If You Can't Beat Them, Destroy Them

No, this is not a joke. Tom Willis of the CSA explains what to do about the "evolution" problem in the United States.

Thus, it is my theory that it will not, of course, be Christians who kill all the evolutionists, but Muslims who delight in killing both evolutionists and Christians.

Nevertheless, I find it instructive and entertaining to analyze what should be done with evolutionists before their end comes.

After a pretty ridiculous attempt to debunk evolution, Willis then goes on to lie on several accounts. Blaming the theory of evolution for every social ill in the past 50 years, while ignoring important facts that Hitler was a Christian. Anti-antisemitism existed for in Europe for centuries and was promulgated by the Catholic Church as late as 1914. He also conveniently omits that Christians looked to the Bible as a justification for slavery in the United States.

He poses the following question, therefore:

Clearly then, “evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land."

Willis answers:

1. Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.
2. Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhapsvlarge medallions which prominently announce "Warning: Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent - Potentially Dangerous." I consider this option too dangerous.
3. Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them.
4. An Evolutionist Colony in Antarctica could be a promising option. Of course inspections would be required to prevent too much progress. They might invent gunpowder.
5. A colony on Mars would prevent gunpowder from harming anyone but their own kind, in the unlikely event they turned out to be intelligent enough to invent it.
6. All options should include 24-hour sound system playing Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris reading Darwin's Origin of Species, or the preservation of Favored Races by Means of Natural Selection. Of course some will consider this cruel & unusual, especially since they will undoubtedly have that treatment for eternity.

No this is not Poe's Law in action.Willis does not see the irony of his "speculation." Nazi's uses camps and badges. Communists put evolutionists into camps. There really is so many things to ridicule in this pile of..., I don't think there really is enough bandwidth to go into it all.

It's not evolution Willis gives a damn about, but Biblical literalism. A man like this would become his worst enemy and burn the earth to cinders in defense of a worldview – grounded in bronze age brutality.

August Reader Survey // What podcast do you listen to?

Are you a fan of podcasts? I love podcasts. I'm curious to find out what if and what you listen to. My podcasts are usually in the sphere of skepticism and science.

Skeptism: The Skeptics Guide to the Universe; Skeptiod: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena; QuackCast

Secular/Humanism: Point of Inquiry

Science: NPR Science Friday; Science Talk: Podcast of Scientific American Magazine

Religion: The Non-Prophets; The Infidel Guide Show; The Atheist Experience; Apologia; Pat Condell's Godless Comedy

Politics: The Young Turks; KCRW's Left Right and Center

Anyone of these are great. My favorites are Skeptics Guide to the Universe and KCRW's Left Right and Center. Point of Inquiry is really great too.

I don't consume much politics though. Actually, politics is the least interesting. Left right and Center is pretty good. Features Tony Blankley, Robert Scheer, Arianna Huffington, and Matt Miller. Quite a good program without the shrillness of what makes for talking punditry on television.

What do you listen to?

A Sunday Sermon // Hearing God's Voice

Now that you've gone to service, said your prayers and gave God a few Franklins - it's time for a sermon from the other side of the aisle.

---

The other day, I was at the K-Mart in Oconomowoc, on a little visual research expedition. As I was strolling through the book section, How to Hear from God: Learn His Voice and Make right Decisions by that church lady from the 700 Club caught my attention. I quickly scanned the back. The book promises to teach you how to hear God's voice in every daily action so you can do His Divine Will. All for $19.31!

For whatever reason, this goofiness interests me. I did a quick google and this subject is almost a genre unto itself.

This site not only features a downloadable lecture, but 4 Main Keys to secure direct communication with God. This belief is predicated on one of the later prophets in the book of Habakkuk. A lesser known book of the OT, yet it does contain plenty of violence of that capricious blood thirsty God we've come to love and adore. The wiki entry states that this book is "the starting point of the concept of faith" which later NT writers grounded their emotional rhetoric and appeals of faith against the Greek tradition of materialist based reason. Paul for example.

As an aside, I did this drawing to illustrate the relationship between my own inner voice, Satan, and God. I measured the decibel levels of each.

What did you expect? Data? Verification?

Anyway, the author states that after praying, fasting, studying the Bible for one year, his previous roadblock of not hearing God's voice had been removed. He claims that "God set me aside" on this year long exercise. If your paying attention, this was before he could not hear Gods voice. Yet, somehow this born-again, Bible-believing Christian receives a directive to do so?

Unfortunately, the author gives no concrete way to confirm that in fact the voices in your head are not yours. Also, he gives no qualitative way to distinguish if the voice in your head is Satan and not God. You think that would be important, the Devil is known to be a trickster. Each step is self-brainwashing. In Key #4 you are to journal, but to "write in faith for long periods of time" and before you do, you should have adequately "submitted to solid, spiritual leadership." The shorthand, if you already believe, you already believe.

Books like this merely reaffirm the self-delusion that one can have a personal relationship with an immaterial, invisible entity that resides somewhere out there and beyond human comprehension. The believer is duped into thinking that a non-stop circle jerk of sanctimonious, self-affirming, ego-stroking is somehow a Bat Phone to God – piece-mailing advice at every trivial decision.
This variety of religious instruction does have consequences. From mothers who drown their children, to anti-abortionists who murder doctors and bomb clinics - we find that God has also a penchant for violence when he's not busy deciding plaids or stripes.

In my deconversion, hearing God's voice was an issue. I never heard God, only the familiar intonation of my own inner-voice. I never wanted to pretend or lie that this was anything but the case. In discussion with my Christian friends, they tell me they do, in fact, hear God's voice.

