Iraq was supposed to be the neo-con version of WWII. Watch what you wish for.

Yesterday morning, I dared liberals to apologize and defend FDR's orders of forcefully removing Japanese-American citizens from their homes and into concentration camps of our own making during WWII. The game: to expose ideological commitment that our torture apologists commit when they are busy defending the Bush administrations authorizing of waterboarding and other coercive methods by the people they elected into office.

But a deeper analogy can be made in the reasoning that our torture apologists and with WWII that they've frequently made in the past as justification for the war in Iraq.

We need to clear up one right wing talking point first. Waterboarding only "simulates" drowning. No.

"Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."

That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted."

That's Evan Wallach, a former Nevada National Guard JAG who used to lecture soldiers of the 72nd Military Police and who were dispatched to Abu Ghraib prison. (Coincidentally, today is the 5 year anniversary when the New Yorker first published pictures and accounts of torture at Abu Ghraib prison.)

So it's clear. When you waterboard, you drown your victim.

"After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

What happened to those Japanese soldiers?

Hanged.

(Source)

Science Photography: Call for Bloggers

Are you a fan of science? Photography? Perhaps you're a
photographer? Or perhaps both of those interests intersect, or you just
like looking a pictures and images of the complexity and beauty of
nature. I am an art director and designer and something of a
photographer myself. I love science and macro photography. 

Science Blogs (where 4 of my most fave blogs reside), is calling out for science photographers to be one of their next monthly featured photo bloggers.The Blog is called Photo Synthesis.

This month's featured photographer is Alex Wild. He is a biologist
who studies insects and part-time photographer whose images have been
featured in Ranger Rick, The Smithsonian, Wildfire, and the BBC. Wild's
images of insects are amazing because they really bring out the
character in organisms which are too easily ignored by the general
public. Like that ant to above and to your right for example.
What's up little fella'?

Nominate a photographer by emailing the editors.

You can even nominate yourself!

Be sure to check out the photography! And if you have time and want to go large, check out Stan Gaz's dramatic images of impact creators.

 

New study reveals most compelling evidence on autism. Genes not vaccines.

Yesterday, news was released about a major study on the cause of autism. In a study of 10,000 people, led by University of Pennsylvania, found the "most compelling evidence" to date that it is genetics, not vaccines, which are the determining factor in autism and Asperger's syndrome and other likewise cognitive or neurological impairments. There are some 133 genes that have been determined so far which play a role in autism.

"Dr Raynard Kington, of the US National Institutes of Health, which funded the research, said: "These findings establish that genetic factors play a strong role in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Detailed analysis of the genes and how they affect brain development is likely to yield better strategies for diagnosing and treating children with autism." (1)

The mounting evidence, like this study and others demonstrate, that genetics are the real bogeymen and not vaccines.

The University of Pennsylvania study comes on the heels on the special omnibus court ruling last month on the alleged link between vaccines and autism. This court, with its lower standards of evidence, was presented by the defendants the three strongest cases which said to show that vaccines are indeed linked to autism.

"In a stunning trio of decisions, Special Masters have concluded that no credible evidence exists that MMR (measles/mumps/rubella) or thimerosal-containing vaccines can combine to to cause autism. The decisions also criticized doctors who base their treatments on these notions." (2)

Despite the court loss, this did not deter the pro-disease crowd of Jenny McCarthy and her boyfriend, Jim Carrey in continuing the fears over vaccinations. In an article entitled, The judgment-on-vaccines is in? on Huffpo – a clearinghouse for all sorts of woo and pseudo-science by celebrities, Carrey goes on the attack questioning the judgment of the court.

It's a rambling article full of strawmen and non-sequitars. Carrey states he's "also heard it said that no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism has ever been found. That statement is only true for the CDC, the AAP and the vaccine makers who've been ignoring mountains of scientific information and testimony." Wrong.

Orac – the moniker of a surgeon/scientist rebukes Carrey, observing that the evidence "that vaccines don't cause autism was, from a strictly scientific standpoint, more than strong enough to let this line of research drop as being unproductive several years ago. The only reason scientists keep reinventing the wheel and doing the same types of studies over and over again is in the futile hope that either the weight of evidence will finally persuade the foes of vaccination or that they will find something all the other studies have missed." Check out Orac's post on Carrey's nonsense at the Huffpo. Definitely worth the read.

Will this new evidence by the University of Pennsylvania deter the pro-disease crowd?

Probably not.

Come on liberals! Defend this! I dare you.

During WWII, President Franklin D. Roosevelt made a fateful, executive decision, by signing Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942 to forcefully remove Japanese-Americans from their homes and banish them into concentration camps up and down the west coast. It was said that national security was threatened and this was an action that must be done.

As you know, FDR is also the father of New Deal economic liberalism and a democrat who was elected an unprecedented three times as President of the United States.

So, let's hear it liberals. Let's defend FDR's orders. Let's be exactly like our resident torture apologists and Christian apologists in this matter. Let us talk in glowing love and appreciation of FDR's orders, and that if anyone should dare question or criticize us – let us remind them that national security was at stake. Be sure to say, that this action worked and it was effective. (Just ignore all evidence to the contrary.) Let's also assert that if FDR had not done otherwise, we would have lost the War. Make sure to impugn anyone's patriotism if they dare utter a single word against you. And if they happen to be a republican, doubly make sure to smear them Nazis and friends of Emperor Hirohito. Even go so far to say that they really wanted these dictators to have victory all along.

I dare you. I double dare you. Heck, I even double-dog dare you.

Or, we leave behind party affliation and ideological committment, and call a spade a spade. What FDR did was immoral, racist, and dead wrong.

Moderate Christians do indeed provide cover for religious violence

Earlier today, I quite factually posted the exact words of a pastor who prayed for the death of two prominent defenders of religious liberties and who even went so far to wish the same punishment on their children because he disagreed with them. I stated that this prayer supported an earlier post of mine where I stated that some Christians all to frequently and with not a flicker of self-awareness are apparently all too eager to resort to threats of a Biblical nature – invoking God's Holy Wrath™ for any perceived or real offense. In my opinion, this exposes an underlying kindness viciousness of some Christians. Where do these Christians learn this? From Christianity, of course.

