Before my late wife died, she passed her Naturalization test. She never got to be sworn in.
I was reading the most recent version of the study questions for the civics portion of the Naturalization test. You can find it, along with a Naturalization self test on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.
A quick search of the study materials brought up zero mentions of God, Jesus, and Christianity. None whatsoever.
This is because the Constitution of the United States does not mention any deity. The only mention of religion is in Article VI - "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
People are losing their minds over the recent SCOTUS same-sex ruling, and claiming that America has lost its Christian foundation and that it is in its "last days" along with the rest of the world as Armageddon approaches.
But according to Christianity, we've been in our "last days" for the last 2,000 years. So pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
Showing posts with label Christian Nation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Nation. Show all posts
Belief in a divine enforcer precludes true morality.
I've written before of the Evangelical Christian fallacy that without God, atheists are allowed to do as they please, since they lack any moral guidelines.
Atheists find this argument to be troubling at best, and downright scary at the worst. If the only thing holding a Christian back from rape and murder is the fear of punishment, then such a person should be avoided!
It is also possible for a Christian (like Christian minister, Paul Jennings Hill) to use their religion to justify murder as an ethical action.
When a Christian is serious about basing their ethical guidelines on the Bible, it is reasonable to ask how they interpret the Bible in order to find those allowed by the Bible. Mr. Hill, for example, had an interpretation that may be very different from other people.
But all of this is a different argument.
I contend that the belief in a divine lawgiver and enforcer actually precludes ethical behavior on the part of the believer.
Let's make it clear. The Bible states that people who act in a manner that pleases God will be rewarded, and those who do not will be punished. Matthew 25:31-46 is quite clear that our actions will be judged.
We must question whether it is even possible to act in a moral manner when a person's very thoughts are under constant scrutiny and their actions and thoughts are being weighed to see if they are a "sheep" or a "goat". Whether or not a divine judge actually exists would seem to be beside the point. The real belief that a divine judge actually exists will influence a person's actions.
If a Christian does good, by giving to the poor, comforting the sick, or just being a friend in a time of need, there must remain some awareness that God's judgement upon them is tracking their actions and adding those actions to their "book of life". And this is more than action - the Bible makes it very clear that a Christian is even judged by his or her own thoughts.
Even if a Christian has the best of motives, even if they are truly altruistic, they must be aware at some level that their actions and thoughts are being monitored by the being that will judge them as being worthy of Heaven, or condemned for that other destination (which varies among the different Christian denominations.)
This knowledge reduces all lofty motives to the level of merely covering one's ass.
If you do good, some part of you knows you will be rewarded. If you do bad, that same part knows that you will be punished. Knowing this, how can a person claim that they are acting out of a moral purpose? How can a person act ethically when that person is under constant surveillance and a promise of reward or punishment for their thoughts and deeds?
I submit that it is only possible to act ethically when one is sure that there is no reward or punishment for one's actions. The true belief in the existence of God precludes true morality - only those people who act without the expectation of reward or punishment, now or in some afterlife, are capable of morality.
A true example of morality is an atheist who does good in secret, free from the judgement of humanity and divinity.
 |
| Paul Jennings Hill |
It is also possible for a Christian (like Christian minister, Paul Jennings Hill) to use their religion to justify murder as an ethical action.
When a Christian is serious about basing their ethical guidelines on the Bible, it is reasonable to ask how they interpret the Bible in order to find those allowed by the Bible. Mr. Hill, for example, had an interpretation that may be very different from other people.
But all of this is a different argument.
I contend that the belief in a divine lawgiver and enforcer actually precludes ethical behavior on the part of the believer.
Let's make it clear. The Bible states that people who act in a manner that pleases God will be rewarded, and those who do not will be punished. Matthew 25:31-46 is quite clear that our actions will be judged.
We must question whether it is even possible to act in a moral manner when a person's very thoughts are under constant scrutiny and their actions and thoughts are being weighed to see if they are a "sheep" or a "goat". Whether or not a divine judge actually exists would seem to be beside the point. The real belief that a divine judge actually exists will influence a person's actions.