I have to stop and question the sanity of my friends. Can I blame them? They are victims. We have a history and a society of these flim-flammers, speaking from alleged authority, that this self-induced schizophrenia is real and not imaginary.

Jews oppressing Christians, Christians oppressing Jews

Currently, there is friction over a building site where tradition affirms as the site of the last supper. The evidence?

"In chapter two of the Acts of Apostles, Peter describes the place, mentioning that it is near David’s Tomb"

It's the paucity of this evidence that has justified this belief for centuries.

The site now has Jews and Christians at odds.

“The construction work going on at the site raises the suspicion that someone is trying to Judaize a Catholic site and prevent freedom of religious expression.”

What about Jews freedom of religion? It's fine and dandy in the mind of the Christian for the Christian, but a Jew? No. It's a good thing there is a modern court system in Israel, otherwise, there would have been rioting in the streets.

Incidentally, I wonder about the mind of Christian Zionist in this situation. Israel for the Jews - until you mess with our perceived religious priorities.

For a secularist and atheist like me, this is just one more unnecessary division, made necessary by religious priorities - all of which, utterly false.

(Source)

Saturday Soundbites // What is the World Coming to?

The end?

Nope. Even though the end of the world has been prophesied since Daniel was first penned, and later given illustrative reality by the Mad Monk John's ranting polemic against the Roman Empire. For some reason, that book is some great revelation? By the way, isn't funny that many, many Christians pray for the mother-of-all holocausts? Unfortunately, for the eschatologist in our midsts – the world has not ended.

In the meantime, there is news in the world that is hopeful, ridiculous, and some that is just plain 'ole despair that makes this rationalist laugh, cringe, and cry.

An Atheist President? A British PM?
Sometimes its damn, right hard to be an atheist in a society of hyper-religiosity. When your not being called a liar to your face, snickered behind your back as arrogant, damned to hell, or discriminated from office... your still one of the most despised minorities in the country. Gays are just as likely to despise you as much as Fred Phelps!

However, every so often this atheist will read something that just makes my day. In light of the debate whether or not to disestablish the Anglican Church, AC Grayling points out several advantages of an atheist PM over a Christian – like Tony Blair.

Any of his observations equally apply to the United States.

• Atheist leaders are not going to think they are getting messages from Beyond telling them to go to war.
• Atheist leaders will be sceptical about the claims of religious groups to be more important than other civil society organisations in doing good...
• Atheist leaders are going to be more sceptical about inculcating sectarian beliefs into small children ghettoised into publicly funded faith-based schools...
• Atheist leaders will, by definition, be neutral between the different religious pressure groups in society, and will have no temptation not to be even-handed because of an allegiance to the outlook of just one of those groups
• Atheist leaders are more likely to take a literally down-to-earth view of the needs, interests and circumstances of people in the here and now, and will not be influenced by the belief that present sufferings and inequalities will be compensated in some posthumous dispensation.
• Atheist leaders will not be tempted to think they are the messenger of any good news from above, or the agent of any higher purpose on earth.

Imagine electing a President who was not a Christian, who did not bend-over-backwards to satiate those that ground their politics in the oracle of their religious beliefs? Perhaps, we could then approach matters with more temporal urgency.

File this one under hopeful.

What's in the Water Joe?
This video has made the rounds on the skeptical blogs for the last couple of weeks.

It's still just too good to pass up.


- Watch more free videos

This gal is the mother-of-all conspiracy theorists. Ever argue against a conspiracy theorist? Frankly, you can not win. Evidence against the conspiracy, in the mind of the person, is also positive evidence of the conspiracy. This goes for every media, 911, global warming, moon-landing, anti-vaccination nut out there.

And you wonder why there is concern by educators and in the business community over the U.S.A not being a leader in math and sciences, while Jesusland relentlessly grips our country in its faith-based pseudoscience?

That aside, I think this video demonstrates the appalling lack of scientific education in our country. Or national priorities have us more invested in the question of whether or not the Decalogue states murder or kill. (Actually its both - depending on what sect's interpretation.)

File this one under ridiculous.

Ask a Sociologist, or a Catholic Priest?

Remember the spinning head of little girl in the Exorcist? My head spins when I read this stuff. Are we to take this Priest seriously? Basically, every social ill is positioned as a repudiation of secularity. Satan, apparently, has dug his cloven heels into modernity, according to this Priest.

"Even heterosexual promiscuity is a perversion; and intercourse, which belongs in the sanctuary of married love, can become a pathway not only for disease but also for evil spirits."

What I love the most about this article, which spun-up my irony alarm:

"Fr. Davies also warns in his book against so-called New Age and occult practices, as well as trendy exercise and "spiritual healing" regimens derived from eastern religions."

Uh, yeah. Which religion believes that when you mumble magic words, bread and wine automagically becomes someone's flesh and blood...that you eat? (See 1215 Latren Council) Which sectarian variety of that same religion allows it's children to die because of the doctrine of faith healing? Trendy exercise? Yeah, Satan figured out that Yoga is a great way to turn the pious Christian away from Jesus. Such is the unintelligibility of faith.

File this one under ridiculous.

What doesn't offend Islam?
Apparently, everything. Birthdays, anniversary's and mother's day. They offend Islam's 'righteousness' according to a Saudi Arabian top cleric, rebuffing the statement made earlier by a lesser religious official.

How righteous can a religion be if it is offended by a Hallmark holiday?

File this one too under ridiculous and despair.

Obama selects Vice President, I choose for him

Biden is a good choice.

Who would you preferred? Jenna?

Here's my choice:

So say we all!

The Friday Fallacy // Argument from Authority

With the introduction of industrialization to society, we have become nations of specialists. No longer are we generalists whose sole task is survival. We have become niche workers in specialized fields. The more demanding the position, the more training and experience required.

