I would strongly encourage anyone who is interested in the idea of freedom to visit Free Paul Jacob as quickly as possible. In fact, do it now, with all haste.
Wirkman Virkkala has written an excellent post describing the whole shameful affair. Paul Jacob's plight was also recently featured on Reason's Hit and Run.
Aside from being put in shackles and threatened with a ten year prison sentence for what in reality amounts to a political "crime", the outcome of this case may well affect the course of political freedom in this country.
We're not supposed to be living in a country where people can do hard prison time for political purposes. It's time to take notice.
I've been meaning to write a blog entry generalizing my feelings about the hysterics that seem to grip we Americans from time to time, but John Cole beat me to it:
It is absurd. You are safe. I am safe. This nation is safe. Quit being such a damned pussy. All of you.
Authorities charged the director of a Christian boot camp and an employee with dragging a 15-year-old girl behind a van after she fell behind the group during a morning run.
Charles Eugene Flowers and Stephanie Bassitt of San Antonio-based Love Demonstrated Ministries, a 32-day boot camp for at-risk teens, are accused of tying the girl to the van with a rope June 12 and dragging her, according to an arrest affidavit filed Wednesday.
Flowers, the camp's director, ordered Bassitt to run alongside the girl after she fell behind, according to the affidavit. When the girl stopped running, Bassitt yelled at her and pinned her to the ground while Flowers tied the rope to her, according to the affidavit.
Flowers and Bassitt have been charged with aggravated assault. It seems to me that attempted murder may be a bit more appropriate.
I'll admit, when it comes to mass-media, I'm a bit jaded. Apart from CSI and a couple of shows on the Cartoon Network, I rarely watch television. I've never been caught up the American Idol craze. To tell the truth, I don't think I've actually ever seen an episode. That being said, I came across this clip on YouTube this morning and was stunned. I watched it with my younger daughter earlier this evening and she noticed my eyes were a bit watery. When she asked why, I replied that this was one of the most beautiful things I've seen in a long while.
I have a picture of Angellika Arndt taped to the side of my computer at work, right alongside pictures of my own girls.
I don't know "Angie". I've never met her. Nor have I talked with her or her parents.
Angie Arndt was murdered by staff members of the Rice Lake Day Treatment Center in Wisconsin. She was seven years old.
In the ensuing investigation, it was found that a day before her death she...:
...arrived at Rice Lake around 11:30 a.m. She was sitting having lunch with the other children when she got the giggles and blew bubbles in her milk. She was reprimanded and told to stop laughing and to stop blowing bubbles. When she laughed again, she was taken to "time out" where she was told to sit still on a hard chair. This is a seven-year old child with attention deficit disorder, so sitting still in a chair was a very difficult thing to do. This was done as a "cool down" period.
During this "cool down", Angie crossed her legs and rested her head on her knees. Because she did not do exactly what she was told to do she was taken to the "cool down" room, a closet-sized room with nothing but a chair, a mat on the middle of a cement floor, and blank walls. "I don’t want to go," she cried.
But she was forced to go. She was told once again to sit in a chair and not move. She covered her ears and began to cry. She was tired and curled up on the chair. She fell asleep, was woken up, and told to sit appropriately and complete the cool-down. She was asleep, how much cooler did she need to be?
Head up, feet down, don’t move, and be quiet.
Again she fell asleep and again they woke her up. She became agitated and began to swing her legs. As this continued and staff surrounded her, she became more agitated and was restrained in her chair.
She was told if she struggled it would be considered "unsafe behavior". She knew that meant she would be taken down and put into a face-down prone restraint. She was told by staff not to cry and to control her emotions. But she was not able to control her emotions and she couldn’t stop crying. During the course of the chair restraint she fell out of her chair. Knowing what would come next, she pleaded with them, saying she would complete the "cool down." But it was too late.
It appears that in the minds of the staff, and after a staff discussion, this called for an all-out face-down floor restraint. She was taken down by two adults. One grabbed her ankles while the other grabbed her shoulders and held her down for 98 minutes. During this time she struggled, cried, screamed for help. But no one responded to her pleas for help.
It was reported that during some of the prone restraints she vomited, lost control of her bodily functions, complained of headaches, complained of eye pain, and fell asleep - or possibly passed out.
The very next day, Angie "misbehaved" again.
Angie was taken to the "cool down" room and placed in a face-down prone restraint. Again two staff participated in the restraint. One held her ankles while the other held her upper body. Bradley Ridout was summoned to assist another employee in the restraint. At the time, Angie was laying in a prone position, face-down on a thinly-carpeted cement floor. The other employee restrained Angie’s legs while Ridout covered her upper torso with his body, initially supporting his weight with his elbows. But as time went on his body weight of about 250 pounds shifted on her small upper torso, suffocating her.
During the course of this restraint she cried, screamed, thrashed, begged for help, said she couldn’t breathe, complained of a headache, and said her eyes hurt. Rather than stop to listen to her complaints, Ridout grabbed her head and held her down. He continued holding her down for about 30 minutes, putting pressure on her small upper body.
No one seemed to listened to her, no one seemed to believed her. Instead, regardless of the fact that she vomited, urinated and defecated on herself, and was crying out for help, they continued to hold her down. Finally, she became quiet and still. Finally she gave up. When they released her, Ridout rolled her small listless body over and noticed her face was blue.
I keep Angie's picture taped to my computer to remind me every day why I'm studying psychology. There is an underlying perversion in this country manifesting itself in various "tough love" programs and "treatment" facilities for "troubled kids". If you study the pattern long enough, it's not hard to discover that the only thing these programs demand is unquestioned obedience and conformity.
It's been proven over and over again that if these programs do not get what they want, they will kill you to save you.
I intend to end this.
One only need read Help at Any Cost by Maia Szalavitz to understand the severity of the problem. Programs that throw troubled teens out into the wilderness or kidnap them away from their friends and families only to go through brainwashing sessions that would make the Dear Leader blush are not helping kids. They are abusing them, with sanction. It must stop.
That is why I have a picture of Angie on my desk. It's time we start trying to understand kids instead of beating them into submission.
I've known about the 1000 Journals Project for nearly a year now. Unfortunately, my discovery of the project was too late to get involved. I did, however, received the end result of the project from Amazon.com today.
I love it.
I also discovered that there is a new journal project now taking place. This time, I was NOT too late to get involved.
I just created journal number 1775 and will be sending it along this weekend. Any and all readers are encouraged to head on over and sign up.
That's my goal. I'll have a little graphic over there on the side-bar tracking my progress. This should be fun.
I've also resurrected My Library Thing. Only 200 books are allowed to be cataloged with a free account. I'll be upgrading to a paid account here in the near future in order to get the rest of my books online.