If a Christian does good, by giving to the poor, comforting the sick, or just being a friend in a time of need, there must remain some awareness that God's judgement upon them is tracking their actions and adding those actions to their "book of life". And this is more than action - the Bible makes it very clear that a Christian is even judged by his or her own thoughts.
Even if a Christian has the best of motives, even if they are truly altruistic, they must be aware at some level that their actions and thoughts are being monitored by the being that will judge them as being worthy of Heaven, or condemned for that other destination (which varies among the different Christian denominations.)
This knowledge reduces all lofty motives to the level of merely covering one's ass.
If you do good, some part of you knows you will be rewarded. If you do bad, that same part knows that you will be punished. Knowing this, how can a person claim that they are acting out of a moral purpose? How can a person act ethically when that person is under constant surveillance and a promise of reward or punishment for their thoughts and deeds?
I submit that it is only possible to act ethically when one is sure that there is no reward or punishment for one's actions. The true belief in the existence of God precludes true morality - only those people who act without the expectation of reward or punishment, now or in some afterlife, are capable of morality.
A true example of morality is an atheist who does good in secret, free from the judgement of humanity and divinity.
The Villiage Idiots - move past them.
Some Christians I really agree with. This Christian gentleman had me saying, "AMEN!"
Silencing Christians
Pam's House Blend reported on the launching of the new AFA website called, "Silencing Christians". Apparently it's run by Don Wildmon's son Tim, who's following in his father's footsteps.
From Pam's website:
When he first announced this project, Wildmon had this to say:
On the "Silencing Christians" website, there is a survey. The survey asks thirteen questions, and gives "Yes, No, Maybe" multiple choice answers. However it would be better to answer these questions essay style.
For a site that is supposed to expose bias, these questions reveal a surprising amount of bias! I'll answer these questions here:
From Pam's website:
The premise is that Christians are under assault by homosexualists, enabled by state and local governments and schools, to force them to accept LGBTs as -- gasp -- human beings deserving of civil rights! They are careful to mention "former homosexuals" and those struggling with "unwanted same-sex attraction" in order to soothe and absolve the target audience of "Christians" that their motivations are rooted in compassion, not bigotry.Don Wildmon got this thing rolling back in February 2008 when he announced a 13 week half-hour television series called "Speechless... Silencing Christians" on the Inspiration cable network INSP. (Not available from any cable provider in my area.) After its run, he made it available as a streaming video online.
When he first announced this project, Wildmon had this to say:
For years, I have had a dream that AFA would find a way to produce and distribute TV programs addressing major moral issues, programs that explain how great the anti-Christian bias is in our society and that give viewers ways to respond.
On the "Silencing Christians" website, there is a survey. The survey asks thirteen questions, and gives "Yes, No, Maybe" multiple choice answers. However it would be better to answer these questions essay style.
For a site that is supposed to expose bias, these questions reveal a surprising amount of bias! I'll answer these questions here:
- Do you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin?
- Yes. Both in the New Testament and Old Testament. Jesus also condemns all women who divorce their husbands (for any offense) as adulterers. And Paul says Christians shouldn't sue each other in front of a secular judge. Perhaps we shouldn't be getting moral advice from a bunch of stories about amateur philosophers who lived a couple of thousand years ago?
- Can homosexuals change their sexual orientation?
- No one really knows for sure, but in many cases the answer seems to be "no".
- Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?
- Yes.
- Should homosexuals be given the same special rights extended to African-Americans and other minorities?
- What "special rights" have been given to blacks? The right to not be treated as chattel? The right to be treated equally? The right to an interracial marriage? The right to the same rights as other American citizens? The language you use here exposes more than a little racism.
- Should hate crimes legislation be passed that would call for more severe penalties for crimes against homosexuals?
- No. Hate crime legislation should be passed that gives equally severe penalties for a hate crime. In some states the penalty for a hate crime against a gay person is less than for a similar crime against an ethnic or religious minority. How is that fair?
- Do you believe that churches and religious organizations should be forced to hire homosexuals?
