position like "Our local newspaper is liberally biased" we then have to ask to petitioner on what grounds. If the petitioner states that there is empirical evidence and research to prove this, we must then ask for the research and the evidence. We must also ask the petitioner what are his terms so that we may qualify the evidence that is collected to support the claim, and this in turn helps us to understand the premises of the argument being made. We must then examine the quality of the evidence and establish that the evidence reasonably supports the claim and is of sufficient verisimilitude. So we dig and try to uncover errors in reasoning and in observation. Has the petitioner made any category errors or commit any confirmation bias when selecting his evidence? Has the petitioner addressed and suggested how his conclusion may be falsified? Did the petitioner have his study and his evidence peer reviewed or vetted? In the same way we would scrutinize a research paper, so too do we scrutinize an argument's premises in determining the likelihood of the truth of the claim.

If a number of these things are satisfied, we can say with reasonable certainty that the argument is probably a truthful proposition.

Shifting the The Burden of Proof

However, if the petitioner does not provide quality evidence nor defines his terms and refuses to do so when asked, we can safely dismiss the claim. If the premises are weak and the evidence cited is not of equal integrity to the claim we can dismiss that as well. We can equally dismiss the claim if the petitioner asks you to do the research for him when pressed.

For example:

If you don't believe that invisible green leprechauns are cause of alcoholism, it is up to you to show that they do not exist.

Clearly, this is a shift in the burden of proof.

In Conclusion

Arguments are as only as only as good as their premises and evidence provided. No argument is a substitute for an objective truth, but can function within reasonable doubt as to their plausibility. Arguments, like theories can change in light of new information.

But it is up to the petitioner to support his claim as free of fallacy as possible and respond to challenges to the claim without errors in reasoning, or by shifting the burden of proof.

When to Presume Certainty

In Jordan, there is debate developing as to whether or not a recent discovery of a cave underneath a Christian Church was used as an early Christian place of worship. If so, this cave would date early in area around 1 ce, and make it "one of the oldest churches in the world", according to Abdel-Qader Hussein, Archaeologist and head of the Rihab Center for Archaeological Studies.

But there are dissenting views, Thomas Parker, a historian at the University of North Carolina-Raleigh, states:

"It's quite possible that there was a cave with earlier occupation which was later converted to Christian use. But to make the jump that this was actually used by Christians fleeing Jerusalem in the 1st century A.D. seems like a stretch to me."

So, what we are having is a reasonable debate about the provenance of this worship center. However, what is not reasonable is the declaration that Deputy Bishop Nektarious makes:

"It confirms that Christians in this region are not strangers," he said. "They are real citizens who have always had roots in this region from those days until the present."

It may very well turn out to be an early Christian worship site, but at this present time the evidence is thin and to proclaim certainty is premature.

As Parker points out that, in order to confirm this as a Christian site one needs to understand that the mosaics found "are difficult to date" and that the any of the artifacts still need to be peer reviewed and vetted. So clearly these is much work yet to be done.

In this case, the reasonable option is to suspend a decision until such a time we have evidence to conclude with reasonable certainty that this cave was a Christian worship center. We may never have enough evidence to make a conclusion, other than what can be known.

What is unreasonable is to declare without strength evidence as to the purpose of this cave. Our understanding of the world does not advance when we resort to creating beliefs by fiat and ending investigation.

Source

Goodbye....

...the world ends tomorrow.

I probably should have hid my arse in a cave, but the commute was too much and with gas prices...whew! I only have myself to blame.

Therefore, I've made out my will out to my fellow LCL bloggers:

• To Jeff Blackwell: I leave you my beloved Yugo t-shirt. May it score as many babes for you as it did for me.


• To Sally Pla: I leave you my art supplies. Your creative posts and gracious spirit is inspiring as beautiful as Van Gough or a Cassett.


• To Jim Heyett: I leave you these sunglass. They are special. They filter out anything liberal.


• To Shoe Guy: I leave you my socks. So you have something to protect and pad your feet when wearing those shoes of yours.