Sascha was the sweetest creature I have ever known. She traveled the world with me; from Germany to California to Maryland and Missouri. She succumbed to heart failure this morning.
Since I plan on doing several overnight, 30-50 mile hiking trips (with a hammock) this spring, summer, fall, I thought this might be a good book to have.
I've never had the flu. Ever. When I do get sick, it's often a very severe sinus infection. When it's not serious, it's still pretty bad. I've been dealing with this for as long as I remember. I know the symptoms. I know how long it will last. And, most importantly, when suffering from sometimes agonizing pain, I know what makes me comfortable.
Hot tea. Sudafed. Sleep. In that order.
I went Walgreens this past Friday to get a box of Sudafed so I could prepare for a ritualistic weekend involving the afore-mentioned items.
Apparently, you can't just buy Sudafed anymore. On the great wall of therapeutics, where the Sudafed should be, is a card directing you to take it to the pharmacist, where you can purchase your deliverance.
"Hmmm", thought I, "There must have been a rash of Sudafed thievery lately."
Walking up to the pharmacy counter, I presented the card symbolizing the particular strength and dosage of Sudafed that I required and waited.
"Drivers licence, please."
I presented my drivers licence without much thought, holding my wallet up so it could be seen through the transparent plastic most wallets come with these days. I assumed she just wanted to confirm I was over 21.
"You're gonna have to take your licence out because I have to type some information into the computer."
"Why?"
"It's required."
"By whom?"
"It's the law."
"Isn't Sudafed an over the counter drug?"
"Yes, but we have to enter your name into a database because you are limited to how much Sudafed you can buy in a certain time frame."
"You have got to be fucking kidding me."
Yes, I did say "fucking", which is a word I rarely ever say in public, particularly to a stranger. This gives you some measure of how completely pissed off I was.
And so, I gave her my drivers licence. And now, I'm in some state-run database that notes the date, time, name, drivers licence number, the amount and strength of the over the counter drug I purchased.
If I accidentally damaged my recent purchase of Sudafed in anyway, say by dropping it in the toilet, or accidentally throwing it out in the trash, etc..., I would not be able to return to any store in Missouri to buy more within a 24 hour period. If I were to do so, I would be eyed with great suspicion. In fact, the police might even be called out.
It is nobody's damned business how much Sudafed I purchase. Not to sound overly dramatic, or hyperbolic, but this has just made me a victim of our amazingly incompetent war on drugs. It makes me so incredibly angry to be treated with suspicion and forced to give up my privacy in order to remedy a common occurrence in my life.
This is one of the reasons I view people like Mrs. du Toit and their notions of free association with complete derision.
I've had my eye on this one for a while - well, it was actually just published this month, but I've been hearing about it for some time - but it was Timothy's elegant post that clenched the deal for me.
I'm embarrassed to say, this was an accidental purchase. I meant to pick up Stories of Anton Chekhov. I think Dostoevsky will do nicely until I make it back to the book store, however.
In 1963, Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. launched the Civil Rights movement and demonstrated to the world the power of nonviolent direct action. Why We Can't Wait recounts not only the Birmingham campaign, but also examines the history of the civil rights struggle and the tasks that future generations must accomplish to bring about full equality for African Americans. Dr. King's eloquent analysis of these events propelled the Civil Rights movement from lunch counter sit-ins and prayer marches to the forefront of the American consciousness.
In the days before blogs, teenagers recorded their lives with a pen in top-secret notebooks, usually emblazoned with an earnest, underlined plea to parents to keep away. Since 2002, David Nadelberg has tapped that vast wellspring of adolescent anguish in the stage show Mortified, in which grown men and women confront their past with firsthand tales of their first kiss, first puff, worst prom, fights with mom, life at bible camp, worst hand job, best mall job, and reasons they deserved to marry Simon LeBon.
I first heard about "Mortified" here:
It wasn't until I heard Sascha Rothchild read from her diary for a live stage show of Mortified on This American Life, however, that I knew I had to get this book.
I've always loved this sort of stuff. I check out Postsecret every week and own nearly every book from that project. I also enjoy Found Magazine and other such endeavors. I guess there is a voyeur in me that needs to be satisfied.
How to Cheat at Everything is a roller-coaster ride through bar bets, street hustles, carnivals, Internet fraud, big and small cons, card and dice games and more. You'll even find the exact frauds that the NYPD regard as the most common and dangerous today, and learn top tips on how to avoid each one. This inside information comes from Lovell's lifetime of experience in the field, along with additional information from both sides of the law.
This was a complete impulse buy. I saw it reviewed on Boing Boing and decided to give it a try. It's not that I'd ever try to pull any of these scams, I just like to know how things like this work. (Kind of like magic. I don't really have the energy to learn any "magic" tricks, but I love figuring out how they work).
Of the 7,140 Americans who were taken prisoner during the Korean War, about 40 percent died in captivity. Oddly, Korean War prisoners were not treated as heroes; instead, the popular press seemed to regard them at the time, and for some years afterward, as brainwashed turncoats or weaklings. Carlson (We Were Each Other's Prisoners: An Oral History of World War II) here argues that an America affected by the Red Menace and McCarthyism chose to blame the victims. He attempts to correct the misperception by demonstrating that the main causes of POW mortality were starvation, lack of medical treatment, and execution by their captors, using the voices of surviving prisoners as evidence. The narratives of the prisoners themselves are remarkable for their forthrightness and matter-of-fact tone. In many cases, the men's survival, under conditions of extreme privation, torture, and psychological pressure, is nothing short of amazing.
I got this book (and more like it to come) to research a theory I've been working on regarding the highly popular "Teen Help" industry alive and well in America today. For more information, I highly recommend Maia Szalavitz's Help at Any Cost. I'll be writing much more about this at a later date.
Violence. Drugs. Pregnancy. Suicide. Are our nation's teenagers out of control? Mike Males provides a different picture--how politicians, private interests, and the media unfairly scapegoat adolescents for America's problems. Among the myths he explodes:
Myth: Drugs, guns, gangsta rap, TV violence and "innate" youth savagery are causing crime and mayhem.
Same as above. My studies in psychology have led me to the conclusion that adolescents are probably the most demonized social group in our society. This is nowhere near a benign situation. Children and adolescents are routinely beaten (physically and mentally) into cruel submission by a society that does not care to understand them. What society wants (with psychologists, psychiatrists and "child experts" backing it up) is obedience. If it doesn't get obedience, it will condone sickening measures to achieve it; hence the quickly growing "Teen Help" industry I referred to earlier. Again, I'll write more on this later.