The reaction? Instead of rebuffing the comments of the pastor, Andrew (of ajohnson911) decided to go after poster Locke's comment – a cut-n-paste job attributed to George Carlin, as well as attacking me. Stating that "they are disgusting, vile and show a sickness of soul and a lack of decency." LLC removed Locke's post because not only did they find the content objectionable, there were copy-right issues involved. Very well. While I disagree over the policing of content, I do agree with copyright and will support LLC on those grounds alone. Watch the copyrighted material from now on, and I'll have to be more vigilant in monitoring comments in the future. Good lesson for us all.

However, what is conspicuously absent is Andrew's condemnation of what Gordon Klingenschmitt said in his prayer. At the very least he could have stated that Klingenschmitt wasn't a real Christian. I would have left those two to fight it out between them. But no, what Andrew found more offensive was not the sullying of his Lord God and Maker who capriciously cured his back one day by this Christian's boneheaded appeal to God, what he decided to spend his time was attacking Locke and having his post removed.

If your thin skinned and your sensibilities are easily offend like Andrews, I can absolutely agree with your problems over the cut-n-paste job of Carlin shtick. No problem. Doesn't mean that I would have agreed to remove the comment though. However, what I find unfortunate about Andrew, that in all his protestations, he did not take the time to call out the pastor's prayer as equally "disgusting, vile" which displayed a certain "sickness of soul and a lack of decency." He simply ignored all of that.

Poster Jmark nailed Christians like Andrew dead nuts correct. "If some Islamic nut-case made the "Cut off their descendants" comment, right-wing-nuts would be livid. But it's okay when it comes from one of their own."

Which leads me to a criticism made by Sam Harris that moderate Christians do indeed provide cover for shennigans of other Christians because they share they same religion, thereby allowing all sorts terrible things to happen.

What we have here with Andrew is a perfect illustration of that dynamic in motion.

How sad.

How Very Christian of You

I was just saying a few posts ago that some Christians wield God around like he's some sort of club against those that they disagree with.

Take Gordon Klingenschmitt for example. In a recorded prayer he begs God to put the smite down on Reverend Barry Lind of the AU and Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

"Almighty God, today we pray imprecatory prayers from Psalm 109 against the enemies of religious liberty, including Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein, who issued press releases this week attacking me personally. God, do not remain silent, for wicked men surround us and tell lies about us. We bless them, but they curse us. Therefore find them guilty, not me. Let their days be few, and replace them with Godly people. Plunder their fields, and seize their assets. Cut off their descendants, and remember their sins, in Jesus' name. Amen."

Wonderful Disgusting Christian kindness viciousness you got there Gordon. Ask God to take their lives and to punish their children.

Very pro-family of you.

(Props: Ed Brayton.)

Top FBI interrogator on torture's ineffectiveness

As torture apologists continue propagate the lie that waterboarding was successful in preventing the Library Tower attack and that waterboarding and other "enhanced techniques" are effective, it becomes just as necessary to correct those lies as soon as they are uttered.

"Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent and perhaps the most successful U.S. interrogator of al-Qaeda operatives, says the use of those techniques was unnecessary and often counterproductive. Detainees, he says, provided vital intelligence under non-violent questioning, before they were put through "walling" and waterboarding."

That's Ali Soufan, a top FBI interrogator who successfully questioned Osama bin Laden's bodyguard without waterboarding and by not waterboarding "yielded a rich trove of information on al-Qaeda, including the identities of some of the 9/11 attackers and the terror group's top leadership."

As was the case of Abu Zubaydah, who operated a terrorist training camp and a planner of the Millennium terrorist attacks. He was also the first terrorist to be tortured. "We would have continued to get material from him," states Soufan. However, when Zubaydah was tortured he stopped giving useful intelligence and instead gave unreliable information.

Why? Soufan observers that "when they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. That means the information you're getting is useless."

This clearly backs the assertion that human rights activists and anti-torture officials have said along."Enhanced interrogation techniques" like wateboarding are tantamount to torture and are thoroughly ineffective.

So thank the Bush, Cheney, Bybee, Yoo, and the rest of the Bush administration for placing Americans lives at risk by this policy of torture.

You, torture apologists are on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of humanity.

(source)

Persecuting Christians has pitifully come down to this...

Back in the day when we non-Christians wanted to persecute Christians we had all sorts of inventive torture techniques like beheading, nailing one to a cross, or feeding one to a famished lion or two to really make things interesting.

Unfortunately for us today, all we have left are little Christian girls to persecute over dress codes. "I feel I am being persecuted for being a Christian" informs Dyker Neyland, the mother of a 11 year who wore her shirt untucked to school to protect her modesty. This was a minor violation of dress code policy. Why? It is how Neyland interpreted the Bible of course.

I have to roll my eyes over this story. Of course, let the girl wear her shirt untucked if that's what her religion dictates. This issue should have never been in front a school board hearing to resolve in the first place. Completely unnecessary.

Despite the hassle, the mother just could not resist offering the threat above all other threats in her defense. "There will be a day of reckoning" she warns, adding that "you will have to answer to God." Really? God is going to make the school board...what? Roast in Hell for all-eternity over a dress code conflict? You mean to tell me, that the big mafia sky boss – the creator of everything, gives a damn if one's shirt is tucked in? Many believers, it seems, wield around God like he's some kind of blunt instrument.

On one hand they'll happily pray to God for your welfare. And on the other hand, they are all too eager to invoke God's Holy Wrath™ for every perceived, or real, challenge to their beliefs.

Some Christians are so pathetic. This is as nauseating as it is insulting.

(Source)***

***Read the story. It contains all sorts of delicious ironies.

Freedom of Religion is not Freedom to Govern

During last year's election, 33 churches – including the New Life Church of West Bend, were not satisfied with issuing voter's guides and talking about issues of importance to them, they just had to endorse a candidate for president as well. These churches, now placed in peril by the decisions of their respective pastors could lose their tax exempt status.

"Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter-registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. But they cannot endorse a candidate, nor can their political activity be biased for or against a candidate."

What does Fairview Baptist Church Pastor Paul Blair think of that? Pastor Blair sneers at the Constitution and informs us that he answers "to a higher power than the federal government." If you want to answer to that "higher power" now, by all means, make your exit to Heaven immediately. Sorry, pal, but you live in the United States, where we already give you special privileges to worship as you see fit.

You can not both be a church and receive tax exempt status and also act like a political action organization. Freedom of religion, does not give you the freedom to willfully ignore the wall between church and state.

I demand that the IRS pull these churches tax-exempt status from underneath their pulpits and punish them.

Punish them now.

(Source)

Without a hint of irony: Dolan, the Catholic bigot, goes on the offensive.

What's Archbishop Timothy Dolan been up too since he's left Milwaukee?

"I would say, 'Don't let past hurts, or don't let preconceived notions, cloud the beauty, the truth, the warmth, the joy, the liberation of being Catholic. Give her another chance. She is your family.”

Of course, to be part of the Catholic family, you must hate the gay family. Stating that the legalization of gay marriage in New York is "big trouble," Dolan goes on to state without a hint of the irony:

"We're not anti-gay..."

Agitating against gay marriage, or gay civil unions is anti-gay. And of course, what is marriage only for? Dolan tells us "procreation of human life." There you go. I hope all you Catholics only have sex and that the sex you have better produce children and most importantly, I hope you don't enjoy it. No, I do not think that I will be returning to the Catholic family anytime soon. The truth of Catholicism is that it is not beautiful, it is down-right ugly and immoral.

There is not much difference between the bigotry of Dolan and that of rabid protestant evangelicals like Fred Phleps.

Nest of vipers and bigots every damn one of them.

(Source)

And we are to take these clowns seriously?

Apparently, since they have nothing better else to do, sixteen republican senators get a bright idea.

"The proposed resolution acknowledges that and calls upon the Democrats to be truthful and honest with the American people by renaming themselves the Democrat Socialist Party,” wrote Bopp, the Republican committeeman from Indiana. “Just as President Reagan’s identification of the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire’ galvanized opposition to communism, we hope that the accurate depiction of the Democrats as a Socialist Party will galvanize opposition to their march to socialism.”

Yep, that's right, these clowns led by Washington state senator James Bopp, demands that Republican party chair, Micheal "good thing my middle name ain't Hussein" Steel, set-up a special meeting to have a nice little party-wide vote on this buffoonery.

No indication if Steele will bow to their demands. Perhaps, they should just have Limbaugh put pressure on Steele to accede to their demands.

Stay classy RNC.

(Source)

Note to Torture Apologists: Unh-Unh

Somewhere on the Lake Country Publications blogs, I happen to read a comment posted by a torture apologist – a defender of "enhanced interrogation techniques" if you like, that waterboarding had successfully stopped an attack on Los Angeles. Of course, anything that a torture apologists says can be found rebounding in the conservative echosphere, and usually with a little bit of research, the claim can be either shown true or false.

Well, that claim, predictably, is patently false and you can thank Fox News for the fabrication. The claim, originally made by former Bush speech writer, Marc A. Thiessen that waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had "stopped an attack on the Library Towers in Los Angeles" in 2002. And of course, the dubious repeat it uncritically.

Only though, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed wasn't captured until 2003.

Yeah, Fox News. You think they'd do a little vetting of their information? Oh that's right, they exist to make the news "fair and balanced." Accurate news gathering isn't their primary mission, but an after-thought.

Meaning, Fox News fabricates and makes sh*t it up. Why? So that conservatives can feel good about themselves over the appalling decisions and record of the previous administration.

The lesson? Get your information from Fox News at your own peril.

(Source)

Stealing credit for rights and freedoms. The Religous-right has no shame.

You know that argument by the religious-right which states with a straight-face that if the government doesn't prohibit gay marriage and ban same-sex couples from civil unions that it is imposing gay marriage and is a threat to religious liberties?

For instance, take this bigot, Maggie Gallagher commenting on last months Iowa State Supreme court ruling allowing gay marriage.

"Same-sex marriage is quite different from bans on interracial marriage in one powerful respect: It asks religious Americans to surrender a core belief — not only Leviticus (disapproval of gay sexual acts), but Genesis (the idea that God himself made man as male and female and commanded men and women to come together in a special way to image the fruitfulness of God)."(1)

I don't know how a court ruling could possibly change the mind of believer who is convinced that Leviticus 20:13 is not true when it states that if two men have sex they must "be put to death" and "deserve to die." If a believer sincerely ascribes to this Biblical prohibition (for Jewish priests only), then there is not much on Earth that will unconvince the mind of believer.

Gallagher is therefore waging a religious justification against gay marriage – something of which we have a First Amendment and subsequent US Supreme Court rulings steadfastly against the marriage of church and state. You might recall that at one time, interracial marriage was also something a core-value of the religious-right and something which they easily found Biblical justification against.

Take the late Reverend Jerry Falwell and former leader of the religious-right for instance.

"The true Negro does not want integration... He realizes his potential is far better among his own race... It will destroy our race eventually... In one northern city, a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife... It boils down to whether we are going to take God's Word as final."

I say without any reservation that I am glad that Falwell is dead. What a p rick. I don't care if he later apologized for his racist bigoted comments – with gay marriage, he found a way to extend his hatred up until his death. The movement which he was instrumental in creating is following in Falwell's thankfully dead footsteps.

And here comes a further irony.

Today, you'll hear the very same religious-right, right-wing conservative Christians, trumpeting that it was their brand of Christianity that was not only responsible for the creation of the United States but also responsible for the civil rights movement.

Patrick Henry anyone? Jerry Falwell?

I'm calling it now. Sometime in the future not only will these same religious-right, right-wing conservative Christians state that is was their brand of Christianity (euphemistically cited as generic "Christianity") which was responsible for giving the civil right of marriage back to homosexuals, but were instrumental in Barack Obama's election as well.