A person today can not spend all the necessary time to train and to be expert in every field and in every sub-discipline of that field. Science would have died after its first practitioners, and the extant of society would be forever configured into small tribal units – eking a subsistence in caves and at the whim of migrating animals. There would be no transcendent knowledge base from one generation to the next.

Therefore, we must rely on experts, to determine what the facts are and how those facts describe the world around us.

Defined
This fallacy is very similar to last weeks fallacy, instead of appealing to majority opinion, the appeal is either made to what an expert or a perceived authority feels, or a group as justification for a belief. Citing a person's belief as evidence is evidence of that person's belief, not that the belief itself is valid.

There are other varieties of this fallacy, but I am including the ones that are most relevant to the discussions at lcl.

Examples

1. Einstein believed in God. Are you smarter than Einstein?
   
2. A majority of democrats voted to authorize Bush to go to war with Iraq. Therefore, the war is justified.

Example 1: This is a non-sequitar. Einstein did not believe in God. In a letter to a philosopher Eric Gutkind (recently auctioned) Einstein reveals "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

If you want to use Einstein as an expert for belief in god - that is fine by me.

Regardless of Einstein's beliefs, belief in God is justified only by the evidence. You've only demonstrated what someone else may or may not believe, not that the belief itself has any merit.

Example 2: This argument is deployed as a post hoc rationalization for the war in Iraq. While it is true that there was significant bipartisan support in Congress, that does not substitute for positive and explicit evidence for invasion. As we all know, the evidence was never found. It's complete absence, is conclusive evidence that such an absence of WMD did not exist according to the explicit allegations made.

In Conclusion
While it is true that we must rely on the testimony of experts, the truth of a claim does not end with that expert alone. Facts on the ground can change and that is why any theory must remain falsifiable to have any value at all.

Otherwise, we succumb to dogma and doctrine.

Conservatives Unease of Mixing Church & Politic

I forget who, but one of the bloggers I read daily made the observation that the great ironies of this election that there is a Democrat who is all too willing to talk and demonstrate his faith, and a Republican who is less likely to talk about his religion.

That's a big shift since the last Presidential election, and which leverages this atheist and secularist in a goofy position voting for Obama. Oh well...

Anyway, a new Pew poll on religion in politics today shows more Americans questions the role of religion in secular politics:

That significant shift in conservative thought has brought the country to a tipping point on the question: a slim majority of Americans — 52 percent — now think churches should keep out of politics.

That's an eight percentage point increase over 2004 and the first time a majority of Americans has held that opinion since Pew officials started asking the question 12 years ago.

On this question, the gap between conservatives and liberals is narrowing: just four years ago, liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to say churches should stay out of politics. Now, 50 percent of conservatives and 57 percent of liberals think that. Four years ago, 62 percent of liberals opposed church involvement in politics. Democrats and Republicans are about even on the question, as well.

From this secularist's perspective – this is encouraging. It is nice to see this element of Conservatism re-assert itself.

(Ap Story) | (Pew Poll)

Obama Milwaukee Office Rally

Busy night last night. I went and checked out Barack Obama's new, downtown Milwaukee office grand opening rally.

Here's a few pictures of yesterday's event.

Anagrammatically? The Love of Words?

Running errands last Friday, I caught an interview with Ammon Shea, who, for one year read all 27,000 plus pages of the Oxford English Dictionary in all twenty volumes. Shea published a book about the experience, Reading the OED.

Why read the entire OED? Ever get close to finishing a great book realizing that as the pages waned, you wish there was more? Shea figured he would read the longest book he could. He describes the experience as " absolutely delightful...It felt so similar to reading a great work of literature." I so know that feeling.

Anyone who reads my blog knows that I love words. They hold a fascination for me and when I describe this affinity to others, I often hear I am a giant nerd.

Well, I am nerd. When I moved from Milwaukee to the Lake Country as a child, I did not have many friends and remoteness of my family's home was far enough from subdivisions to make bike trips impractical to hang out with friends. As a consequence, I had to do something with my time. So I read. I read many books over those long summers, when I should have been enjoying the weather.

Books became my best friends and the words I gleaned are like gifts. Gifts that I wanted to unwrap and experiment with. Anytime someone uses or prints a word that is unfamiliar, I feel like I've just received a present that I can not wait to get the bow off and test out.

I remember buying and reading the book in junior high, "The Heechee Rendezvous" by Fredrick Pohl, because the word "rendezvous" caught my attention. I knew the first word was an invention, but the second... what? When I later learned its meaning, I felt a little disappointed. I thought it was something sci-fi.

Words are fun. Paucity, invective, f*ck, truculent, scrumping, blamo, yaoch!, bedevil...or just about any Yiddish word are just so expressive and covers so much ground. As a designer and director in marketing, communications, and advertising, I know the value of selecting good words and combining them with appropriate imagery.

Words can be invented on the fly. Embiggen, wackaloon, homonormativis, Google. We can innovate any word to describe a specific and unusual combination of feelings and circumstances as needed. I like to mix unlike words together for shock value. One of the best I ever heard was "beef diaper." I don't know what that is, but I am not having...

Words are encapsulated pieces of history. Other than our genetics, language is all we have left to trace the development of our species as self-aware and self-guided entities. Each word is a connection between humanity's long millenniums for us to know today. Interested in archeology? Grab a library card and have the will to turn a page to discover a word's etymology.

I still read lots and about many different subjects, even though my reading time has been seriously diminished with the demands of family and work. I wish I could remember half the words I know when I find a need for them. Fortunately, there are resources like online dictionaries and thesaurus to spice up our language. I don't mind forcing my readers to look up words.