The Social Contract is simple to understand. It's even easier to deconstruct; and it's been done before. But, even if you're not as radical as Lysander Spooner, you don't have to put too much thought into what's wrong with the following argument (from Mrs. du Toit:)
WHY you support something or agree with something is as important as your conclusions, and that is why I am not a libertarian.
For example, I think it is perfectly acceptable for some city (or state) in the U.S. to pass laws which prohibit people living there because of their race/creed/religion. They can also have laws which make sodomy, out of wedlock sex, or adultery a crime, punishable by imprisonment. If they want to pass laws that require you to do a jig on main street once a month, they can do that, too.
Now, do I think that is wise or would I want to live there?
Of course not. But that’s not the point. (I might think the jig thing was a hoot, though.)
People in the U.S., in their individual communities and states can and should pass all the laws and rules they want, because that’s what Freedom of Association really means. It is what representative government means. It is a Constitutional protection, and one I support 100%. I might not agree with how a community chose to exercise that right, but I will support their right to exercise it however they wish. I think most of the problems we have in this country are because people can’t do that anymore, and they used to be able to do that. We have too many people telling them what they must do, but not enough people telling them what they MAY do as groups.
There’s only one asterisk I’d add to that: Anyone can choose to leave that community/state at any time (meaning, you are aren’t anchored there with a ball and chain).
People form factions and groups. That’s what humans do. It is what all pack animals do. Denying that, or attempting to create a philosophy that discounts it or makes it sound evil, is both silly and wrong headed.
This is lazy thinking at its very worst. It's something I'd expect out of a high school sophomore confronted with social organization for the first time; someone who has put no thought into what freedom really means (she got the gist of democracy down nicely, though).
But, even worse than that, she has absolutely no sense of history. The whole statement begs the question, "What happens when the community/state passes a law that does not allow you to leave?".
Well?
This is how Mrs. du Toit defines "freedom". One can almost imagine her reading the following passage from Rousseau in delight:
Hence, in order that the social pact shall not be an empty formula, it is tacitly implied in that commitment - which alone can give force to all others - that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the whole body, which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free; for this is the necessary condition which, by giving each citizen to the nation, secures him against all personal dependence, it is the condition which shapes both the design and the working of the political machine, and which alone bestows justice on civil contracts - without it, such contracts would be absurd, tyrannical and liable to the grossest abuse.
I just got done reading Szazs' Cruel Compassion: Psychiatric Control of Society's Unwanted and really enjoyed it. I find Szasz to be on of the most engaging writers I've come across. I found little to disagree about in Cruel Compassion (a completely different situation than with "The Myth of Mental Illness...of which I'll probably write more later) and I look forward to reading more of his works.
Well, that's about it, for now. I didn't expect this to be such a large post, but I guess I had a bit to talk about.
I was going to write a huge blog post about the goings on over there in Boston. But I think this picture sums up everything I could ever say about the subject:
It's the all American story. Woman is raped. Woman reports rape. Woman is thrown in jail for a restitution warrant from 2003 (When she was a minor). Woman is denied second dose of emergency contraception from her jailers due to "religious convictions".
I actually find this story a bit enduring. Who wouldn't rather have a nicely written letter from his neighbor rather than a series of loud knocks on the wall imploring you to, "Shut the hell up!"?
Raising a child is one of the greatest responsibilities humans undertake. A child might grow up to cure diseases, prevent wars, or a host of other great accomplishments. A child might instead grow up to be a psychopath, leaving a trail of pain and misery in his or her path. Of course, it would be naive to claim that what you do as a parent could determine this. However, it seems quite reasonable to me to think that society has a vested interest in making sure that you are at least minimally competent as a parent. This is why I would like to see parental licensure.
If you continue to read this post, you will see the tired old, "We require the operators of automobiles to have licenses" argument. His point being that being a parent is much more important than simply driving a car and yet *GASP* the government is doing nothing to regulate the process of having children!
Here is a guy who speaks out against religion because of its pervasive and unwelcome effects on society. And yet, he is perfectly willing to impose his own irrationality on all of us because "society has a vested interest in making sure that you are at least minimally competent as a parent".
Ok, Hillary, prove it to me. Prove to me that your scheme will not do monumentally more damage than the good you propose. Tell me what the consequences will be for couples who refuse such licensure laws. Will you take the children away? Imprison the parents? How will you pay for such a program? Prove to me why religious indoctrination should not be included in such "training".
Until you can come up with a satisfactory answer for all of the above, count me atheistic to your irrational beliefs.
If you only read one book about mental illness, make it The Quiet Room by Lori Shiller. It's an autobiographical portrait of a young woman suffering from severe schizophrenia in the 80's and early 90's (until the advent of clozapine).
Now, of all the mental diseases, schizophrenia probably still has the most social stigma attached to it. That's now, in 2007. In the 80's the disease was completely misunderstood, probably due in part by horrific, sensational exposés in the media. (Charles Manson comes to mind). Even today, many people still confuse schizophrenia with Dissociative Identity Disorder, formally known as Multiple Personality Disorder.
It's easy to understand why, as the very word "schizophrenia" means "splitting of the mind". Schizophrenia, however, has nothing to do with multiple personalities. In reality, schizophrenics suffer from hallucinations, delusions, paranoia and severe social isolation. Schizophrenia also often has a high co morbidity with severe depression.
Along with bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia is thought to be one of the very worst mental illnesses. And yet, it is constantly used as a comedic foil in our culture. People make light of the condition (out of ignorance rather than meanness, I'm sure), without fully understanding just how offensive they are being.
Books like The Quiet Room do a good job of "conscience raising" when it comes to mental illness. I highly recommend it.
The following passage about the practice of "cold wet packing" as a form of restraint stuck with me:
In order to be cold-wet-packed, a doctor's order had to be signed. As the buzzer was sounding, the staff was paging an M.D. to come to the unit to write the order as quickly as possible. I was so violent that the packing was usually well underway by the time the psychiatrist arrived.
When the big men got there, they restrained me while I was being packed. The shot of sodium amythal hadn't taken effect yet. The big burly attendants looked to me just like the horrid rapists of my Voices' hell. My terror flared. My adrenaline shot up. My strength and power intensified. I could fight off a whole Quiet Room-ful of men. They weren't going to touch me. That I knew fro sure. I kicked. I flailed. I bit. Even against a roomful of big men, for a moment it seemed like I was winning.
And then they were back in control. It was just as the Voices had shown me. It was just like the rapes in hell. Big strong men held me down while unseen hands stripped off my clothing. Off came my high-tops. Off came my favorite blue sweatshirt with the green frog on it. Off came my only pair of jeans that fit. Off came my socks one after another. How was I going to cause any problems by keeping my little socks on my little feet? And then finally came my bra. My undies were all that stood between me and the rape my imagination fabricated. I was truly terrified.