• To Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer: I leave you with the satisfaction that I finally left the United States. Not by my choice, however....


• To Victor: I leave you my Carl Sagan book collection. May you find them as inspiring as I did.


• To Chris Tarr: You get all my various Html, CSS, ActionScript, JavaScript and Lingo books. Thankfully, its the end-of-the world. No more idosyncratic updates of these languages. I am not sure if you'll thank or damn me for that ....


• To the Colonel: I leave you with a final, military campaign.


• To Ajohnson911: I leave you my books on freethinking, critical analysis, and science. Not that I think you need them, but I think that you'd enjoy them.


• And to the rest of the world: I'd leave you my body for organ donation, but it's gonna be rather busy in a Hell with all the suffering and shoveling of coal.

(Unless this latest apocalypse of God's wrath doesn't happen and the monk, John, was, in fact, writing a polemic against the Roman Empire. Nah...I am sure something must have happened that God changed His mind.)

Obama Meets with Christian Leaders

Oh for f@#ks sake. Really?

Mark DeMoss, a spokesman for the Rev. Franklin Graham, said Graham attended and asked Obama whether "he thought Jesus was the way to God, or merely a way."

Really, of all the issues facing America today, this was the best that the question that the esteemed Reverend could ask of Obama?

IMO, this is all a monumental waste of time. Seriously, all the religious pandering that our politicians do is a waste of time. Did I say that? Did I say that all this religious pandering is a waste of time? If I didn't say that all this religious pandering is a waste of time, I will.

And if you thought one meeting was not enough, Joshua Dubois - Obama's faith outreach director states that there will be more sessions "in the months to come."

Fantastic. I can't think of anything more exciting than following the reporting of how Obama is trying to court the religious right and evangelicals at large.

Does Obama think he is running for Pope or for the Presidency?

McCain Constitution Christianity

One has to wonder if John McCain has ever bothered to read the Constitution, or the Bible for that matter. In an interview on belief.net McCain is asked three questions regarding the role of Christianity and in the founding of our country.

McCain, inarticulately hamfists his way through this interview. These questions are pretty easy to answer, but being a guy that vitally needs the religious right to vote for him without alienating the mainstream of society, he has to carefully position and parse his answers. His lack of citing the Constitution or the Bible for support also demonstrates that he has no clue in how to answer what he is being asked.

Here's a video abstract of his answers. You can see the whole video here.



"Most Americans believe the Constitution established a Christian nation. Do you agree?"

McCain, with discomfort states "probably yes."

What? Probably yes? The Constitution is a legal document and nowhere does it explicitly state that Christianity as the official religion of the US. In England, the Anglican Church is the official Christian practice and thus receives taxes. In the US, the Church is separate from the state and does not receive taxes and does not have to support the state by being taxed. Nowhere does the Constitution state "God" This is unlike the recently minted constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq, where Islam is the official religion and that no (secular) law may contradict the Koran. Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly states that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." I do not know how more explicit against an establishment of Christianity you can be, or any other religion for that matter. Hint: an establishment of religion is like being pregnant. You either are or you are not. So there is no "probably."

McCain continues to add that, although the Constitution establishes Christianity, it is in the "broadest sense." But not so broad to include Judaism. Although both religions share the Old Testament and Yahweh, the similarities stop there. Their practice, belief, and worship in a sacrificed, risen messiah hopelessly divides them both. Both Christianity and Judaism are mutually exclusive. The answer is also very vague.

McCain goes on to mention other great American sentiments that have nothing to do with the Constitution, but are often skewed by the religious right who want to replace a democracy with a theoracy. Again, two mutually exclusive concepts.

(Also, I object to the wording and the premise of the question, but I'll save that for another time.)

Many Republican activists say that separation of church and state is a myth. What is your opinion?