Conveniently, "forgetting" the "Muslim" card which they breathlessly played during the election and his presidency all along.

(source)

Perhaps Zombies do walk?

Last week, I was reading Dr Steven Novella's post at the Rogues Gallery, on the susceptibility of actors of failing to discern reality on the set and from the outside world.

With that in mind I had to chuckle over this story.

"I wrapped a movie called Zombieland, in which I was constantly under assault by zombies, then flew to New York, still very much in character. With my daughter at the airport I was startled by a paparazzo, who I quite understandably mistook for a zombie."

Apparently, actor Woody Harrelson thought one of those lecherous photographers was a zombie and went fisticuffs on him.

Kinda like all that zombie Christ Easter stuff...

(source)

Jesus has great plans

(via Pharyngula)

Religious skepticism at large: Dave Allen

As a young teen, one of the first encounters I had with religious skepticism was from watching the Dave Allen at Large show. Unlike the sketch comedy of Monty Python, Dave Allen's straight-forward monologues were extremely funny, insightful and I enjoyed the minimalism of his sketch comedy immensely. (Say that 5 times fast.) My brother and I would see repeats on PBS before the evening showing of Dr. Who. I've always been a huge fan of English television – specifically from the late 70's early 80's.

During one monologue, Dave made a comment about humor and religion because of a conversation with someone who feared that God might put the smite down on him. Dave had explained that if God had created everything, he had likewise created humor about religion. Seemed pretty logical to me at the time. (Of course, Dave was commenting about blasphemy.) But that point has stuck with me even to this day. (This, in turn, started me questioning the existence of evil and it's relation to an alleged good and all-loving god.) I once made this very same point about humor and religion to my dad when we were discussing religion and even he seem to accept it.

In this stand-up from several years after the original Dave Allen at Large Show, Dave recalls his childhood experience learning about Christianity as a very young Catholic. In some ways, this is as much as a comment on his experience as it was mine. Dave plays it perfectly.

Oh... for you Dave Allen and Doctor Who fans.

Dave Allen passed away in 2005. Articulate in his comedy and able to express the absurdities of religious doctrine and practice in a non-confrontational and humorous manner.

He was truly a great talent. I'm glad I've rediscovered him.

Conservative outrage over gay elephant!

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond.

"We didn't pay 37 million zlotys ($11 million) for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there," Michal Grzes, a conservative councilor in the city of Poznan in western Poland, was quoted as saying. We were supposed to have a herd, but as Ninio prefers male friends over females how will he produce offspring?" said Grzes, who is from the right-wing opposition Law and Justice party."

Okay, so he's not exactly angry that the elephant might be gay. He's just angry over the money will be wasted if the elephant doesn't hook up with any lady elephants.

That nature. Unwieldy to demands I tell you.

Even though elephants are a conservative icon in this country (by republican proxy) and not Poland's, I couldn't resist the ironic imagery that the story conjures.

(Source)

Islam: Religion of Pieces

I have heard the defenders of Islam and pandering liberals and conservatives claim that Islam is a religion of peace. Muslim defenders with a straight-face state the Islam is blameless for all the violence and that it is cultural inheritance, under the guise of the religion, when all that bad stuff happens.

"Three Taleban mullahs brought them to the local mosque and they passed a fatwa (religious decree) that they must be killed. They were shot and killed in front of the mosque in public," the governor said."

The crime? A 21 year old man and a 19 year old woman in Afghanistan had decided to elope in opposition to their family's demands. And Sharia law forbids unmarried men and women to be seen together. Arranged marriage is the organizing principle of the family unit. (As a side note, watch this video where a Muslim apologist tries to justify wife beating. It's disgusting.)

Ironically – it seems, in order to protect the family, they must murder the family.

Patriarchy is necessarily hostile to woman's rights. Islam reflects the culture which developed and brought Islam into existence. Islam did not suddenly appear from out of the vacuum. The innovation of Islam was to legitimize honor killings and on the behest of God. This explains the need for a fatwa. No, you can not separate the violence that a Muslim does and for which Islam quite plainly (read it if you stomach it) sanctions. The Koran is an appalling book extolling religious violence, despite whatever few niceties one can cherry-pick. And this is why we see the propagation of this religiously motivated violence today.

Rid yourself of Islam and you rid society of honor killings.

(source)

The Pope is an (Unapologetic) Idiot

This week's topic On Faith at the Washington Post is regarding the Pope's apology "for clergy sex abuse, for promoting a Holocaust denier, for statements about Islam." Usually more Christian panelists are featured, but this week they had a rare column by a Wiccan, Starhawk.

Her take on the Pope's apology.

"And if apologies are being given out, Witches would like one. It's more than time that the Catholic and Protestant Churches both apologized for centuries of persecution of Witches, Pagans and those they deemed 'heretics' for believing something different than standard dogma. How about an apology for the Papal Bull of Pope Innocent the Eighth, in 1484, that made Witchcraft an heresy and unleashed the Inquisition against traditional healers, midwives, and any woman unpopular with her neighbors for being too uppity?"

If the Catholic church and its figurehead, dah' Pope, is going to apologize, why not also apologize for the decades of persecution against pagans and witches? I don't see why not. What the heck is all this interfaith stuff for anyway? And while he's at it, shouldn't the Pope also apologize for the centuries of religious persecution that the Catholic church engaged in against their fellow coreligionists like that of the Archontici, the Arians, the Barbelognostics, the Cerinthians, the Encratitis, the Menandrians, the Stratiotics, the Valentinians, and the Carthars?

Personally, if I was Starhawk, I would not care so much if the Pope apologizes or not. He's the figurehead of a dogmatic cult which, in its adherence to that dogma, has committed the worst persecutions known to man on behest of God over the centuries of its dominance of the state. The Pope's apology won't do anything to reverse the damage that has been already done to "witches" and pagans. That's like expecting an apology from Adolf Eichmann to the Jews for the Holocaust.