And then came the real horror. They hoisted me onto the elevated bed that had been set up for me in the kitchen, or in a special room off the short hallway, or in the hall itself, or wherever they could get set up fast before I totaled the place or hurt someone or myself. With strong hands holding me flat, others began wrapping me securely in sheets that had been soaking in ice water.
They wrapped me tight as a mummy, arms and hands at my side. All that was left uncovered were my feet and my neck and head. And there thy left me, with a single attendant by my now helpless side.
I was laughing hysterically. But there was nothing funny about it. It was cold, freezing cold. My teeth began chattering frantically as if they were the Voices speaking. I was going to die a shivery Arctic death and the Voices were going to have the last cold icy laugh. My whole body was frozen.
The entire book does a wonderful job of giving us just a tiny peek into madness. But more than that, it is a book of hope. I am simply amazed at the strength it must have taken just to live. At at the end of it all... clozapine. When people ask me why I love science so, this will be my answer: "Clozapine".
I've re-read Tim's post a couple of times and my thoughts continually went to this whole notion of "faith". So, though I'm not really addressing Tim's post per-say, I'm going to try to put into words something I've been thinking about for a while.
This whole notion that "faith" and "belief" deserve respect for no other reason than they are "faith" and "belief" is ludicrous. If, through some belief system, I had faith that the ritualistic act of cutting off my little toe ensured my place in paradise, people would rightfully think I was suffering from a chemical imbalance. But, if I were to say that my eight day old boy needs to have his foreskin cut from his penis (without anesthesia) so his covenant with God will be fulfilled, those same people would most likely say, "Well, OK. That's your faith, I respect that".
Faith is not a special privilege. You cannot expect to be immune from criticism simply for believing something to be true, no matter how sacred that belief may be. I think this is the fundamental problem with society today. We go far too much out of our way not to be offensive when it comes to belief systems. I can't begin to recount how many times I've heard the phrase, "You need to respect my beliefs". My internal response is always, "Well, no, I don't".
Something went askew with our society when people started to mistake respect in the right to believe something for respect in the actual belief. I have no problem with respecting your right to believe in leprechauns from a different energy level, for example. I'll probably think the actual belief is insane, however.
Unfortunately, there are two subjects that we are never permitted to discuss with any seriousness: race and religion, and how our attitudes toward the first are rooted in the second. Thanks to this sternly--correctly?--enforced taboo, we are never able to get to the root of our problems. We are like people born in a cage and unable to visualize any world beyond our familiar bars of prejudice and superstition. That Opinion the Few create in order to control the Many has seen to it that we are kept in permanent ignorance of our actual estate.
I think that Mr. Vidal is making the point that by perpetuating the myth that belief is not to be criticized, religious faith has no real self correcting mechanism in place. Sure, there is the occasional Martin Luther or Bishop Spong, but the criticisms are rare, and unnecessarily painful.
This is why I have a problem with moderate Christianity. Like Tim said, fundamentalism is easy to understand, and pillory. Moderate Christianity poses a much more difficult problem. Not only do Moderate Christians not do enough criticizing, they have far too much tolerance in those who are hijacking their faith. And, it's not just that. We secularists often don't know what to think about moderate Christianity. If they don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, what do they believe? And, more importantly, how did they come to their conclusions?
If religious institutions were content with leaving everyone else alone, these questions would probably not be very relevant. But, when so much religiosity is being forced upon society, we have every right to know, and to harshly criticize any belief system that backs it up.
The very idea that faith is a virtue that demands respect is both silly and dangerous. It's time society as a whole started letting go of such archaic notions. And, it's also time moderate Christians began cleaning up their own houses before casting aspersions on us nonbelievers.
D'Souza (a prominent Christian Conservative) has this to offer the world:
Falwell’s point after 9/11 was that God was punishing America of its sins. My point is entirely secular: Why did the guys who did it, do it? Surely five years after 9/11, it’s reasonable to ask this question. And both the Right and the Left have been operating under illusions. The radical Muslims are against modernity and science and democracy. The radical Muslims are upset because of colonialism and the Crusades. It’s all nonsense. That’s not what the leading thinkers of radical Islam say. And Bin Laden’s own views are quite different. In his Letter to America, issued shortly after 9/11, he said that America is the fount of global atheism and it is imposing its morally depraved values on the world. So Muslims must rise up in defensive jihad against America because their religion and their values are under attack. This aspect of Bin Laden’s critique has been totally ignored, and it’s one that resonates with a lot of traditional Muslims and traditional people around the world.
D'Souza's point here is that secularists in America are "attacking" the religion of Islam by condoning things like atheism, pornography, and homosexuality; hence Liberals are to blame for 9/11. Get it?
Absolutely amazing. I mean, really. Amazing.
I'm waiting for Sweden to explode in a mushroom cloud. After all, all those atheists over there are busily attacking the Islamic faith with their non belief.
Don't they know the mortal danger they're putting themselves in?
Our good friend Tim Virkkala has posted a blog entry about Eric and I over at his site. There is much to think about there and I want to take some time to process it all. I emailed him to let him know I would post some kind of reply this weekend.
For now, I just wanted to post a few quick replies to some comments my friend Brian McCall made in response to one of my earlier posts. I hope you'll forgive my brevity. I have a bit of studying to do tonight and there are miles to go before the night is through.
Brian posted the following:
I disagree with their view on religion. I don't think it is useless. After all, religiosity is a trait that evolved in humans, so it must have conferred, and perhaps is still conferring (note the relationship between birthrates of a society and the prevalence of religion in that society) some kind of advantage. So on that point at least I don't put much value in Dawkins' et al hostility toward religion. I think a more thoughtful understanding of our world would incorporate this nearly universal human need into the overall picture, rather than treat it as some kind of aberration, a virulent foreign element in need of eradication, as Dawkins does.
The idea that "religiosity is a trait that evolved in humans" is something Steven Pinker does a pretty good job of arguing against. I can't really add anything to his hypothesis except to reiterate that any evolutionary processes we may have should be scientifically testable. We know, for example, that we have a very real evolutionary fear of snakes. We have this fear because our very ancient ancestors lived in an area rich with snakes. They learned that for the most part, snakes were very deadly. So, those who feared snakes were most likely to survive in such an environment.
Perhaps there really is a personal, attentive, invisible, miracle-producing, reward-giving, retributive deity, and we have a God module in order to commune with him. As a scientist, I like to interpret claims as testable hypotheses, and this certainly is one. It predicts, for example, that miracles should be observable, that success in life should be proportional to virtue, and that suffering should be proportional to sin. I don't know anyone who has done the necessary studies, but I would say there is good reason to believe that these hypotheses have not been confirmed. There's a Yiddish expression: "If God lived on earth, people would break his windows."