- No. They are private organizations. Just like the Boy Scouts. They should be allowed to ban anyone they want from their clubs. However, if they do so they should be denied government funding of any sort so that the State may remain neutral toward religion. If the State gives money to a group who bans some of the State's citizens, then endorsement of this practice is implied. How could citizens be equal in these conditions?
- Would you support a boycott of a major U.S. corporation that contributes money to support homosexual activist organizations?
- No. And judging from your results, neither should you. That boycott against Disney really brought them to their knees didn't it?
- Should judges be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court who support extending special rights to homosexuals?
- No. Judges should be appointed who support equal rights to all citizens, and who uphold the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Special rights - such as the special right that some non-profit organizations must pay taxes while others don't, should be closely examined for fairness.
- Should employers be forced to extend special consideration in the hiring of homosexuals?
- No. Employers should be forced to treat employees and potential employees equally in compliance with basic human rights and the rights that any American citizen has. In other words, no glass ceilings, no quid pro quo, no hiring minorities just because you need a "token", no firing employees because they refuse to believe in E-meters and Thetans, and no shuffling resumes to the bottom of the pile just because someone seems effeminate or butch.
- Is the secular media demonstrating a bias in favor of the homosexual agenda?
- I don't know. Which secular media do you mean? Fox News? Is the secular media less biased about the "homosexual agenda" than the religious media? I don't think so.
- Do you support amending the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman?
- No.
- Should children in public schools be taught homosexuality is normal, acceptable, and equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman?
- It depends on the age of the children. Should we teach drivers education to kindergarteners? Or maybe have woodshop for first graders? Sex education is important, and some subjects are important enough to be taught before puberty, while other subjects can wait for later. By the time puberty happens, some kids are going to realize they are not like their friends. They shouldn't have to feel like outcasts because of this - so it would be immoral to allow kids to think that it is right to treat homosexuals differently, unequally.
- Do you agree that Christians should be arrested for speaking against homosexuality in public places?
- No. I will gladly, vehemently defend a Christian's right to say whatever he feels is appropriate in a public place, as long as he or she doesn't break any law in doing so. (No yelling "Fire" in the theater.) However, I've noticed that preaching hate only gets a certain class of people to join your congregation. Is that who you really want as your membership?
What if the Rapture already happened, and you missed it? A Christian Halloween Story
What if the Rapture has already happened?
You would think someone would have noticed. The Bible paints the rapture as a very quick and noisy event.
There will be trumpets and dead people rising from their graves. People will disappear. Air liners full of people will go crashing to the ground as the pilots disappear. (Hm. And will it be a straight trip to Hell through a fireball's explosion for those remaining airline passengers? Wouldn't that be unfair, considering there will be people who have the chance to get right with God after the rapture?)
Everything in the Bible says that it will happen fast, with lots of fanfare and noise!
But... doesn't the Bible also claim that Jesus will return soon? "The day is at hand" said Paul, "The time is short!" James, traditionally thought of as the brother of Jesus also says that "the Lord's return is near!". By the time we get to 2 Peter in the bible, people are already starting to ask, "Where is he?"
When I ask when, approximately, will the end times happen I get different answers - depending on which Christian sect responds. The answer is all over the map - but from my own completely nonscientific polling, the overwhelming majority (5 out of 7) Christians that I've spoken to say that it will happen in their or their children's lifetime.
It's been 2,000 years now folks. Maybe we just don't have the same concept of time as a deity?
Maybe when God (assuming he exists) says "fast" it means something else. Maybe when he says "day" he really means "all in a day's work for me!"
For example, according to the Day-Age Creationist theory, each "day" of the creation story in the book of Genesis is equal to an age that is in accordance to the evidence of cosmology and evolution. The chronology of Archbishop James Ussher is inaccurate, according to this theory, because of a slightly different way of translating the Hebrew words for father and son to mean forefather and descendant.
So I can't help but wonder... if the idea of the return of Jesus in a timeframe of "soon" has been misconstrued, then perhaps we have made a similar mistake with the idea of the rapture happening "fast" or "in an instant".
After all, wouldn't all of the eternity of our universe be but an instant to the God that is described by Christians?