Monotheist rigorism is diametrically at odds to the openness of pagan and Wiccan spiritual practice. There can be no real religious tolerance from the monotheists as monotheism is necessarily intolerant. If there is only One True Belief™, One True Practice™, and One True God™. There can be no others. Since Wiccans are not monotheists (neither are Christians really) don't expect a seat at the table anytime soon.

Nor would I expect an apology from the Pope.

(Source)

Captian Fluffy says "gimme 'nuther fifty..." Pet psychics are the worst.

Please. Human psychics are bad enough, but pet psychics? The first time I heard of such a thing, I was literally like "Are you kidding me? Who could be so stupid?" And I'm not just talking about the people who pay for such a service, but those that provide it.

A pet psychic describes how it works.

"I actually hear what the animal is saying in my voice in my head. My mind transfers the animal's thoughts, emotions, and images into words. I may see pictures or have a sense of knowing. Other times, I may feel pain in my body where they are experiencing pain."

So what kind of things are the animals saying to our psychic friends? Keeping with an Easter theme, these are apparently the thoughts of a cute widdle, bunny wabbit.

"Bunnies eating paper has nothing to do with intelligence. I was chewing it because I was bored."

Small rodents have an instinct to chew. It has nothing to do with "intelligence," but everything to do with the fact that small animals need to "wear down their incisors which grow continuously throughout their lives." (1)

Never mind wabbits for a moment. If animals can not transfer their thoughts into a psychic's mind, what is more likely happening?

When a psychic reads a human, the psychic relies on well practiced techniques of cold reading, information mining, making vague enough statements to be interpreted by the person being read, or reversing a missed past prediction into a future prediction during the course of a reading. These techniques are teachable. You do not have to be magically adept to learn them. (PDF)

This is why it is interesting to note that the alleged communication between the animal and the psychic is expressed in the psychic's voice. Because of this, there is no way to falsify what, in fact, what exactly the animal communicated. Also, how can the psychic distinguish between her thoughts and the thoughts of the animals? She can not of course. It would be immensely helpful if the animal could speak a bit of human English - then we could easily verify this alleged telepathy. But we can't. Rather convenient. (And there would be no need of pet psychics. Well, there is no need anyway.)

And that's where the person being "read" enables the psychic. Pet psychics are cold reading and gathering information from the pet owner's own verbal statements. Take the Mud Act at the Bristol Renaissance Fair for instance. (My favorite...btw) The crowd interacts with the performers, and in turn everyone is entertained. Psychics and the people that are being read are engaged in a tacit performance. That's all.

As an aside, I have a friend of a friend who steadfastly believes in psychics and actually pays to have her cats read. I feel bad for her, but have been unable to confront her on it. Once having taken one of her rather obese cats to the psychic, it was revealed that the cat had taken offense to being called fat. Issues over obesity are uniquely human issues. The simply psychic projected a human concern as my friend's friend has been concerned about her weight. However, I was informed that I should watch my words around the cat, which I frankly ignored. You tell me, but does it take someone with "psychic powers" to make such a grand revelation? If you say yes, call me Captain Fluffy and "gimme 'nuther fifty."

The pet or human psychic does not have magical powers. Instead they use a number of techniques and exploit flaws in human cognition.

So please, save your money and put these cranks and charlatans out of business so they have to get an honest job.

What Jesus death means to this atheist at Easter

You're probably reading this and wondering what could Jesus' death possibly mean to an atheist? We don't believe in God after all, much less that Jesus was God. (In that I am not alone. Neither do Jews, or Muslims, and Thomas Jefferson. It's why neither could be considered Christians.) You could be one of those Christians that think that atheist are just the rebellious scum of Satan rejecting Jesus' "free gift" because they rather spend an eternity in hell. Well, relatively free. All you do is have to exchange disbelief for belief. Is there something I am missing? You still have to give "something."

Regarding the issue of Jesus' historical existence I subscribe to the Jesus Myth Hypothesis. Like Jefferson, I reject all the supernaturalism within the Bible. Even if there is a real man behind the bible stories he was as human as you and I. At best, perhaps only 10% of the New Testament can be reliably regarded as the words from Jesus' mouth according to the widely respected New Testament scholars of the Jesus Seminar. If this is the case, the consequences to Christianity are deep indeed. Much of Christian doctrine is to be found in Paul's letters and in psedeo-letters – letters written in Paul's name but not by him. (Paul never met Jesus.) Suffice to say, all of that would have to be redacted from the Bible and Christian practice.

Leaving aside all those issues – for the sake of argument, I will accept the New Testament accounts of Jesus life. His virgin birth, his remarkable childhood, his ministry, and his crucifixion and resurrection. I will even concede for the moment that all the supernatural stories about Jesus are, in fact, historical accounts. Meaning that belief in these "events" by faith would no longer be necessary. I will suspend disbelief instead.

This doesn't mean, however, that I am unable to draw some conclusions about these events. Focusing only on the crucifixion, what can be said? Other than the resurrection, it is the defining moment of Christianity. It is when Jesus died (well, only temporarily) for human's sins. It is the "sacrifice" that Christians are so found of saying.

Perhaps, I wouldn't be an atheist any longer, but as person who strives to be moral, I would still object to the way Jesus died. If, by accounts are true, then Jesus was the most perfect and innocent being that ever lived. It is this reason, it is said, that he paid humanity's debt to God for "original sin."

Imagine for a moment that there is a criminal lurking at large. This criminal is not only a mass-murdering cannibal, but frequently steals money from the cash boxes from children's lemonade stands. This criminal, by raping, has fathered a child and since women are legally forbidden to abort such a fetus, she must have the child. The child is now five years old. The criminal is captured and as a court defense promises to be good and forgive his capture if the legal system would just punish his child by the "the epitome of cruel punishment" with drawing, quartering and hanging the child. The courts oblige. Not only that, but the criminal is honored with his name engraved onto the granite of court houses and schools and laws are enacted extolling his high virtues.

Would this be justice?