Sam Harris has postulated that rape and slavery also have evolutionary advantages. However, no civilized society will even remotely tolerate these practices today.
I think the point being made is this; we are more than the sum of our evolutionary parts. Because of an ever changing (evolving) moral zeitgeist, we find it harder to believe the old superstitions, to grasp onto the old injustices. Evolution has brought us to the point where we can face our animalistic behavior right in the face and change it, if we so desire.
More from Brian:
But as far as religion retarding the advance of science, you should consider that nearly all the greatest scientists were devout believers, and saw their scientific inquiry as an homage to God's creation. Their faith did not hinder them, it actually motivated them.
Since science (as we know it) is such a young institution (450 years old), this is hardly surprising. For at least the first 200 of those years, it could be rather unhealthy for anyone to contradict accepted church doctrine. And remember, Galileo actually had to recant his idea of heliocentrism. That seems like a bit of a hindrance to me.
It's also interesting to note that 93% of scientists belonging to the National Academy of Scientists are either atheist or agnostic.
I was just looking at some photos a very dear friend of mine took of the Pacific shore recently, and I remembered the following poem. This one's for you, Tina.
The shattered water made a misty din.
Great waves looked over others coming in,
And thought of doing something to the shore
That water never did to land before.
The clouds were low and hairy in the skies,
Like locks blown forward in the gleam of eyes.
You could not tell, and yet it looked as if
The shore was lucky in being backed by cliff,
The cliff in being backed by continent;
It looked as if a night of dark intent
Was coming, and not only night, an age.
Someone had better be prepared for rage.
There would be more than ocean water broken
Before God's last Put out the Light was spoken.
The entry for evolution on Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit, was altered 2,081 times by 68 editors between December 2001 and last October. IBM's Watson Research Center produced this image, which tracks the transformation. Each vertical line is a new version; each color is a different editor.
Read the explanation and the rest of the story here.
I have great admiration for Richard Dawkins, as many of you may know. Like Carl Sagan, he has done everyone a great service by making science obtainable to the lay person. And, like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins has spent a great deal of time fighting against irrational beliefs held by many in our society. Though he comes across many magnitudes more harshly than Dr. Sagan when he attacks religion, I find myself quite taken by his rhetoric.
Dr. Dawkins makes absolutely no apologies for the way he brings his arguments to bear. For example, in the recent Beyond Belief seminar, Neil deGrasse Tyson took Dawkins to task for his delivery methods:
You're professor of the Public Understanding of Science, not professor of Delivering Truth to the Public. And, these are two different exercises. One of them is...you put the truth out there and like you said, they either buy your book or they don't. Well, that's not being an educator, that's just putting it out there. Being an educator is not only getting the truth right, but there's gotta be an active persuasion in there as well. Persuasion isn't "here's the facts, you're either an idiot, or you're not." Persuasion is, "here's the facts, and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind and it's the facts and the sensitivity when convolved together creates impact."
And I worry that your, your methods and your, your, your... how articulately barbed you can be, ends up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence than what is currently reflected in your output.
To which Dawkins replied:
I gratefully accept the rebuke. Just one anecdote to show that I'm not the worst in this thing. A former and highly successful editor of New Science Magazine, who actually built up New Scientist to great new heights, was asked, "What is your philosophy at New Scientist?"
And he said, "Our philosophy at New Scientist is this. Science is interesting; and if you don't agree, you can fuck off."
Unlike Neil deGrasse Tyson (whom I also greatly admire), I'm not overly concerned with the way Dawkins conveys his message. I think he, like Sagan, fills a role in the scientific community.
Where Professor Dawkins and I part ways, however, is his notion that the religious indoctrination of youth equates to child abuse.
The following clip was recently put up on Richard Dawkins's site to lend credence to the whole idea of "religion=child abuse":
Now, personally, I'm border-line disgusted by this clap trap. I'm not so blinded by my own personal disgust, however, as to believe that every one of these kids is going to grow up believing this tripe. I was taught many of the same things when I was younger, but I grew out of it. In point of fact, I don't remember taking much of it all that seriously.
I ran across a very telling comment in response to the above video on Dawkins's site:
A bunch of zombies singing a zombie song to continue to feed their delusional zombie nation. They're turning our kids into vegetables.
But, they're not our kids, are they? I mean, if they were turning your kids into zombies, that would be an entirely different matter, wouldn't it? Though we might find it repugnant, these parents have every right to raise their children according to their world view. When you start evoking the phrase "child abuse", it means you are wholly prepared to act upon said phrase. After all, if the child is being "abused", society must take action against the abuser.
Do we take all of these kids away from their parents and put them in nice secular homes? Do we force these children to be secularized by mandating an education in science? Do we force the parents to attend secular counseling? I mean, what are you prepared to do in order to stop this "child abuse"? How far are you willing to go in order to ensure the "greater good"?
Listen, there are real, traumatic examples of child abuse in the name of Christian faith out there. One only has to read Spare the quarter-inch plumbing supply line, spoil the child to understand the lengths that some believers will go to twist scripture to conform to their dementia. These are the people society needs to be looking at, not the church goers in the film above.
So, yeah, there are many of us out there who believe that marketing ideas like these to children is repugnant:
Or...
Or even...
But we also realize that this is a battle of ideas. Nonsense like this cannot be countered with claims of "child abuse". It is countered in the marketplace of ideas. It is countered by the genius of Carl Sagan or Ann Druyan or Neil Tyson and even Richard Dawkins.
If we continue on with this idea of "child abuse", the consequences could be dire:
Children of Men is the first movie I've seen this year. Indeed, it's the first movie I've seen since I watched The Queen a couple of months back. Movies like this are kind of difficult for me to peg down after the first viewing. Not so much because of the content (being a science fiction fan, the theme of the movie was very interesting, and in my opinion, well played out), but because of the sheer brutality of the film. I don't remember seeing so much heart wrenching violence since I saw The Pianist some years back.
The post apocalyptic genre has always appealed to me. If you asked me why, I'm not sure I could explain. Maybe I just like the idea of a "fresh start". Sort of, "if I could form my own social dynamic, this is how I would do it". Or something.
Though Children of Men isn't post apocalyptic, it's right on the verge. It tells a story of humanity right on the very edge of extinction and it tells it pretty well. I have to wonder, however, if man were staring extinction right in the face, would it necessarily be played out this way?
Every science fiction movie or book that deals with this issue (that I've read) seem to imagine it the same way. We panic. We become xenophobic, authoritarian, fundamentally religious, etc.... In short, we become monsters hardly deserving of any reprieve.