So maybe the rapture has been happening v e r y s l o w l y, in comparison to the human time frame.
Different Christian sects look at the rapture time frame differently. There are some who believe that the rapture will happen after the tribulation, and those who believe that the rapture will happen midway through the tribulation. But most evangelical Christians believe in the "Pre-tribulation rapture" - where the rapture will happen after certain prophesies are are fulfilled, and will be followed by a period of tribulations - just like the "Left Behind" series of books.
There is disagreement about the accuracy of prophecies in the Bible. Perhaps the prophecies won't happen in the manner described in popular Christian works. Maybe they have been fulfilled in a way that we mere mortals wouldn't recognize in order to prevent interference with our free will.
Let's think about the "Christian dead rising from their graves" - if it happened one at a time over a period of a couple of hundred years - would anyone notice? Especially if they just faded out of their caskets or other final resting places.
And people disappear all the time. Wandered off, run away, missing in action. Their missing person report would go into the cold case files and will be a curiosity for some future researcher. How many thousands of people go missing each year? How many over the last few centuries? Perhaps it would be enough to fill up Heaven.
So, with all these Christian objections dispersed with some hand waving - wouldn't it be an interesting idea to think that the Rapture happened already - that no one noticed - that we are already living in the time of tribulation?
It's kind of a scary thought - especially if you are one of those Christians who are absolutly certain that you'll be one of those who are "taken up".
It's obvious that this goes against mainstream Christian mythology. Still, I think it is a fascinating subject to consider.
I wonder if it could be made into a Christian "Twilight Zone" episode?
You would think someone would have noticed. The Bible paints the rapture as a very quick and noisy event.
There will be trumpets and dead people rising from their graves. People will disappear. Air liners full of people will go crashing to the ground as the pilots disappear. (Hm. And will it be a straight trip to Hell through a fireball's explosion for those remaining airline passengers? Wouldn't that be unfair, considering there will be people who have the chance to get right with God after the rapture?)
Everything in the Bible says that it will happen fast, with lots of fanfare and noise!
But... doesn't the Bible also claim that Jesus will return soon? "The day is at hand" said Paul, "The time is short!" James, traditionally thought of as the brother of Jesus also says that "the Lord's return is near!". By the time we get to 2 Peter in the bible, people are already starting to ask, "Where is he?"
When I ask when, approximately, will the end times happen I get different answers - depending on which Christian sect responds. The answer is all over the map - but from my own completely nonscientific polling, the overwhelming majority (5 out of 7) Christians that I've spoken to say that it will happen in their or their children's lifetime.
It's been 2,000 years now folks. Maybe we just don't have the same concept of time as a deity?
Maybe when God (assuming he exists) says "fast" it means something else. Maybe when he says "day" he really means "all in a day's work for me!"
For example, according to the Day-Age Creationist theory, each "day" of the creation story in the book of Genesis is equal to an age that is in accordance to the evidence of cosmology and evolution. The chronology of Archbishop James Ussher is inaccurate, according to this theory, because of a slightly different way of translating the Hebrew words for father and son to mean forefather and descendant.
So I can't help but wonder... if the idea of the return of Jesus in a timeframe of "soon" has been misconstrued, then perhaps we have made a similar mistake with the idea of the rapture happening "fast" or "in an instant".
After all, wouldn't all of the eternity of our universe be but an instant to the God that is described by Christians?
So maybe the rapture has been happening v e r y s l o w l y, in comparison to the human time frame.
Different Christian sects look at the rapture time frame differently. There are some who believe that the rapture will happen after the tribulation, and those who believe that the rapture will happen midway through the tribulation. But most evangelical Christians believe in the "Pre-tribulation rapture" - where the rapture will happen after certain prophesies are are fulfilled, and will be followed by a period of tribulations - just like the "Left Behind" series of books.
There is disagreement about the accuracy of prophecies in the Bible. Perhaps the prophecies won't happen in the manner described in popular Christian works. Maybe they have been fulfilled in a way that we mere mortals wouldn't recognize in order to prevent interference with our free will.