In the first question, McCain answered a (weak) yes, yet now says that, in fact, the US has separated church and state. Okay. Does he see the obvious contradiction between both answers? You can not have one or the other. McCain could have cited a specific example from the Constitution where it expressly establishes Christianity, but instead he now says that this establishment is on "Christian principles." What are "Christian principles?" If he means the articles of faith that one must subscribe to to be a Christian, then no. But if he means charity, reciprocity, and basic humanism then yes. However, all religious and the non-religious share basic kindness, so being kind and good is not solely the providence of Christianity.

McCain then goes on to sum up the religious beliefs of our the founders. That's all very nice and all, but we are talking about law of the land here. And nowhere did any of the founders, Madison, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Allen etc ever state "In God We Trust." This statement was added later in 1957 to our currency. The phrase "All created equal" is not part of the Constitution, but part of the Declaration of Independence. This declaration of war, does not explicitly state or even imply the Christian God.

Is America exceptional because it is divinely chosen?

This has to be one of the most poorely answered questions. Why did not McCain just answer with the platitude of "God bless America" and move on? Again he makes an appeal to whatever "Christian principles" are and also states that the Founders were "inspired" by these very same Christian-Judeao beliefs. BS. While many of the Founders were Christian, Jews, and some were deists, if it wasn't for the fact that they were Enlightenment rationalists and dissident protestants agreeing to separate church and state, we would not have had a secular democracy today. That was the boldest move.

How do we know this? We know this by many things, like the Virginia State constitution (where much of the US Constitution is based upon), from legal document like the Treaty of Tripoli, or from the private correspondence between Jefferson and Madison. And we also know by the critics. Take Reverend George Mason for instance, who stated that "we will have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than individuals, overrun from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck." The rhetoric is the exactly the same today when Christianity attempts to Christianize the commons and the schools and loses in court.

No. They were inspired, not by Christianity, but by secularity. The resounding silence of the Constitution about God and Christianity and the fact that nowhere written into law is there "no other gods before me" within our founding legal document should put McCain's assertions to rest.

Yet it doesn't. McCain is playing to the religious right. The religious right wants to take away American's freedom to worship and replace it with they way they think you should or should not worship. This is patently unAmerican.

June Monthly Reader Survey

I'm absolutely curious as to what people Lake Country Area think and believe, so I want to ask a little, informal, non-scientific survey. So this is your chance to tell me straight out, without having to justify why you believe what you believe.

Feel free to contact me here via email or leave your answers below. Indicate, if you feel like it, where you sit politically and if you are religious.

I'll tally and release the results next month.

01. True or False: Iraq was one of the countries that attacked us on 9/11.

02. True or False: God speaks to me and he tells me what to do.

03. True or False: Intelligent design is a valid scientific theory.

04. True or False: Extraterrestrials have visited us.

05. True or False: Vaccines are the cause of autism.

06. True or False: America was founded on Christianity.

07. True or False: When Gays are allowed to marry one other, all marriages in America will dissolve.

08. True or False: Liberals are destroying America.

09. True or False: The preponderance of evidence disproves evolution.

10. True or False: Liberals are no better than terrorists.

11. True or False: We are living in the final days. Revelation is at hand.

12. True or False: In order to protect itself, the United States, with out without support of its allies, should bomb Iran over its suspected nuclear program. Our use of nuclear weapons would be justified in doing so.

13. True or False: Some especially adapt people have psychic ability.

14. True or False: It is possible that psychics can read the thoughts and emotion of pets and other animals.

15. True or False: Demons are responsible for some mental illness. In that case, a Priest should be consulted, not doctors.

Loser Living with Parents Calls for Holy War

Unlike many of my liberal friends, I do not find Islam a religion of peace. (But neither is Christianity.) While its true that many believers are able to compartmentalize their faith and accommodate secular society and can even be moderated by it, there are others that simply can not.

Take this case for instance.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — In a quiet, upscale neighborhood in Charlotte, N.C., rows of custom-style homes and neatly landscaped lawns represent the American dream.

But one local resident has shattered that image, calling for the death of American troops in Iraq and supporting Al Qaeda through his Web site, which he reportedly runs from his parents' home.