I wonder why that is. I wonder if the science fiction writers have human nature correct when they trust us into their apocalyptic future.
In any case, I liked the movie. I wouldn't call it the "movie of the millennium" like some have, but I liked it.
One of the great things about having a blog is you get a chance to "flush" out your ideas. I don't much care for writing in long hand, so my written thoughts are mostly expressed here, for all to see. That being the case, the whole idea of "blogging the Bible" seemed like such a good idea when I started several days ago. I mean, what better way to point out the preposterous idea of biblical literalism than to put it out there for all to see.
From the very first second of putting this venture into practice, I ran into mental roadblocks. I couldn't seem to find a voice with which to express my ideas. Do I attempt to be witty? Scholarly? How do you manage being witty without being arrogant? How do you manage to be scholarly without having any real biblical education to bring to bear?
Then, of course, there's the completely correct notion (as Eric pointed out) that it's all been done before; so what's the point?
I explained why I was doing what I was doing in earlier posts. After a great deal of refection, I still strongly believe that those reasons are valid. However, the whole idea of "blogging the Bible" doesn't seem to be a "means to the end" anymore. In fact, after re-reading what I wrote, it seems kind of...silly.
So, I don't think I will continue "blogging the Bible". At least, not in the way I was doing. I'm still reading the Bible and a couple of ancillary sources as well. Perhaps I'll sparingly put down my thoughts as I go along. Or maybe not so sparingly, I don't know. In any case, what I do write won't be just a reaction to a quick reading of noted passages. I'd like to take some time to investigate further what is going on behind each story.
I remain convinced that literalism is a very dangerous interpretation of scripture. I am also convinced that one of the best ways to make this clear is to read the Bible with a literal interpretation in mind. Like I said in an earlier post, when you run across someone who identifies him/herself as a fundamentalist Christian, it is good to know exactly what that means; especially if said Christian subscribes to the idea of Dominionism.
There was an interesting blog entry on Reason's Hit and Run yesterday about a Scientology exhibit in the Missouri capitol building. To quote the piece:
The "Industry of Death" exhibit is sponsored by the Church of Scientology and makes a host of outrageous claims about the field of psychiatry. Twenty-five percent of psychiatrists sexually abuse their patients. Psychiatrists deliberately kill about 10,000 people a year - sounds about right. And for the big surprise, psychiatrists were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - guilty by association, at least, since psychiatrists are responsible for the existence of terrorists and suicide bombers.
Though the whole Scientology vs. Psychiatry issue was well aired during Tom Cruise's apparent national melt-down last year, I still find the whole thing rather disconcerting. The fields of psychiatry and psychology have done a rather nice job of fending this nonsense off, so that's not what really bothers me. I'm just wondering why the Church of Scientology was allowed to set up the exhibit in the rotunda of the Missouri capitol building. After all, the separation of church and state does not just apply to Christians, right?
It turns out, this wasn't really all that important to those who replied to the article. Many more people seemed to focus in on one of Radley Balko's personal statements. He, Radley Balko (the piece's author), adds an addendum to the post by saying:
I part ways with many of my fellow libertarians on the issue of mental health (that is, I disagree with those who think mental illness isn't real, and that psychiatry is a crock).
The whole conversation immediately devolves into a libertarian vs. psychiatry issue, with proponents of Thomas Szasz on one side and those who have suffered real mental illness on the other.
Now, I never really heard of Thomas Szasz until two years ago when Eric and I were walking around Powell's book store in Portland, Oregon. I was looking for some general psychology books and he said something to the effect of, "If you want a libertarian perspective on psychology (or psychiatry), you should pick up something by Thomas Szasz".
I inquired just who the heck Thomas Szasz was and Eric informed me that he was a libertarian writer who did not believe in the whole concept of "mental illness", or something to that effect.
I never really gave the issue another thought. I mean, in my experience, mental illness was entirely real and I didn't care if Mr. Szasz was a libertarian or not...he was simply wrong. I still haven't picked up anything by him, though currently I'm not opposed to the idea of investigating further.
From what I could glean from the comments, Thomas Szasz has a problem with how psychiatry treats the individual in order to fit them into some societal world view. Cure the individual and society will be better for it...stuff like that. Dr. Szasz also harshly criticizes the psychiatry field for involuntarily medicating and committing individuals for spurious reasons.
OK, I can identify with those beliefs. Maybe this Szasz guy isn't so bad after all, I don't know. We'll see if I have time later on to delve deeper.
What really cracked me up, however, was the appearance of the above picture in the comments section. Those two individuals are Tom Cruise and none other than Thomas Szasz. Now, I have no idea under what context this picture was taken and I draw very few conclusions from it.
It is pretty damn funny when you think about it though.
UPDATE. It appears that Thomas Szasz and the Church of Scientology have a working relationship with each other. Hmmmm. That makes me a bit more reluctant to take him seriously.
Sometimes you're placed in this really weird situation as a parent. You find yourself hoping that one particular thing is wrong with your child because it eliminates something else that may be much more serious. Let me explain.
Our younger daughter has been complaining of headaches on and off now for several months. According to her, they are painful but short lived. Recently, her headaches have been accompanied by spells of blurry vision. This is worrisome. Her mother took her to the eye doctor's office today to get her vision checked. Our theory was perhaps she has somewhat less than perfect vision and this is causing her headaches. To a parent, that theory is much more welcoming than the other way around...i.e., her headaches are causing her to have less than perfect vision.
So, while she was as the doctor's office, I found myself really hoping that the problem was her vision. Sure, she'd have to start wearing glasses at an early age, but what's the alternative? Even thinking about it raises serious alarms within that paternalistic section of my brain. I don't want to think about it. What I want is for her vision to be bad. I'm wishing one defect upon my child to protect her from another. Weird, right?
It turns out, her vision is perfect. In fact, the doctor said it's rare to see such "nicely formed optical nerves" in a child her age.
Crap.
Now we are stuck with uncertainty and mild anxiety. What, exactly is the root cause of these headaches? A quick jaunt to Google does nothing to quell my fears. In fact, it slightly bolsters them. Next come blood tests and I find myself thinking, "Well, maybe she's just anemic. Anemia is something we can deal with. Yeah, anemia is good." Come to find out, anemia doesn't lend itself to giving 6 year old children headaches with the occasional bout of blurry vision.
Of course, the obvious answer to all of this is it's probably nothing. Our daughter probably just happens to be one of the 98% of people who just get headaches for no knowable reason. It's the not knowing that worries me.
I've listened to NPR off and on for years now. A Prairie Home Companion is one of the most enduring shows on the radio. Though I know nothing about cars (and have really no desire to learn), Car Talk catches my rapt attention every time I hear it. Science Friday also deserves much admiration.