No. We would rightly punish the criminal and not the child. However, this is exactly what Christianity wants its believers in respect to God. God is the criminal in the analogy. But instead of holding God accountable to his demands, they would rather worship and celebrate the torture death of his son. Not only that, but Christians state that not only was it necessary, but it was moral of God to demand and require this elaborate method of forgiveness. You can't tell me that the creator of the universe does not have it in his will to simply forgive?

And this is where I have to part company with Christianity.

The lesson of the crucifixion is not to love, honor and obey God, but to admonish and reject him. The Christian God demands on humanity and his methods are immoral. They are abominable. Disgusting. It is simply immoral to punish the deeds and actions of others on innocent people. It is immoral to punish the words and deeds of other people even if the other is not innocent.

And this is another reason why I could never be a Christian again, even if the Bible were true.

I am not a Christian because the essential beliefs of Christians are immoral.

By their words you shall know them...

The title of my post sounds rather Biblical. King James or Shakespeare?

Virtually the same idiom.

From Blog Phtos

Anyway, if you pay attention to your Bible, Paul says very nearly the same thing. Except he was mad at the Greek philosophy schools because they dashed his emotional rhetoric and poorly reasoned arguments.

(via PZ Meyers.)

Torture aside. Is this something the USA should do to prisoners?

I am in an especially foul mood this morning. Lack of sleep and the fact that I had to vote in a church this morning – again, is not going to make me any more pleasant to read than I normally am.

"Medical professionals working for the CIA played a central role in the "ill-treatment" of terror suspects in U.S. custody overseas, according to a previously confidential report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The 2007 report describes interviews with 14 "high value detainees" who were transferred to Guantanamo Bay in September 2006, revealing the full extent of complicity and participation by medical personnel in a wide and grisly range of torture methods inflicted upon them. Listed in the table of contents of the 41-page report, these methods included "suffocation by water," "prolonged stress standing," "beatings by use of a collar," "beating and kicking," "confinement in a box," "prolonged nudity," and more."

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not our resident torture apologists believe that these methods constitute torture or not, is this really the treatment we want to be known for? Is this what a leader of human-rights does to people? Beat people? Make them stand naked? Really? And medical doctors got in on the act too?

WTF?

You know who did crap like that? Saddam Hussein. You know who else approves of crap like that? Yeah that's right, crony Bush Nationalist who beat their chest on why it was right for America to take out Saddam for his human rights abuses to the Kurds. Deranged, hypocrites. Pathetically blinded by their ideological commitment to Bush so they can leisurely believe myths of their own invention without conflict to their conscience.

Note this you right-wing, wing-nut knuckleheads: Human rights are not applied at your convenience and because you can invent a class of people at will. For rights to mean anything at all, they are applied without discrimination, consistently.

You deserve every ounce of scorn that you get.

Gods below, I really hate you people.

(Source)

Crankery is Crankery. Chopra and the defense of religious delusions.

It is with good reason that Deepak Chopra receives criticism from not only the medical community, but from religious skeptics too. Chopra, influenced by Eastern mysticism, habitually makes all sorts of pseudo-medical claims like "allergies are usually caused by poor digestion" and you can prevent cataracts by "brushing your teeth, scraping your tongue, spitting into a cup of water, and washing your eyes." Despite this, he is immensely popular and well respect among the New Age community. However, the man has not an ounce of creditability in the medical community.

Chopra is also a contributor at Washington Post's "On Faith," representing Eastern/New Age mysticism. In addition to Chopra, there are many Christians and even an atheist (one of my favorite authors, Susan Jacoby) who comment weekly on a mutual subject. Last weeks issue, Satan; this week whether religion is a delusion or not. This is in light of a shocking story about a mother who abused and murdered her son by starvation because he would not say amen after grace. The mother was part of a Christian cult known as "One Mind."

Picking up on the theme, Chopra tells us "Why the God Delusion Won't Go Away." Some of the ripest fruit for ridicule is the statement attacking skeptics...

"Here again skeptics have a field day. They see no difference between thinking that Christ rose from the dead and thinking that a poor starved child in Baltimore can do the same."

I find that stunning claim and a poorly written sentence. Skeptics do not, I repeat, do not believe that Christ rose from the dead. On the contrary, we think the claim is highly unlikely and impossible. Nature, quite naturally, does not lend itself to resurrection.

And yes, skeptics have good reason in thinking that a child can not resurrect himself. As painful as it is to our egos, death is an unalterable fact of life. Once you are dead, you are really dead. It is for this reason, why this atheist finds this murder/abuse case so outrageous and contemptuous.

Skeptics base our conclusions on evidence and with a sound methodology like science. Untestable "hypothesis" and claims that can not be verified, have no grounding in reality and are better left in the sphere of crankery– like that of a flat earth or alien abductions. Resurrection is such crankery. The "One-Mind" cult prayed for days and days over this child's body and God did not respond in kind. That's pretty good evidence that prayer is not effective and does not raise people back from the dead. Incredibly, Chopra's seems to be arguing the opposite.

And somehow, it is we skeptics who are irrational?

Continuing, Chopra informs us that Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" made "one point over and over: God can't be objectively verified." Chopra's conclusion? That Dawkins "didn't seem to realize that the point itself is pointless."

Chopra concedes to Dawkin's argument. There is no objective proof for God, but in light of this fact he thinks it's still "pointless?" WTF?

If God is not a delusion among believers, and if science could prove that such a "deity" does indeed exist, do you think that evidence over such a being would be "pointless?" Believers would be the first to slap this sensational new evidence in the face of the atheist. (If I recall correctly, Dawkins makes this very same point.) The theist would be correct to do so. As an atheist and skeptic of supernatural or paranormal claims, evidential proof would be of great interest to me and I would quite naturally reverse my position over such matters. I, for one, would love to find out that a "personal relationship Jesus" is not really the wishful, magical thinking and delusion of the believer. What an amazing discovery that would be!

Yet, when the religious makes a material claim over nature, they are often claims which are often proven false. Nature is not a willing partner to religious beliefs and is axiomatically antithetical to proving supernatural claims. It's why the plaint to faith is so important to the religiously minded. The reality is, that when the belief is shown to be false or erroneous – like resurrection, or leads to the abuse/murder of the One Mind cult and like Madeline Nuemann from Weston, Wisconsin illustrate – then the belief is demonstrably delusional.