-----

In an e-mail sent to FOX News, Khan lashed out at the "arrogance" of the media, saying it should focus instead on converting to Islam.

This loser lives with his parents, and looks like he's had a normal middle class life. Although he's not a terrorist yet, his trajectory is very similar to 911 hijackers.

Just more proof that once you have religion and take it literally, its not much more of a step into delusional madness. For what? An invisible sky god.

Source

Anti-torture campaign in Wisconsin, nationwide

Yo! Neo-cons, waterboarding advocates, and pro-torture aficionados, listen up - you have new enemies of the state you should be aware of.

At least two faith communities in Milwaukee and six in other parts of Wisconsin are participating in a month-long national campaign against use of torture by the United States

Quick! You better deport all these religious folk soon: Albany Lutheran Church, Albany; St. Norbert Abbey, De Pere; Dale Heights Presbyterian Church, Madison; First Congregational United Church of Christ, Madison; First United Methodist Church, Madison; and Northwoods Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Woodruff.

You have your orders, now march!

Source

Conclusive Proof of Aliens on Earth?

As a skeptic I try to approach every claim with an open mind, no matter if its religious, politics, or your cooking. You can't be a skeptic if you've conclusively ruled that some phenomena could never happen. But as a skeptic you have to weigh each case individually, because each new case could actually prove some cryptic or supernatural thing that we didn't understand before. Basically, you're like a scientist. Observing, collecting evidence, proposing a theory, testing that theory, and then determining whether or not the claim is real.

Take last week. I caught this story on one of my RSS feeds that a Colorado man, Jeff Peckman, had definitive proof of aliens in our midst. Fantastic I thought! But as I read the story I became quite disappointed. You see, his proof was a in video. Oh-oh, I thought. Videos can be faked, and for such an elevated claim of alien life, having a video is already a shot against Peckman. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Meaning that the claim made requires a proportional amount of evidence to substantiate it. But nevertheless, I thought that this video may tip the scale in favor of the claim - if not conclusive.

I began with some research. Had Peckman tried this stunt before? Nothing that I could find, however, Peckman has been an advocate for some years on building a space port so that visiting aliens may land. This began to build some doubt in mind. Desperate men will do desperate things and if one believes that it is only a pious lie, then one can easily smooth over any bumps in their conscience. Nevertheless, let's look at the video. The video will speak for itself, Peckman is not an issue, unless the video is that un-convincing and there is criminal fallout for such a hoax. (I don't believe there is.)

Well, after a lot of noise and spectacle at this press conference (I read the blog as it was happening), all we got is still from the video and I didn't hear much about the "other" evidence he was supposed to present. The full video was to be released in a later documentary. Yawn. And of course, the still was black and white and grainy. Apparently, the person (Stan Romanek) who filmed this video just happened to have an infra-red camera pointing at the window as he thought that there was a very human peeping tom in the neighborhood getting titillating views of his daughter.

Anyway, here's a leaked, enhanced video. I don't know about its authenticity.


The blinking eyes is a nice embellishment. I gotta give them that. However, this video is fake, and everything about it is staged. Did you notice that head moved straight up from the ground, before the whole face came into view? Come on. Are we supposed to believe that this alien was grubbing around on all fours, underneath the window sill for what? To not to be caught on camera? The head moves as if not connected to the body. In fact, it bounces up and down as it is trying to get into position! Nor does the head and neck actually rotate where it looks. Although we see the blinking eyes, there are no other facial expressions as if this was some kind of mask. And why did this alien after crawling on the ground, quickly veer off to the right as if spooked? Why did it not return back on all fours to hide? And what spooked it anyway? A cat?

Another huge strike against this video is the style of the alien itself. It's a friggen movie alien! Spielberg should sue. Furthermore, the grey alien is a continuation of a long line of very real human delusions. In "Demon Haunted World" Carl Sagan observes that the same psychological mis-perception and delusion of medieval peoples, who thought they saw demons, have now been replaced by aliens that modern people think they see today. Since this alien is presented as a grey, it is another huge strike against this video as evidence. Extraterrestrial life may exist and most likely does, but I don't think they are visiting here. I could be wrong of course. Just show me the evidence.