This American Life, however, stands heads and shoulders above all other programing on NPR. I simply can not express how well this show attempts to express the "human condition".
If you've never heard an episode of This American Life, head on over to their website and listen to a few shows via streaming audio. Then, head on over to iTunes and start downloading the weekly podcast. I promise you, it will be well worth your time.
I completely understand where Eric is coming from. It's very easy for me to imagine myself in his position. Let me put it in the best analogy I can think of.
For the sake of argument, let's say there is a ever expanding base of psychologists in this country who believe Sigmund Freud's works are the literal truth. For example, this sect of psychologists may interpret Freud's psychosexual or Oedipal complex theories as literal fact. To them, applying and practicing any other form of psychology is heresy, earning both the patient and the psychologist an eternity of mental illness.
Of course, this is a complete bastardization of psychological thought. Though many of today's psychologists realize the importance of Freud's work, they also understand that there is so much more. To fundamentally follow Freud ignores 99.9% of everything else. Gone are Adler, Jung, Skinner, Rogers and Erickson. Absent are the fields of Cognitive, Evolutionary, Behavioral, Linguistic, Forensic, Educational and even Positive psychology.
In short, to exclusively follow Freud's work, at the exclusion of everything else, would be complete madness.
Now, imagine if these "fundamentalist psychologists" were able to effectively force themselves upon society. They use the government to aggressively proselytize their message. They are able to organize and get legislation passed forbidding anything other that Freudian psychology to be practiced on the mentally ill in the third world. The list could go on and on.
Eric, a hypothetical skeptic of psychology (in this case), sees this trend developing for several years. He's always been a skeptic of psychology, but he simply can't take it anymore. He begins to speak out. He also has the idea of taking Freud's Interpretation of Dreams to task by disassembling it page by page on this very blog.
As someone who has steeped himself in psychological literature for the past two years, at best I'd be slightly bemused. At worst, I may be a bit agitated over the whole practice. As Eric himself said:
Trying to give it a such a straight, superficial reading without ancillary reference and pretending to understand it is almost like having a whispered message garbled by a game of telephone into purple monkey dishwasher-esque gibberish.
So, yeah, I get it.
There are two points to be made here.
First...I'm not pretending. From a fundamentalist point of view, I do understand the Bible. Taken literally, it's absolute madness. Fundamentalists have stripped the Bible of everything beautiful and turned it into one big misogynistic, homophobic, authoritarian nightmare. When someone says proudly that they are a fundamentalist Christian, I want people to know exactly what that means. When society at large is experiencing a fundamentalist groundswell of Christianity, I want everyone to know exactly what that means. If fundamentalists are deluded enough to actually believe that dinosaurs marched two by two onto Noah's Ark, taking the leap to publicly stoning your wife because she was not a virgin on their marriage night cannot be far behind. After all, that is literally in the bible.
Second...If the field of psychology were being so maliciously abused by "fundamentalists", I would expect a huge backlash from the mental health community. In fact, I would imagine that such a backlash would be so utterly devastating that "fundamentalist psychologists" would soon be relegated to the status of an obscure cult. And rightly so.
Right now, I don't see such a movement in the moderate Christian community. You don't see priests, preachers, nuns or aldermen standing up en-masse to counter the fundamentalist fervor. If such abusive harm were being carried out in the name of psychology, I would be agitating against it every day. Why? Because I love the field of psychology and I wouldn't allow it to be taken over by zealots without a fight. We absolutely need moderate Christians to stand up and do the same. The fact that they aren't can lead a person to any number of conclusions.
I am having second thoughts about "blogging the Bible", however. I've been having a long running dialogue with myself on this very issue. Pulling apart certain passages and saying "See! See how insane this is!" is kind of silly. As Eric said, it doesn't take long to deconstruct the Bible, and it's been done so many times before. So, I'm still not sure. I have to think on it a bit more.
I admitted to Eric in an email earlier today that I had not read much of the ancillary scholarship surrounding the Bible. Is there any out there among you who could recommend a book or two?
I was asked today why I thought it necessary to "blog the Bible". The person asking seemed to think it was a bit over the top; as if I were mocking the worst part of Christianity, and doing it boorishly.
I think he had a pretty good point, were that my objective.
I said from the outset that it wasn't my intention to mock anyone's faith. Granted, I don't think that any ideas are safe from strong, robust criticism (even strongly held religious beliefs), but I just don't have very much use for the "in your face" mentality.
So, why am I blogging the Bible?
The obvious answer is that I want to gain a better understanding of it. I haven't read it in years, and when I did, it was through the lens of either child-hood innocence or religiosity. I thought it might be beneficial to read it again with those lenses removed.
I'm not out to disabuse any Christian of their faith. I'm neither equipped or inclined to do such a thing. I do, however, want to point out just how fantastically preposterous a literal interpretation of the Bible really is. We live in an age where science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt (indeed, beyond any doubt at all) that biblical literalism is false. Modernity in ethics, morality, psychology and philosophy have demonstrated that to take a literalist view of the Bible is nothing less than insanity. And yet, in spite of it all, fundamentalist Christians refuse to go "gently into that good night".
Which would be OK, if they could only learn to stop pushing their beliefs on the unwilling.
I have no problem with the Bible, per say. So far, it is a fascinating piece of literature. It is certainly on par with the Iliad and the Odyssey. It also contains many lessons that can be taken to heart. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is so completely revolutionary...so perfect in its simplicity...so..."right" that it demands to be woven into our social fabric.
But, to take it any further...to take a literalist view of the Bible, makes no more sense than taking the Iliad or the Odyssey literally. We don't believe that Ares rained arrows down upon Agamemnon any more than we should believe that God flooded the earth to wipe out wickedness.
So, that is why I'm "blogging the Bible". Besides, it's good to be writing again.
Now, to address some of my lingering points from yesterday's post.
I think the whole "atheists have killed more people than Christians" argument is patently ridiculous. It almost sounds like the excuse Republicans continuously used early in the G.W.B. presidency. "Well, yeah, but Clinton did it too".
The idea that Hitler was an atheist is the easiest to debunk. It has been so roundly disproved that it hardly seems necessary to go into it here. One only has to think of the slogan "Gott Mitt Uns" to remember the horrors of Nazi Germany.
Stalin and Mao are a bit more difficult. History makes no bones about it; both were ardent atheists when it came to organized religion. But, so what? Stalin and Mao did not kill millions of people in the name of disbelief, they murdered them on the altar of a horribly irrational economic policy (Communism), shrouded in a narcissistic cult of personality. Stalin and Mao didn't have to believe in religion...they were religion: the Alpha and the Omega, the Christ-heads of their populations.