In short, in the mind of the believer, when evidence contradicts a cherished belief, that evidence suddenly becomes conveniently "pointless."

As we have seen, irrational beliefs can become quite practically a matter of life or death.

(Source)

A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

One of my favorite and most impressional lessons from my religious education was the story of the sisters, Martha and Mary where Jesus comes over as a dinner guest. Mary spends her time at "Jesus feet" listening to him, while Martha is getting (rightfully) upset that she is the only one making all the preparations for dinner. (Luke 10:38 - 41.) While Jesus' lesson to Martha is that listening to him and his wisdom is much better than fulfilling the duties of a host, I was instructed that Martha was the misguided materialist and that Mary had done the right thing. Mary had a personal relationship with Jesus and wasn't concerned with material distractions. We were to be like Mary and not Martha.

My experience with Jesus to that point had been either what I thought or I felt, what I had read or was told to take away from the Bible by priest and later pastor, and by Sunday School teachers. Who – let's face it, do most of the hard work indoctrinating youth into Christianity. So I was impressed by this story and I really wanted to have a relationship with Jesus like Mary did. We were instructed that we, as young Christians, must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Only, Jesus never came to dinner, and as child I always felt immensely let down.

Reflecting on the recent ARIS study, showing that organized religion, namely Christianity, had lost adherents to more personal, individual forms of religious devotion, I can't help to wonder the "it's not a religion, it's relationship" meme of Christianity has come to bite the pushers of this meme in the as s. Why bother with tedious, time consuming Sundays, when you, in the privacy and convenience of your home or office, can have this relationship with Jesus yourself without any interlopers? And not just any Jesus, or the Jesus of your pastor or priest, but a Jesus who is as individual as you are. I have a suspicion that many people who left organized religion to pursue, to "freelance" more individual forms of spirituality have taken this meme not only to heart, but to practice. In many cases they've dropped pretty much all that is Christianity to the devotion and belief in a generic "higher-power."

Since my early experience and the significance that I found in the Lukian dinner story, I've have come to wonder just exactly what people are talking about when they say they have a "personal relationship with Jesus." Martha and Mary had one. Why couldn't I? I was aware from the NT that Jesus made plenty of posthumous appearances after he was tortured and killed to appease his father. He even went out of his way to convince Thomas that he was alive. So where is Jesus today? Why has he stop making post-resurrection house calls?

Imagine for a moment that you are married, and perhaps you probably are. You love your spouse. Your spouse loves you. You and your spouse have a mutual stake in each others futures and not only do you collectively provide for finances together, but emotional support as well. You have a mortgage together. You buy food together. You have each others cell phone numbers and you regularly go to the gym together and encourage each other to maintain their health.

Any observer would conclude that you and your spouse do indeed have a relationship.

Now imagine that your spouse lives in another state or country. You are unable to communicate to your spouse because they have no email, no phone, or address and they are not homeless or otherwise transient. Later, you tell us that the name of your spouse wasn't really their name, but two appellations put together. There are no pictures of the ceremony because you were never married. Your spouse doesn't contribute to your mortgage and you cover all expenses by yourself. You also inform us that the emotional support you receive and the conversations you have with your spouse is directly transmitted inside your head. But you tell us not to worry, you have a personal relationship with your spouse and that is as real as their personal relationship to you.

Now imagine you are this person's friend. What would you think? Would you doubt the existence of your friend's spouse? What about the sanity, or at least how accurate your friend perceives reality? Would you, perhaps, think that your friend is a reasonably sane person? *

Incredibly, this is the the type of relationship that many, many Christians report when they report of having a "personal relationship with Jesus." And this is the type of relationship that our religious leaders encourage us to have with Jesus also. Incidentally, I have to wonder if Christians are now embarrassed by religion and opt out for something seemingly less dogmatic and socially backward and intolerant.

What "personal relationship with Jesus" amounts to is a delusion. Popular and shared, yes.

A delusion shared is a delusion nevertheless.

*Note: I maybe paraphrasing someone's else's analogy.

Waging holy war against the godless forces of secularism...

I have had enough of religious gerrymandering and interference in government and in science and in science education. We are supposed to have a government that is neutral toward religion. It does not legislate preference toward one religion over another, or no religion over religion. This neutrality is a simple, basic, founding principle of the experiment known as "American Democracy." Until the Virginia State constitution separation clause, later echoed in the Federal Constitution, no other state had ever separated the government from religion before - which made revolutionary theocrats like Patrick Henry foam at the mouth.

But our Christian theocrats can't help it, and in fact it is their mission to bring the United States under Christian dominion. (Genesis 1:26 for instance.) Haven't we – as a people, learned yet that when government loses its neutrality toward religion, only bad things happen which violate people civil rights. Take the French revolution. Or the Soviet Union. Or look at Afghanistan and Iraq today with their sparkly, brand new constitutions where no law may contradict the Koran. In all these countries, the state had legislated a preference toward religion. No, I don't want my government taking the side of atheism like the Soviet Union did, nor do I want it to take the side of Christianity – legislating from the Bible according to one particular Christian sect's peculiar interpretation.

"It is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation." said Cardinal George of the Chicago Archdiocese.

According to Cardinal George, Obama speaking at the Notre Dame is an "extreme embarrassment." Why? Because Obama supports stem cell research and some abortions. Personally, I don't care what the religious do within their ranks. You want to ban gays? Good. You think women shouldn't teach the Bible because the Bible (1 Tim 2:12) tells you so. Fine. I encourage you to organize within your ranks and do as you please. Go ahead and make your religion as exclusive and as intolerant all you want - just don't do it on my taxpayer dollar and do not kill or abuse children in the process.

So if the President of the United States is an "extreme embarrassment" to these Catholics, great. Don't let Obama speak.