Extraterrestrial life may exist and most likely does, but I don't think they are visiting here. I could be wrong of course. Just show me the evidence.

Here's a bit of advice to Peckman and his cohorts. You know all that money you want to spend on a space port? Give it to NASA, or the European Space Agency, as they are your best chances in finding extraterrestrial life. Of course, microbes are not as sexy as bipedal aliens with huge melons floating on emaciated bodies that could never support it, but at least you wouldn't be a lying crank.

Why You Don't Torture

Martyrdom is a logical consequence of applied, religious devotion. No more so than with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the Pakistani al Qaeda leader behind 9/11, stating "this is what I wish, to be martyred."

And for what? To die for the invisible Abrahamic God in the sky?

It's disgusting.

What's equally disgusting is the fact that we, the United States tortured him.

The CIA has acknowledged interrogating Mohammed using a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and condemned as torture by human rights observers.

Defense lawyers have said they will challenge any attempt to introduce evidence tainted by abuse.

The whole problem with torture is that if you already have evidence that a person is guilty, then you do not need to torture. However, if you don't have evidence and torture anyway, you've already made your mind up a priori that a person is guilty and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you.

Also, I do not give a damn that torture could produce valid information, and that information is always suspect of being reliable and accurate anyway. Torture of any degree is a violation of human rights. I thought we were that "city on the hill" and American Exceptionalism gave us a certain moral edge.

If this great policy move by the all-so-wise Bush Administration loses this case because of the actions it sanctioned with the CIA, then they we only have Bush, Cheney, and the rest of that Administration to blame.

(Hear that? That's the sound of Bush Apologists heads popping off in anger over my statements. Boo f'n hoo.)

Source

How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

This is a great essay about debunking 911 conspiracies and how its clout has decline over the years. What I find terribly interesting is the role that the internet played in first popularizing the myths and secondly defeating these myths. John Ray observers:

Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind — also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise.

Be sure to read it! Features fancy graphics!

Big Surprise! Creationist Shift Tactics Once Again

In the never ending battle to bring religiosity into the public school, the NYT reports:

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator."

The words are "strengths and weaknesses.'

PZ Meyers, on  Phraryngula rebutts with:

....and when they talk about "strengths and weaknesses", they intend to overlook the strengths of modern biology and focus on imaginary weaknesses invented by ignorant creationists."

The problem is, even if evolution proves to be false, the answer is not necessarily intelligent design. There could be other, natural forces at work, so the basic tactic that a creationist uses is to bifurcate between two limited choices. People like easy answers. People don't, by and large, like to think over choices and suspend judgement where it's okay that natural ignorance presides.

So instead of doing science, the creationist is left appealing to emotion.

Dover Part Two?

Adherence to Biblical literalism, or religious dogmatism damages peoples abiltity to reason, even if they do have a science degree. Take the new rangling over the teaching of evolution and biology standards in Texas School and the statements from Ken Mercer:

“There are issues in the evolutionary process that have been proven wrong,” he said. “Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven. Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions.”

Of course, the conclusion that Mercer wants a student to make is God.

Again, this is a lie. There is plenty of evidence that substantiates evolution and we have plenty of transitional fossils, and of fossil DNA which is decidedly conclusive. The only valid refutation of evolution must be made from science which shows some other natural mechanism. Supernatural explanations have no testable merit, and even if there was some super space alien that designed us, that alien would have evolved too from primitive lifeforms too. Again, all ID can do is argue from ignorance.

Besides, we went through all of this in the Dover trial. Mercer's positioning of "theory" effectively makes any pseudo-science a scientific theory.

Behe, of the Discovery Institute, under questioning in the Dover trial revealed:

Question: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

Behe: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Question: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

Behe: That is correct.

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

Behe: Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Behe makes one long special plead and can not argue against astrology as in turn that would be an argument against ID as a science. Furthermore, evolution is not a theory of life. It is a theory of origins of species.