Let's think about the "Christian dead rising from their graves" - if it happened one at a time over a period of a couple of hundred years - would anyone notice? Especially if they just faded out of their caskets or other final resting places.
And people disappear all the time. Wandered off, run away, missing in action. Their missing person report would go into the cold case files and will be a curiosity for some future researcher. How many thousands of people go missing each year? How many over the last few centuries? Perhaps it would be enough to fill up Heaven.
So, with all these Christian objections dispersed with some hand waving - wouldn't it be an interesting idea to think that the Rapture happened already - that no one noticed - that we are already living in the time of tribulation?
It's kind of a scary thought - especially if you are one of those Christians who are absolutly certain that you'll be one of those who are "taken up".
It's obvious that this goes against mainstream Christian mythology. Still, I think it is a fascinating subject to consider.
I wonder if it could be made into a Christian "Twilight Zone" episode?
Voters with secular values matter
The Secular Coalition for America has been having a contest to remind the candidates that the Secular community does matter, and that we do vote.
The challenge is to create a YouTube video that asks a question as if the candidate(s) were watching and listening.
You can find the instructions and a sample of videos here, and the results will be published here. The contest ends on October 24th.
Here's a sample:
The challenge is to create a YouTube video that asks a question as if the candidate(s) were watching and listening.
You can find the instructions and a sample of videos here, and the results will be published here. The contest ends on October 24th.
Here's a sample:
The marriage of John and Lisa
Let me tell you a story...
When Lisa and John got married, it turned out that John was infertile. He couldn't father a baby. So, out of love the couple looked for another option. Through artificial insemination the happy couple was able to conceive a child - Isabella.
But the marriage - like so many - didn't last. Lisa wasn't happy with John, and by the time Isabella was 17 months old Lisa took Isabella and walked out. She moved from Vermont to Virginia, legally ended the marriage, and filed for child support from John.
But Vermont ruled that in addition to child support, John was also granted visitation rights for Isabella.
This really didn't sit well with Lisa - she didn't want John to have visitation rights. But she didn't have the means to fight it either. So she did something unusual. Lisa joined a religious cult, and asked them to protect her. In exchange for legal representation, Lisa would give the cult the right to exploit her however they saw fit.
This religious group worked very hard to keep John away from Isabella, and was successful for almost 5 years. But the law has finally caught up with Lisa - and she's facing possible federal charges over the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. If convicted, John could gain sole custody of Isabella, of the daughter that isn't biologically his, but is his by love. The daughter that this evil cult worked so hard to keep separate from John.
If I ended the story right there - and you knew nothing more - how would you feel about it? Would your sympathies lie with John, or with his ex-wife Lisa?
After all, it's not as if Isabella is John's biological daughter. He doesn't have any right to her, does he? Or maybe you think that because John and Lisa were married that John should automatically have rights as a father?
But that's not the real story - it didn't happen quite that way.
There never was a "John". The father's name is Janet. Janet Jenkins is Isabella's second mother, and Janet and Lisa were joined by a legal civil union in the state of Vermont.
Most of the rest of the story is true. When Lisa couldn't get child support while denying visitation to Janet, she turned to a particularly nasty form of religion for help. In exchange for legal representation from Liberty Counsel, Lisa has been acting as a poster-child for the Christian Ex-Gay movement. She tells people that Christianity cured her of being homosexual.
It is an arrangement of convenience, a type of prostitution.
I hope Isabella is healthy and thriving. I wish her nothing but the best. And some day I hope she gets at least regular visits with her second mother.
When Lisa and John got married, it turned out that John was infertile. He couldn't father a baby. So, out of love the couple looked for another option. Through artificial insemination the happy couple was able to conceive a child - Isabella.
But the marriage - like so many - didn't last. Lisa wasn't happy with John, and by the time Isabella was 17 months old Lisa took Isabella and walked out. She moved from Vermont to Virginia, legally ended the marriage, and filed for child support from John.
But Vermont ruled that in addition to child support, John was also granted visitation rights for Isabella.