I just do not understand the acrimony when someone uses a word that you may not understand, or may have not heard before.

Very odd.

Are Religious Beliefs Immune to Criticism?

As I was cleaning my car over the weekend, I heard intermittent segments of a NPR story about a Chicago-area stand-up comedian who immigrated from Pakistan to attended college in the United States. I am a little unsure of his name even after a google, it was either Azhar Usman or Mohammed Amer that was interviewed.

As a student, away from the pervasive religious environment of Pakistan, this would-be stand-up comedian came to terms with his Islamic beliefs. Muslims share a similar belief that many Christians have about the Bible, that the Koran is the innerrant and literal word of God – or God's own words. After all, Christians, Jews and Muslims share the same belief in the God of Abraham. At college, our comedian learned to think critically and systematically about Islam which helped him to see the absurdity of the Koran, and to reject that notion of the Koran's inerrancy.

When asked by the interviewer, doesn't his deconversion confirm the fear and suspicion by many Muslims that once their children go to American schools they become "liberalized" by Western culture and leave the religion of their parents? Funny thing, this is exactly the same kind of criticism that fundamentalist Christians likewise make about American colleges. I had an ex-girlfriend, a fundamentalist Christian, who said the very same thing. If I recall correctly, he answered yes.

To the Muslim and Christian critics of American colleges, the answer is true – of course. Studies have shown that the more educated you become, the more likely you will abandon theism. (There are notable exceptions of course.)

Why?

Once a person develops their critical thinking, that person can become quite invigorated in challenging everything that was assured to you, as a child, as unquestionable. To the newly minted skeptic, every belief becomes a new test case in examining a claim's reliability. For me, thinking critically became a compliment to my natural curiosity of the world.

The interviewer went on to ask the comedian if he had any sort of theistic belief after his deconversion. He answered that he was now an atheist.

When you examine the content of the blogs at LCL, there is nothing but criticism of other beliefs, such as the endless debates pitching conservatism against liberalism, or the skepticism regarding global climate change. Since our public discourse is equally as rigorous to these secular beliefs, why is religion beyond reproach and examination? Therefore, I want to ask the Christians who read my blog a series of questions - but anyone can feel free to chime in.

Do you feel that this comedian threw the baby out with the bathwater? Do you approve of this comedian's deconversion? His athiesism?

If you approve of his athiesism, should he then convert to Christianity? Why? If it is reasonable for this comedian to question and reject Islam, why is it not reasonable for the Christian to question his faith and perhaps ultimately reject it?

The Day Everything Became Nothing

Imagine one day that you're standing under a street lamp wishing for a cigarette, when everything you know, everything you thought you knew, had vanished from your mind.

No thunder roared. No lightning cracked. No missiles rained from the sky. This was no sneak attack. Long centuries of slow, human discovery about the world conspicuously vacant in every man, woman and child's mind.There was just suddenly this awful lack. Medicine, science, humanities, religion - all gone. Even language. We have to go so far as to relearn that no means no, creating a new word to embody the concept. And we have to rename ourselves. Me, I call myself Bob. It's weird being a Bob, but I'll get used to it. I have to.

In the book End of Faith, Sam Harris, proposes such a thought-experiment.

"Imagine that six billion of us wake up tomorrow morning in a state of utter ignorance and confusion. Our books and computers are still here, but we can't make heads or tails of their contents... What knowledge would we want to reclaim first?"

Harris goes on to observe that after we reclaim our language and communication skills, repair our machines, establish food production and shelter ourselves, where does the importance that Jesus was born a virgin, walked on water, or resurrected from the dead take precedence? He asks what about other religions. Should we come to know again that Isis is a goddess of fertility? Thor carries a hammer? Or should we shelve the Koran and the Bible next to books like the Poetic Edda, The Iliad and Odyssey, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Would we want evidence? Or would we just believe in all the stories of all these books unconditionally and without evidence? How would we pick and choose from the rags-n-bones of the past?

Instead of crying out the sky is falling and that we want our mommy, pretend that we form a committee to discuss the problem. Perhaps we discuss things like assured mutual destruction and emotional responsibility. None of which we understand anyway.Harris points out, that it our past which creates the conditions of belief in religious necessities of today, but free of it - is there any reason to continue anew? What knowledge do we select in this new world, unshackled from the past?

So let me ask you, from the graveyard of the gods which were so important in humanity's past – like the Greek and Roman pantheon of gods, why should we once again believe in the doctrines of Christianity? Why should we choose one religion over another?

The Friday Fallacy // Argument from Popularity

You are likely to find this fallacy in matters of governmental policy or as positive evidence for a belief. (Usually theistic.) It is always offered as reason why you should either subscribe to a particular belief or hold a specific position.

As always, the following analysis is not meant to be complete.

DefinedThis fallacy is committed when the petitioner does not argue on the merits of a claim, but instead appeals to popular beliefs or values. A particular piece of legislation is said to be valid if a recent poll shows favorable support for it. Polls are meant to sample sentiment over an issue, not that such a belief or legislation is valid.

Examples

1. A number of industrialized societies have nationalized health care. The United States should follow.
2. Since 92% of Americans believe in God, God exists.

Example 1: The merits of nationalized health care should be a policy based on the quality of health care it can provide over other methods of delivery. Also, different countries have their respective priorities, to assert that one country should follow the example also commits the naturalistic fallacy.

We can test this example by substituting a different policy.

• A number of third-world countries have slavery as part of their economic policy. So should the U.S.A.

Obviously, no one would be convinced by that argument now.