The only thing Mercer will accomplish is another lawsuit which will end up costing the school board money.

Silence for the Pledge

In my ninth grade math class, I was scolded for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. My teacher had asked me if I was not proud of my country. I wanted to ask him in what context, but felt the peer pressure to just shut up. To tell you the truth, I wasn't very proud of my country. Iran-Contra broke around this time, and I was disappointed by Reagan and this was a simple, yet quiet way to protest. Despite all that, I have always felt uncomfortable performing this bit of patriotic pageantry in any mood.

But why the anxiety you might ask? Don't true, patriotic Americans enjoy this bit of public affirmation to their country? Do I hate America? Am I a Communist? A socialist? An Islamo-Fascist? None of those reasons, I assure you. It is because I am an American that I object to this ritual that only Communists and Goosesteppers do. I also have to ask myself, is our pledge any different than when Saudi's pledge to their flag? When Saudis pledge, they make an oath to God. Essentially, there is absolutely no difference in this practice and intent.

The Pledge was written in 1892 by socialist Francis Bellamy, and published to commemorate the 400 year anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. The companion address, by Bellamy, is full of exhalations in the discovery of the country, to America, to God, and to the public school system. While I can agree with some of the sentiments of the original 1892 wording was meant to express by Bellamy and agree with Bellamy that the public school is foundational to a free society, I do not agree with the forced, recital of the Pledge as a vehicle to teach our children what the values that the Pledge supposedly represents. In fact, it is very much against "justice and liberty" that this compulsory oath violates. The greatest accomplishment of our secular democracy is the freedom from compulsory belief, whether these beliefs are secular, religious, or otherwise. The Pledge, as it is currently configured, is a religious test. (The phrase "Under God" added to the pledge in 1954.) Article 6 expressly forbids any religious oath as a requirement to hold office and if we apply the spirit of Article 6, the Pledge and the phrase "under God" is the endorsement of the Christian (mainly Protestant) belief in God. (Spend a moment and read the Flag Code. Congress Findings is nothing but a long list of religious justification.) Furthermore, nowhere is the First Commandment of the Decalogue enumerated within the Constitution.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the Pledge was an "unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism" affirming the significance of the phrase "under God". This prompted a 2004 Supreme Court showdown, that instead of ruling on the constitutionality of "under God", took the red-herring and dismissed this case on procedural grounds. I do recall listening to extended debate on NPR between Justices Renquist and Thomas. If I recall correctly, it was Renquist that correctly observed that the word God was not just an explicit historical reference as the arguments of the day had asserted. Renquist (again, if I recall correctly) effectively pointed out that the argument that he and Thomas were presently engaged in over the meaning of the word God was demonstration enough that the word God can not be removed from its theological, religious context. (In other words, to change the context of the word God renders such a word meaningless.) As personally gratifying listening to that exchange, I was fully disappointed that such sublime reasoning was only to be abandoned for the coward's way out. Regardless, this exchange between Renquist and Thomas positively affirmed the appellate court's ruling.

Being a godless liberal, you would probably expect this opinion of me I am sure. A perfectly reasonable, knee-jerk, defensive reaction should summon the most invective language against me. Very well. But when you do, consider the fact that in the 40's it was the Jehovah Witness that objected to the Pledge as violating their First Amendment Rights. They are hardly atheists. Also consider the analysis of senior editor at the Cato Institute, Gene Healy, who is no liberal himself. Healy had this to say about (Republican) defenders of the Pledge:

"Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without "under God"?"

In the spirit of James Madison "Memorial" speech, let's abolish the Pledge. Just as Madison stated that "the Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." So too should the convictions and conscience of every American decide how best to exercise their patriotism.

Therefore in respecting the individual over the state, let's abolish this tradition. Instead, let our democratic principles revolve not around the parroting of words, but in our actions.

---

(It should be pointed out that there is no law, unless in uniform, that Americans must pledge. But it is a tradition that nonetheless continues in our schools. Effectively, the recital of the Pledge becomes compulsory. )