This really didn't sit well with Lisa - she didn't want John to have visitation rights. But she didn't have the means to fight it either. So she did something unusual. Lisa joined a religious cult, and asked them to protect her. In exchange for legal representation, Lisa would give the cult the right to exploit her however they saw fit.
This religious group worked very hard to keep John away from Isabella, and was successful for almost 5 years. But the law has finally caught up with Lisa - and she's facing possible federal charges over the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. If convicted, John could gain sole custody of Isabella, of the daughter that isn't biologically his, but is his by love. The daughter that this evil cult worked so hard to keep separate from John.
If I ended the story right there - and you knew nothing more - how would you feel about it? Would your sympathies lie with John, or with his ex-wife Lisa?
After all, it's not as if Isabella is John's biological daughter. He doesn't have any right to her, does he? Or maybe you think that because John and Lisa were married that John should automatically have rights as a father?
But that's not the real story - it didn't happen quite that way.
There never was a "John". The father's name is Janet. Janet Jenkins is Isabella's second mother, and Janet and Lisa were joined by a legal civil union in the state of Vermont.
Most of the rest of the story is true. When Lisa couldn't get child support while denying visitation to Janet, she turned to a particularly nasty form of religion for help. In exchange for legal representation from Liberty Counsel, Lisa has been acting as a poster-child for the Christian Ex-Gay movement. She tells people that Christianity cured her of being homosexual.It is an arrangement of convenience, a type of prostitution.
I hope Isabella is healthy and thriving. I wish her nothing but the best. And some day I hope she gets at least regular visits with her second mother.
Serena Joy casts her vote for Colorado to become the "Republic of Gilead"
I saw this on the Pharyngula blog, so there is a good chance that most of my readers have already seen this.
There is an initiative to amend the Colorado state constitution to redefine "person" to include any fertilized ovum.
From the PDF link to this law:
At one point in time I spent a few weeks hanging out on a "pro life" forum, asking questions, putting out my views, and being used as the local Internet piñata by those who rabidly supported the notion that any fertilized ovum had the exact same rights as any human.
I came to the conclusion that most of the followers in this movement have their hearts in the right place, but their ideals are NOT based upon reality, and if implemented can cause a great deal of harm. As for the leaders of these movements, it seems to me many of them jealously guard their leadership positions because of the authority that is granted through their organizations. (Randall Terry is a good example of how even this power corrupts.)
Miscarriage happens in as much as 20% of all recognized pregnancies, and maybe as often as 50% of all pregnancies. The lifestyle of the woman increases the risk factors of miscarriage, so it is possible, or even likely that a woman could be charged for manslaughter due to her risky lifestyle. Stress, exercise, prescribed medication for illness may all cause sub-optimal conditions that cause a blastocyst to fail to implant.
For example, sprinter and two time Gold medal winner Torri Edwards might, if she were sexually active during training for the 2008 Olympics, be guilty of "manslaughter" for failing to recognize that her training regime would make her much more likely to spontaneously abort. Under this law, Edwards wouldn't be allowed even the use of birth control pills, and would have to rely on mechanical methods of contraception - or abstain.
Perhaps Colorado would knock itself out of any future Olympic considerations when it announces that not only will olympians be checked for doping, but women atheletes will be subjected to daily pregnancy tests. We don't just take an athelete's word that they are not using drugs - so it is logical that we wouldn't take their word about sexual activity either.
And why would it stop only at the Olympic level? You could easily make the case for mandatory pregnancy testing at the college level too.
I've written before about what could happen when we define a fertalized ovum as a person. It is not a pretty picture, and it is the first step to declaring women to be a second-class citizen. The outcome would be a world much like that of "Handmaid's Tale". Any woman who votes for this amendment is voting against her own freedom.
There is an initiative to amend the Colorado state constitution to redefine "person" to include any fertilized ovum.
From the PDF link to this law:
It bears repeating that this is A REALLY BAD IDEA!Amendment 48
Definition of Person
- Ballot Title: An amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person"
- to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those
- provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice,
- and due process of law.
- Text of Proposal:
- Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
- SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE
- ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
- Section 31. Person defined. AS USED IN SECTIONS 3, 6, AND 25 OF ARTICLE II OF
- THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE TERMS "PERSON" OR "PERSONS" SHALL INCLUDE ANY
- HUMAN BEING FROM THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION.