Example 2: Only shows the proclivities of theistic belief among Americans. It does not give positive evidence that such a God exists.

Let's test this example by substituting a different theistic belief.

• 92% of Americans have been touched by the noodlely-appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. FSM does, indeed, exist.
  

We changed the belief but kept the majority number, and it did not make the FSM any more real than God. If this example is too out there, just substitute flat earth for a spherical earth.

In Conclusion
Claims are not true, just because they are believed by a number of others. Opinions can shift over a claim, or the facts underlying a claim can change with new information. Claims are only as reliable, not in how many people believe them, but for what evidence substantiates them.

The Hypocritical Conservative Intelligentsia

So far, America has been doing excellent in the Olympic games. Micheal Phelps is probably on his way to his 6th win tonight and maybe the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. But where is the acknowledgment and praise from our American conservative, republicans? There is none. McCain included. Can you say "conservative hypocrite" three times fast?

Remember 911? The most hate-filled conservative republicans actually condemned Obama even before we entered China. Now we have China committing the same Olympic victories that Russia once did at the height of Communism and these despicable republicans tried to pin on President Carter. But it's these same conservative republicans - even some hate filled ones who blog and comment on this site - have not congratulated or even as much as offered a public prayer in support of our Olympians! Even with our glorious victories, idiots like these conservatives continue to bash America by not offering their public support to our Olympians! Have we heard a peep?

McCain has gone so far as to place television ads attacking Obama during the broadcasts! A sitting Senator! Attacking a serving United States Senator while we are competing! Can you believe that?

Yes, you can if it comes from a typical "hate America" conservative!

Barack Obama's athletic experience is what we need to address this issue. He can still play basketball, which speaks volumes for his Olympic instincts and natural love for America. After all, basketball is as American as the hamburger! But where is McCain on this? NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. McCain's age is showing. And we want McCain in the White House? You must be kidding! No wonder McCain is losing ground. And fast! McCain has yet to explain in any detail how he would respond with praise with the current Olympic victories.

Well, this "love America" liberal will be the first to say it. Congrats America in the Games! You do make us proud!

Have Jesus? Make Him Your Daily Bread.

In past relationships, I've been the head cook and bottle washer. I love cooking as it is really a creative and relaxing endeavor. I also have a thing for buying the latest kitchen gadgets.

Keep me out of Linen's N Things, in other words.

So this story, as you can imagine, caught my attention. Anna Pickard (no relation) observes that:

"And while there are an awful lot of novelty kitchen gadgets available out there, this has to count as our favourite piece of pointless tat this week. Until the next one comes along, of course. Can there be a more pointless kitchen implement in existence?"

Hell no!

I so have to get one of these! I can't think of a tat worth owning more. This pan will match my Sacred Heart Jesus Candle quite well.

When I was sulking around the Vatican a few years back, I did not have the chance to pick up a Popener. Yes, I was that broke and I was in more of hurry to see the Sistine Chapel. (Art History was a minor.)

Not this time - so God help me!

Secularization of Religious Symbols

This is an interesting argument that I had not thought of before.

Americans United for Church and State Separation (AU) is in a legal battle with the Utah Highway Patrol Association for erecting 12-foot crosses on the sites where state troopers have died while on duty.

AU Director, Minister Barry Lind argues that:

"The cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity... for the government to claim that the cross is a secular symbol is deeply offensive and betrays a poor understanding of religion and our Constitution.”

This current counter-lawsuit is on the heels of a 2007 ruling that the cross was no longer just a religious symbol but became a “secular symbol of death” after the group, American Atheists, sued on the grounds that this was a state preference of religion. These crosses are erected on public, taxpayer owned land. The court, instead of passing a ruling that would be inline with the First Amendment, decided to change the meaning of the cross.

"Roberts held up pictures of telephone poles and showed a clip from Ben Casey, the 1960s TV medical drama. In it, Dr. David Zorba uses the cross as a generic symbol for death."

I'm sorry, but no one, looks at the cross and thinks Dr. David Zorba and Ben Casey. Lind observes that "this conclusion is historically inaccurate, blind to contemporary realities, and offensive to believers and nonbelievers alike.” Christianity is the context of the cross. Unless you're from Mars, I don't see how you conclude it as anything but a Christian symbol of religious faith.

A secular authority should not be messing around with peoples faith, which this 2007 ruling now allows.The undeniable Christian iconoclast, James Madison makes the case in a letter to Edward Livington, "...that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." The AU shares this long-established American view that government should not be in the business of interfering with the practice of religion by interpreting its meanings and significance.

This does not mean that we should not commemorate the sacrifice of these officers lives. If accommodations have been made for a Jewish officer, then why not accommodate the First Amendment? What about the non-religious or those of other non-Christian faith? It's like teaching creationism in science class, should we then teach the countless other creation stories as well?

I would think that other Christians would support the AU in this, especially if they believe in the price that Jesus paid for sin. And if the 2007 ruling is correct, then already much of the meaning behind the cross has been lost.

So the question is, will you allow your government to secularize your religious symbols?

(AU Source)

(Newsweek Article)

Religious Right Lunacy: Mouthpiece John Hagee

This is the God countless Americans pray to each day?



A God that would withhold his protection to allow Muslim terrorists to attack property and destroy lives?

Is this how God blesses America?

And for what? For immigration? For peace? Because of what land?

Seriously, God is irked over land?

And this is the God I am supposed to worship and obey?

Urinal Cake Punditry of the Right-Wing Intelligentsia

I was at the American Le Mans Generac 500 at Road America with some good friends over the weekend. We set up to watch the race by the Gearbox, which afforded us a good view of a couple of turns and close enough to food, bevies, bathrooms and plenty of people watching.