Lest that sounds a bit hyperbolic:
The term "fundamentalist atheist" is the most clever of the rhetorical tricks used in this whole debate. It's purpose is two-fold: to imply intolerance and to label atheism as a religion. I addressed the "atheism as a religion" canard in an earlier post, but it bears repeating. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of "theism". In essence, atheists are defined by the belief system of theists. Frankly, the entire label is counterproductive since it is privative. Besides, we have no such term for disbelievers in ESP or telekinesis, for example. The term non-believer may serve better, but I have my doubts as to whether that will catch on or not.
I was going to try to address the "intolerance" fallacy today, but I find I'm running out of time. I want to write about it in length so I don't want to do the subject injustice by hurrying through it. So, I'll take the keyboard up again tomorrow.
Before I continue on with my "Blogging the Bible" and other general a-theistic adventures, I just wanted to make a few points regarding my position. I've done quite a bit of reading this past month on this whole "new atheist" movement and though I glad the discussion is taking place, I've run across far too many false starts and misconceptions surrounding the whole debate. Though plenty of counter points have been made, I thought I'd add my own perspective to the "marketplace of ideas".
Before I begin, however, I'd want to try to explain why it is I've become more vocal on the matter. I touched on it a bit in my earlier post regarding Cal Thomas's points, but the issue bears more scrutiny.
Like I said before, I am becoming more vocal because I believe there is something intrinsically wrong with religion in America today. Specifically, my concerns lie with fundamentalist Christianity. Though, to be fair, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to give moderate Christianity a pass, as it seems to serve as a foundation for fundamentalists to build upon.
This isn't a respect issue. People have the right to believe what they want to believe, so long as they don't force it on me. That's a general axiom of a free society. Do what you want to do, but don't involve me against my will. It's simple enough. Christians should feel free to preach, teach, believe, convert and spread the "good news" to their hearts content, as long as they do not involve me unwillingly. Contrary to the current scare mongering, I know of no atheist who wants to forcefully strip Christianity from society. Would society be better off without organized religion? I happen to believe that it might...though I haven't been 100% convinced. That doesn't mean, however, that I want to force your beliefs away from you.
Of course, this is where the "semantics" game is played. There are far, far too many fundamentalist Christians in American today that are playing the "persecution card" with respects to their beliefs. Too many people believe that the idea of religious freedom gives them free license to spread their values in wholly totalitarian ways. For example:
-The Family Foundation of Virginia is pushing to get divorce laws changed in Virginia. They want to make it unlawful for parents to divorce unless both parents agree to the separation. I can't even begin to explain why this is such a monumentally dangerous idea. Though divorce can be perceived as a societal problem, it is also a very personal problem. The last thing two parents or their children need is the government to step in and force an unwilling partner to stay rooted in an untenable situation. These are problems best left up to the individual, their friends, their therapists and even their church...not the government.
-Though the thoroughly discredited idea of "Intelligent design" has suffered devastating defeats in both Kansas and Pennsylvania, many fundamentalist organizations are still attempting to get it on board in as many states as possible. They are attempting to cloak their faith in pseudo-science and then pass it along to children as an "alternate theory" to evolution. Look, like I said before, people can believe what they want. If you believe the earth is 6000 years old and created in 6 days, I have no truck with you...as long as you don't try to teach it to my kids without my permission.
-Perhaps most disturbing is the recent evangelical uprising in the United States military. These are people that took an oath to protect the secular Constitution of the United States. And yet, without much prodding, they will easily admit that their loyalty lies with a "higher power". Again, I have no problems with Christians in the military. However, once they start forcing their views upon a wholly captive audience by way of ostracizing, holding up promotions, and punishment, it becomes a serious problem. I was in the Army for 12 years and I'm here to tell you, you can get into serious problems just trying to sell Amway products to your subordinates. But somehow, Christianity gets a pass.
That's just one aspect of fundamentalism in the military. We are beginning to see very senior officers make public statements (in uniform, none-the-less) about how their faith in Jesus directs their actions. This is nothing less than treasonous. Our military represents and protects all of the United States, not just Christians. I don't want generals in the Army thumping their chests and spouting the "My God Vs. their God" argument. These people need to be drummed out of the service...immediately.
-When fundamentalist Christians promote abstinence as the only alternative to sexually transmitted diseases to people who have absolutely no context on the issue, it's absolutely insane. Africa is awash with the AIDS virus. It is so bad that the word "epidemic" is no longer hyperbolic. The only answer fundamentalists Christians will accept in the face of this horror is abstinence. This is, as Sam Harris put it, genocidally stupid. This is a very clear case where Christian morality is deadly, and nobody in their right mind should stand for it. Every cent of federal money needs to be immediately withdrawn from these people. Let them raise the money for their wacky ideas the old fashioned way.
I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg here. I'm speaking out because it is time for temperance to take hold of religion again. I shudder at the thought of a "Third Awakening". I would much happier to see another Renaissance.
I wanted to address a couple of errors in logic I've been seeing lately before I closed out this post. I don't think I'm going to get to them tonight, so I'll set myself up for a post tomorrow.
I wanted to talk about the labels "fundamentalist atheist" or "evangelical atheist". I also wanted to address this whole notion that atheism has killed far more people than religious dogma. (The person making these assumptions is usually talking about Hitler, Stalin and Mao). They are hugely successful "gotcha" statements to those not in the know. I will do my best to debunk them tomorrow.
Abraham's wife, Sarah, is having problems conceiving a child. She goes to Abraham and says:
Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
Why do I sense a soap opera moment looming ahead?
And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
In typical fashion, Sarah gets more than a little jealous at what's going on. She goes to Abraham and says:
My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
Abraham doesn't want to deal with all this drama, and he doesn't. He tells Sarah "Look, it's your problem. If your slave is causing you grief, deal with her any way you wish. And, boy oh boy, does Sarah take that to heart. She treats Hagar so badly that she runs away into the desert rather than dealing with her bitchiness any longer.
But, you can't hide from the Lord, don't you know. An angel came upon Hagar and commanded her to return to Sarah and submit to her wishes. In return, the angel promised Hagar that her seed would be voluminous.
So, Hagar tramps on back to camp and re-establishes herself. It's not told how she is treated once she gets back. But, hey, she's a slave...not only that, she's a slave that ran away. And, not only that...she's a slave that slept with Sarah's husband and is now carrying his child. You're guess is as good as mine, dear reader.
A short time later, Hagar gives birth to Ishmael, whom the Lord has said will be:
a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
To date, I'm not overly impressed with Abraham's character. He willingly allowed his wife to become a sexual servant (in order to avoid bodily harm), he slept with his wife's slave and after he knew that she conceived, allowed his wife to treat her any way she wished.
I'm not really seeing the "family values" connection here.