At one point in time I spent a few weeks hanging out on a "pro life" forum, asking questions, putting out my views, and being used as the local Internet piñata by those who rabidly supported the notion that any fertilized ovum had the exact same rights as any human.
I came to the conclusion that most of the followers in this movement have their hearts in the right place, but their ideals are NOT based upon reality, and if implemented can cause a great deal of harm. As for the leaders of these movements, it seems to me many of them jealously guard their leadership positions because of the authority that is granted through their organizations. (Randall Terry is a good example of how even this power corrupts.)
Miscarriage happens in as much as 20% of all recognized pregnancies, and maybe as often as 50% of all pregnancies. The lifestyle of the woman increases the risk factors of miscarriage, so it is possible, or even likely that a woman could be charged for manslaughter due to her risky lifestyle. Stress, exercise, prescribed medication for illness may all cause sub-optimal conditions that cause a blastocyst to fail to implant.
For example, sprinter and two time Gold medal winner Torri Edwards might, if she were sexually active during training for the 2008 Olympics, be guilty of "manslaughter" for failing to recognize that her training regime would make her much more likely to spontaneously abort. Under this law, Edwards wouldn't be allowed even the use of birth control pills, and would have to rely on mechanical methods of contraception - or abstain.
Perhaps Colorado would knock itself out of any future Olympic considerations when it announces that not only will olympians be checked for doping, but women atheletes will be subjected to daily pregnancy tests. We don't just take an athelete's word that they are not using drugs - so it is logical that we wouldn't take their word about sexual activity either.
And why would it stop only at the Olympic level? You could easily make the case for mandatory pregnancy testing at the college level too.
I've written before about what could happen when we define a fertalized ovum as a person. It is not a pretty picture, and it is the first step to declaring women to be a second-class citizen. The outcome would be a world much like that of "Handmaid's Tale". Any woman who votes for this amendment is voting against her own freedom.
Bibles to Baghdad – the Subtle Crusade and why it breaks American law.
Religious groups have been exploiting the US Military Postal Service to flood Iraq and the surrounding region with bibles since shortly after the World Trade Center atrocity. These organized religious operations operate under the stated goal of sending bibles to the troops, but the results tend to imply another unstated goal, the creation of a “subtle” Crusade that witnesses to and attempts to convert Muslims in and around Iraq.Before the invasion of Iraq one organization, Campus Crusade for Christ, through their Military Ministry set up a program that would allow anyone to send a solder something called a “Rapid Deployment Kit”. These kits each contain a New Testament Bible, a written 90-day prayer devotional, and a ‘how to’ booklet used to instruct solders in the methods of witnessing to others. In other words this is a ‘religious conversion kit’ designed to help Christians proselytize and it is meant to be given to new Christians to reinforce their conversion and assist them in witnessing to others.
Initially these kits were sent to soldiers wherever a solder or the family of a soldier requested. But the number of kits ‘deployed’ rapidly increased. To date, Campus Crusade for Christ boasts that over 1.8 million Rapid Deployment Kits have been sent to members of the US military. And while some of the Campus Crusade websites are vague about which countries these kits are being sent, other Campus Crusade websites strongly imply that they are all going to soldiers in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
1.8 million pocket sized bibles – that’s over 257 thousand bibles a year. There are about 150 thousand American troops in Iraq, and another 30 thousand in Afghanistan and Kuwait. Many of these soldiers are on their third or fourth rotation, and most troops have been deployed to the Iraq multi-national force at least twice.
This means that new bibles are coming in every year to soldiers who are likely to have already received one of these bibles during their last tour of duty. If every soldier serving in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan gladly accepted a brand new bible every year, there would still be a surplus of 77 thousand bibles per year.This leads to the obvious question – where are all the extra “Rapid Deployment Kits” going?