As I impatiently waited in line and finally hurried into the restroom trailer when my turn was up, I noticed that directly above the urinal, some astute right-winger carefully penned "liberalism is a mental disorder" with a Sharpie. You could see the meticulous effort spent by the writer in making sure that anyone reading could legibly understand what he had written.

Afterwards, I began to wonder what could motivate a person to leave graffiti above a urinal and just who is really sick in the head? Your garden-variety liberal, or the Urinal Cake Pundit? This guy thought that this observation was so clever that he needed to hover over a urinal at eye level – were countless men go to relieve themselves, and inform the world who he thinks who are mentally unstable. Um... yep, that sure is the action of a sane person no less.

Anyway, this vandalism of our sagacious Urinal Cake Pundit is an accurate analogy for what I read, or hear, that passes as an excuse for the unfathomably respected politics of today's right-wing. Instead of just merely vandalizing private property, the right-wing vandalizes people.

And we know the rants.

Hateful screeds that impugns other Americans as un-patriotic, or worse yet, as terrorists for the high sin of having political differences. The backwards logic that skews liberalism as destructive to the United States where liberalism has historically companioned rights for minorities, women, lifted children out of slave labor shifting the baseline against right-wing, traditional society. These red herrings, over-flowing from the potty-mouths of the right-wing are designed to remove focus on the merits of a possible solution, dribbling vehemence toward other people - drop for drop, instead of reasoned debate.

And we know the players.

One long micturative chain reaction from Coulter to Malkin to McBride, which in turn breeds the Hemmers – all the more shrill with every iteration in the movement of bog roll journalism. No, it is not tangible solutions they offer, but stark contempt from a jaundiced worldview. They are more like an annoying restroom attendant, whose politics can be defined as the wipe and smear from the morally vacant who have nothing left to offer in the debate of what a compassionate society should be.

Long ago the lever of ideological authoritarianism was pushed, abandoning principled conservatism for the witch-hunt frenzy we see today.

Religious Right Lunacy

"Labor is the only prayer that Nature answers; it is the only prayer that deserves an answer -- good, honest, noble work." Robert Green Ingersoll, closing arguments, The Trial of C B Reynolds for Blasphemy

Apparently, the religious right of the Dobson variety have given up on the political process and have decided to beg God for a rain-out at the Democratic National Convention this August. Dobson and his lot are an odious bunch of people who, somehow magically, find that God agrees with everything they agree with - despite Biblical silence on many issues and context.

Watch the idiot speak:




I know a few sheeple here at LCL will breathlessly parrot along. And while they are doing this, and if God does grant them the rain they so desire, I'll ask them why are they so selfish? Isn't there a billion other things in the world they should be praying for? What about the homeless? What about the Georgian Crisis? Nah...for some dumb reason these sheeple think that God must put the Democratic convention on the top of His priorities.

But why stop at rain? Why not fire and brimstone and chunks of rock reigning blood down from the sky? How about as a consequence of the rain, lighting strikes killing the Democractic leadership? If God can "hardened" the pharaoh's heart 32 times so that he may guiltlessly kill every first born, why not just change the politics of the attendees to vote for McCain?

For some reason, rain is the best that they can come up with.

You want to know why I laugh at the religious? Well, here's your reason why folks. Here's a suggestion, why don't you unclasp those hands, give up everything you own (to join Jesus in heaven) and alleviate suffering in the world?

Wow. What stunning ignorance and superstition.

Could you just imagine?

Change your religion? Just ask a judge.
I was reading this story yesterday with my draw dropped. Could you just imagine having to go to court in the United States if you decide to change your beliefs?

Enter the case of Noorashikin Lim Abdullah, who after divorce, decided to revert back to Christianity. Malaysia (60% Muslim) has a legal system of two types of courts. One secular and one Sharia. Abdullah's request was rejected on the basis of her present name. (She changed it converting to Islam to marry.) The court's decision is rather silly, but what is even more ridiculous is the notion that one should go to court and ask appeal where the matter of your personal conscious and convictions are involved.

I guess, she has to remain a Muslim now. Disgusting. She should be allowed to de/re/convert at will.

As I've stated before, secularism is the accommodation for which all religions are allowed to practice freely. Most Americans get this. Some American's use the courts to Christianize on the taxpayer dime, claiming that when they lose they are being oppressed. Jesus....

Imagine that in USA, that in matters of religion we had a separate court system? What would that court system look like? Liberal Universal Universalism, or conservative protestantism of Pastor Fred Phelps or even of a Reconstructionalist variety?

Yikes!

(Source)

Islam. Peaceful?
From the department of fear to offend the religiously intolerant and 0n the toes of the great cracker incident, we now have to fear more religious backlash. Since when must we respect anyone's sacred beliefs?

Random house has announced that it will not publish, journalist Sherry Jones, book about one of Mohammed's bride's for fear of offending Muslims and inciting violence. Stating "...we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."

Once again, we see that adherence to either Biblical literalism (cracker) or Koranic literalism shows just how hostile one can become to society.

(Source)

OMG!

The Friday Fallacy // Pareidolia

Remember when you were a kid and you used to stare at the clouds looking for shapes or faces of people you knew? Do you also recall that if someone did not point out a familiar shape, you were blind to until they did so?

Pareidolia is a type of apophenia, and is not a fallacy of reasoning but a fallacy in perception.