And here's is rare point of agreement. I am embarrassed by Obama's overarching religiosity like his speech at Notre Dame is a display of. Obama's weekly calls with prominent evangelicals who advise him on matters of state, continuing Bush's shameful practice of kowtowing to religious gerrymanders.

Someday my fear is that the Christian Dominion could succeed. We tiptoe too preciously close to that edge, more every day. Obama and his administration, in my opinion, is showing us that he will do little to reverse the growing influence of church imposed on state.

All theocracy needs is for an active minority of theocrats, moderate Christians, and American citizens to look the other way.

If the dominion happens, you can kiss your civil rights away.

Goodbye America. Hello Afghanistan.

It was nice knowing you.

Lend me $50. I want to become a "Certified Abstinence Educator."

I would love to add to my list of meaningless honorifics and ridiculous credentials, "certified abstinence educator," to my present ones such as "minister" and "certified exorcist."

I just don't have the money to spend on something so frivolous. Free. Sure – then we are having a conversation.

Whereas my money would be going to waste, I can assure you that I will easily ace the exam and your investment will be well paid off. Well... not really. Don't worry about me not passing though.

"One question asked me to identify the founder of "Playboy" magazine."

Check. I am a guy. That answer is written into my DNA.

"Another asked whether premarital sex or abstinence was more likely to lead to 'stunted personal development,' and 'corruption of character.'"

A leading question is hard to foul up. I'll bingo that one easily.

"A true/false question read, "Contraception may be appropriate for some unmarried adults and teens."

Hmm... true? No, no... false. Whew...

Then I can be like Stacie Murphy, who similarly has "no medical background, no public health training and no teaching certification." Murphy took the test to find out just how rigorous it was. Obviously, as the sample questions indicate, no high degree of medical or educational training and background is required.

So be warned all you serious professional educators of the cranks who will shovel this certificate around like they are qualified medical or educational professionals with serious credentials. It's a farse and a fraud.

Funny thing, but the other day at work I was saying that I can not immediately place which president is featured on the fifty without hesitation – since I see so little of them. Sure, I can name any president on a five or smaller... so give me the money Lebowski!

I'll be an effective abstinence educator just like abstinence only education is.

Which is not very.

As in not at all.

Not effective ever.

(Source)

Our Resident Bush-Nationalists are Today's April Fools

Our resident Bush-Nationalists also happen to be our resident torture apologists. Oh like, Hayett, Hemmer and Furey and the gnats that swoon around their every word.

In order to hold such a pro-torture position they must fool themselves into thinking that waterboarding and other bizarre and coercive methods are not what they are. Specifically waterboarding. If they've bothered to watch a waterboarding at all, it's just a "dunk" that is really "not that bad" to them – contradicting the visual evidence. They also have to ignore the history of waterboarding – first used by the Spanish Inquisition to force confession of suspected witches. (And somehow it always worked!) They have to ignore long established international law (Geneva Conventions) and even the United States Army's own regulations on handling prisoners.

They do this by inventing myths about torture as to not create friction within their conscious because of the ethical barbarities that such a practice invokes. It is by a dazzling display of premeditated, cognitive dissonance in which they obliterate any rational, coherent thought in themselves that only makes any rational, thinking person's head spin if you stop to apply any non-ideological thought to the issue.

Like Myth #1 that only "ultra-liberals" object to waterboarding and as Hemmer states "If only liberals would champion the "rights" of the US fighting men and women instead of always looking out for the enemy, the world may be a safer place." (June 6, 2008 7:18 AM) Wrong. Instead of engaging the issue, Hemmer invokes a red-herring to distract from the issue by asserting this is really just an issue over the military – as if liberals love the terrorist more. Please. Not only she is wrong in her avoidance, she is wrong that it is only liberals who object. In addition to many other Christian churches and groups, it is those same "US fighting men and women" who urged Obama back in December of 2008 to abandon Bush's torture policies. "Gunn and about a dozen other retired generals and admirals, who are scheduled to meet Obama's team in Washington, said they plan to offer a list of anti-torture principles, including some that could be implemented immediately." (Source)

Myth #2 is another favorite exercise in cognitive dissonance: waterboarding and the other methods are not torture. Wrong. Susan J. Crawford – originally appointed by Reagen and who served under D ick Cheney, presently serving the military commissions as the top convening authority stated that "We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani... His treatment met the legal definition of torture" and that when "you think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive."

Or how about Myth #3 that no one innocent was tortured. Wrong. Recently ex-Bush administration official, Larry Wilkerson, stated about Guantanamo Bay, that not only was their "utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan" but in "reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value" adding that they should be "immediately released." It is these same innocents who were tortured. (Source)

And there is always Myth #4. I'll let Hemmer frame it. "Terrorists just may have important information that can be extracted using a "legal method of interrogation" - waterboarding." (June 6, 2008 7:18 AM) Patently wrong. Take the case of Abu Zubaida. At first the CIA thought him a high value source of information. So under political pressure to produce results from D ick Cheney they waterboarded them. The CIA then chased the leads obtained by waterboarding and found that "in the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations." (Source)

And lastly, Myth #5: If a democrat does it, it must be okay. Hayett states: "The waterboarding was approved by democrats like Pelosi." This is probably true. In 2002, Pelsoi was informed of the waterboarding and did not object. However, Hayett and his gnats make this argument because they think that liberals are under the same political or ideological commitment like they are with Bush to look the other way and silence our ethical objections. Wrong Hayett, wrong. This is a classic tu quoque fallacy. Of course, our resident torture apologists and their gnats will ignore Bush's statements that he authorized waterboarding because of that very same ideological commitment that they think they can hang around our necks like some big, blue albatross.

If it wasn't for these myths in which they fool themselves, we might even say that our resident Bush-Nationalists are reasonable well adjusted, morally grounded citizens... well... if it was not for the undying deification of Bush and their likewise cognitive dissonance over him and his record.That I get. But torture? There are no justifiable excuses!

It is because of this uncritical belief in myths of their own invention that makes our resident Bush-Nationalists today's April Fools!

Congrats! Congrats! Not only have you made yourself look foolish, but you are now ex-members of the human race.