Defined
Yale neurologist, Dr Steven Novella observes that:

"Pareidolia is a consequence of the fact that our brains largely work through pattern recognition - making connections among various ideas, memories, or images. We are also very visual creatures and so are particularly good at visual pattern recognition - still better than the best supercomputers (at least for now). The most familiar visual pattern for humans is the human face. Even as infants we prefer to look at human faces over other stimuli. We have a large portion of our visual cortex dedicated to seeing and remembering faces. This is likely due to evolutionary pressures to be able to instantly recognize friend from foe, but also to be able to read subtle facial expressions."Examples:

Number Pareidolia

Facial Pareidolia



Religious Pareidolia




Conclusion
Pareidolia is a natural consequence of our evolutionary biology which can affect our interpretations depending upon our culture. Religious pareidolia will interpret a recognizable pattern as some kind of miracle. In the Christian west, we see the virgin Mary. In Muslim countries numbers from the Quran, or the word Allah are perceived. The Face on Mars is an example of the influence by popular culture.

Our brains are very sophisticated pattern seekers, however, it is bad and rushed judgment to conclude a supernatural significance to the patterns we perceive.

In order to establish an actual miracle like the examples above, we would first need to rule out pareidolia, or other natural causes.

Movie: The Celestine Prophecy

Based upon the 1993 bestselling book (for some reason) by James Redfield, The Celestine Prophecy recounts the story of a teacher who discovers the path to New Age enlightenment. This enlightenment is revealed as 9 separate prophecies on 9 different scrolls written by Peruvian Incas around 6 BCE in Sanskrit. (Never mind the historical inaccuracies for the moment.) However, these secrets are so dangerous to the status quo, that people in the Peruvian government and elements of the Catholic church have to violently repress this knowledge. The knowledge in these scrolls will guide humanity to our next stage of evolution.

What crap.

Normally, I'm a big fan of science-fiction and fantasy. I usually have no problem with suspending my disbelief to enjoy a good story. Doctor Who and I have been best friends for years. But with this movie – I found that even I have limits. The movie tries a little too hard to blur the line between reality and fantasy. I would compare my reaction akin to that of the Catholic Church to Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code – except while the Da Vinci Code is fiction, so too is Jesus and the Bible. I just go one step further and do not make a false dichotomy between Brown and the Bible like many Christians did in their vehemence against the Da Vinci Code.

Despite the horrible acting, screenplay, contrived plot, and ridiculous premise, this movie very much reminded me of the Left Behind series. (Yes, I've seen Left Behind.) It's an evangelical screed that begs to be taken seriously! While the messaging of Left Behind is turn or burn, at least the Celestine Prophecy has a positive, self help-like message. Yet, even this does not save the film. The message is so wrapped up in woo, that my bullsh*t-detector went into overdrive. Any positive message that this film could have imparted is hopelessly lost under a mound of ridiculous New Age beliefs.

These beliefs are in ancient prophecies, auras, and misappropriation of words like "energy" and "evolution" are all used without consideration as to what they actually mean. (Psydeo-science in other words.) Practitioners of the New age, frequently talk about "energy." A person's aura is supposed to a form of energy. However, energy is not defined and becomes an euphemism for soul, spirit, or the life-force of living things. Insight #3 states that we "experience that we live not in a material universe." (Hint: things without matter do not exist) Energy is measurable work capability – a measurement of what it takes to move an object in space according to its weight. Energy is stored in chemical or kinetic forms, like a calorie in a tic-tac, or the fly-wheel of a wind-up watch. It is not a mystical force. (Read more, or download the podcast, about New Age energy by Brian Dunning, of Skeptiod here.)

The actual prophecies themselves are just, well, lame. We find out that the actual prophecies are not prophecies, but Insights. These Insights are suppose to guide us into this new age. (Wikipedia has them.) These Insights use non-specific language, vague concepts and hyperbolic language. For example, Insight #1, proposes that "...a critical mass of individuals who experience their lives as a spiritual unfolding, a journey in which we are led forward by mysterious coincidences." Sorry, there is nothing mysterious about coincidences. Really, each Insight invokes a mystery and then solves the mystery with even more mystery.

Anyway, its all rather flaky and dogmatic, even if the dogma is of a personal, individualistic variety. I find it highly laughable that this movie is meant to be taken seriously.

But...what else would you would expect from New Age woo?

Who's more emotional? Democrats or Republicans?

One accusation made against liberals (and by extension democrats) is that liberals are more emotional and therefore the decisions they make are irrational. Unlike conservatives (and by extension republicans) who are not as emotional and therefore make better decisions because they are more rational. If we follow the reasoning, the conclusion is therefore conservatives are reliable, and liberals are not.

However, the accusation is categorically false.

Both partisans are equally motivated by emotion, rather than reason according to a 2006 study. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to monitor the sectors of the brain of faithful partisans during political judgments. Researcher Drew Westin notes that "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Some of the conclusions of the study were that both Democrats and Republicans:

• alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way
• none of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged
• there is a reward factor within the brain to eliminate negative feelings
  

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data" Westen said. (Source 1)

Commenting on the study, Dr. Michal Shermer states that this "surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence." Confirmation bias is a fallacy in reasoning whereby we count the "hits" and dismiss the "misses" which could refute our ideologically committed preconceptions. (Source 2)

This should help us understand the last observation of the study. When we find evidence, or data, which correspondences to a particular belief, we are more likely to agree with it because our brain's chemistry is hardwired to reward us with positive stimuli. (We feel good.) If we find evidence to the contrary, no positive stimulus is issued. (We do not feel as good) (Or we feel bad.) This is why it is essential that we guard ourselves against confirmation bias in our reasoning.

But that's difficult. A necessary presupposition of life is to believe and then to assign a value to those beliefs. Philosopher John Dill observes that "...assigning value to our choices and actions, as well as the potential benefits or harm brought about by those choices and actions, necessitates the prioritization of humanities endeavors on the basis of preservation and quality of life." Dill calls these types of beliefs, Category 1 Presuppositions. It is in the sphere we find politics very much an inhabitant of.

Also, there is an evolutionary factor at work here. Failure to recognize a predator got you killed. Recognizing a predator kept you alive. False positives do not get you killed. (The shadow of the tree looks like a lion.) We are the descendants of people who were effective at drawing conclusions from patterns. Sometimes we draw false conclusions from recognizing the wrong pattern.

So it seems that we must fight against our biology where the reliability of our respective beliefs are concerned.

CYA // #5

There is an argument that maintains if the atheist is wrong and God is real and they die and end up in hell, they've lost. But if God is not real, and there is no afterlife, they have lost nothing. However, this same criteria can also be applied to every religion out there. Christians risk the Muslim hell by worshiping of Jesus. And Muslim's risk the Christian hell for not worshiping Jesus.

I submit this video for your protection.

Bush Funny Guy // #4

Remember in the face of Bush criticism, if you can't impugn a liberals patriotism...


...blame Clinton.

No Astrology Allowed // #3

Anyone been following Ben Steins ridiculous move, Expelled? You know, the movie that pins antisemitism and the Holocaust on Darwin and Evolution? Never mind that it's a total utter fabrication. Antisemitism existed centuries before Darwin ever stepped on the scene.

Anyway, ever notice that creationists never bother to argue that astrology be taught along astronomy?

See you on the road, bronze // #2

I'm no econmic expert. And I don't presume to have the answers to our energy crisis. One thing is for certain, we can not divorce our comfy, technological lifestyles without cheap reliable energy.

However, I do find this video convincing.

If any of video conclusions makes you uncomfortable, be sure to just wave it off as a liberal lie. It's produced by Brave New Films. (Hint: Liberal.)

I Hate America // #1

Okay, I give in. Amy, Jim, SG, and BillyJ have finally worn me down - so I might as well as admit it. They were so correct in questioning my patriotism. Really, the hell that broke loose defending myself was really my fault.You know – when someone attacks you (especially a Bush-Nationalist) you should just let them smack you around and not defend yourself.

Anyway...

Just look at the guy. Prepubescent explorer? Or a pansy liberal European? Socialist intellectual? Or religious adherent of that wrong non-protestant faith?

I hate America...uhh... I mean Amerigo.

As for the United States. Yeah, no sheeeit...I love my country.

Two Cases of Church/State Tension

"In their seventies, with a friendship that had survived serious political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with satisfaction on what they both considered their greatest achievement – their role in establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views." (1)

Some Background
The United States is not unique because it is a democratic republic. The ancient Greeks were the first to experiment with democracy. What makes the United States unique is in its approach, separating religious practice from governance. Beginning with the paganism of the ancient Greeks, to the Pax Decorum of Roman paganism, or to western European autocracies pandering to Christian Rome in the middle ages, government had never been free from religion. The only substantial difference throughout centuries, was the number of gods – from many to one.

That all changed in 1786, when Virginia's Act of Establishing Religious Freedom was the first of its kind to end state sponsorship of religion – irrevocably separating the two. (2) The immediate reaction to the passage spread quickly throughout Europe, with translations appearing in France , Germany and elsewhere. In the States, the Act was condemned by the right wing that supported establishment – promising that God would damn and soon destroy America. (Sound familiar?) A weaker version of the Act was later incorporated into the Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution. (3) Many other state constitutions, like Wisconsin (4) copied the Act, nearly verbatim.

Because of the secular nature of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it should be no surprise that the United States is an incredibly devout country. Recent polls show that belief in the supernatural and god ranks among the highest of industrial and information rich societies, as Europe are quietly leaving god behind. Reasons for our country's religiosity is due in part to being colonized by religious dissidents and secular freethinkers, and the fact that the US has not established a particular Church – like the Anglican Church of England. A person is free to follow their religious or non-religious convictions in a variety of religious or non-religious experiences without governmental interference, creating a competitive market for adherents among a variety of religions.

Case Number 1
Currently, the South Carolina legislature plans to sell license plates that feature a cross and the statement "I Believe" in the design. Special plates like this must be requested at the behest of a particular group and law-makers can not decide to sell plates of religious meaning just because it can. Reverend Dr. Thomas A. Summers, states that this "arrogant action taken by the legislature is absolutely divisive, oppressive and is an affront to what true interfaith cooperation is all about," and has joined with Americans United for Church and State Separation and the ACLU to sue over this recent incursion of state interference into religion. (Source)

Case Number 2
This past April, the ACLU represented Shawn Miller, a street preacher who was arrested for disorderly conducted while preaching at an abandoned gas station near other street vendors. He spent a 109 days in jail, for as he put "I was preaching the word of God and not hurting anybody." Miller was promptly released. (Source 1) (Source 2)

In Conclusion
While it is true that the state many not endorse or promote a religion, it is also prohibited from interfering with your right to believe or practice your religion. There are exceptions of course, child abuse, neglect, incest, rape and murder which is religiously motivated are not excusable.

Secularity is not anti-god, nor is it anti-religious. Secularity is the accommodation between government and religion. We live in society composed of many types of believers: Jews, pagans, at least 219 different types of Christians, and non-believers.

It is inevitable that tensions between church and state will exist over the limits and boundaries of each, but it is vitally necessary that such a wall between remains.
________________

References:

(1) Freethinkers - A History of American Secularism. Susan Jacoby.
(2) The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson.
(3) US Constitution. Article VI, Section 3.
(4) Wisconsin State Separation Clause. Article 1, Section 18.
(See also) First Amendment. Bill of Rights. US Constitution.