Campus Crusade for Christ is not the only organization sending bibles to the Middle East through the US Military. Tim Todd Ministries, of Revival Fires fame, is sending bibles by the box to Iraq and Afghanistan. Tim Todd’s bibles seem to be designed to look like the standard Good News Translation Armed Forces Military Edition, but the cover is slightly different, and the bible contains, “… devotionals and study helps specifically for U.S. Military”. Another organization, the Open Window Foundation’s, “Operation Worship” set a goal to send a hundred thousand bibles to soldiers over a period of a hundred days.
Individuals, like Brad Blauser, have also sent bibles to Iraq. Blauser sent 550 Zondervan “Starting Point Study Bibles” in 2006, with a goal to send 6,000 bibles in 2007. I have no idea how many bibles he has sent since then.
Obviously Mr. Blauser’s operation isn’t of the same scale of Campus Crusade for Christ, but there are a lot of individuals like Mr. Blauser, and from speaking to my religious friends I’ve personally heard of two Fresno churches that are also sending bibles to Iraq. That’s an unscientific and statistically meaningless sample – but it is easy to assume that there are others doing the same thing. I’m guessing, but I would not be surprised to learn that half a million bibles and associated materials are being sent to US military members in Iraq and the surrounding area every year.
Is this legal?
Campus Crusade for Christ, Tim Todd Ministries, Operation Worship, and Brad Blauser all have something other than bibles in common. They are all breaking Federal law, and they are encouraging military members to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice – the laws to which all troops must abide.The specific laws that they are breaking are the Federal Laws that provide for free or low-cost delivery of mail through the Military Postal System (MPS) – Title 39, Part 9, Chapter 3401 of Federal Code. This section details the way in which military members are allowed to post “free mail”. It also allows anyone located in the United States to post mail to military members serving overseas using domestic mail rates. Mail sent to APO / FPO addresses may be sent using standard postage – the mail is then collected at the APO or FPO and shipped using military transport to its final destination.
The Department of Defense Directive, Postal Manual DoD 4525.6-M (PDF) quotes Title 39 of the Federal Code as its authority to direct the actions of servicemen who work in Military Post Offices. This manual clearly states that military members are not allowed to receive mail as an “in care of” address for those who are not authorized to use the MPS.
Military members are not allowed to use the MPS as their own shipping pipeline for profit or non-profit purposes. For example, although military members or their spouses may be allowed to work from on-base housing, they are not allowed to ship products for their business through MPS. Mary Kay and Amway distribution through the MPS is strictly forbidden.
Even non-profit, charitable efforts are not authorized. Recently the Stars and Stripes Newspaper wrote about Operation Care, a grass roots effort to distribute donations from Americans to needy people in Afghanistan. Organized by military volunteers in Bagram Afghanistan, Operation Care solicited donations that were delivered through the Military Postal Service and then distributed to Afghanis. While commendable, it was against both Federal and military regulations.
In 2006, Operation Care processed 16 tons of goods. When this organization’s practices were brought to the attention of the Military Postal Service, the MPS ordered them to stop. From the follow-up Stars and Stripes article:
"Although Operation Care is a noble cause, it is in direct violation of multiple DoD (Department of Defense) Policies listed in the DoD Postal Manual 4525.6-M," wrote Army Col. David Ernst, deputy director of the Military Postal System Agency in an e-mail addressed to members of the group and various civilian and military officials.The military is actually being very kind to those who volunteer for Operation Care. It would have been well within their rights to bring those responsible before courts-martial. Military members involved are guilty of violating articles 92 and 134 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and could be subject to anything from reduction in rank, to imprisonment plus forfeiture of rank and benefits.
"I appreciate your cooperation in helping to end the illegal use of the MPS to operate a business and transport humanitarian items for distribution," he wrote. "Please direct them to seek an alternative means to conduct Operation Care."
It would be possible, but more difficult to prosecute those civilians in America who organized the donations for Operation Care.
All of the organizations detailed here deliver bibles exclusively through the Military Postal Service.
This leads to the second obvious question – why are Christians getting this ‘free pass’ to flout the law?
The military does not like to be embarrassed. Article 134 forbids embarrassing actions by forbidding, “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces”. But maybe they just don't know what is going on?
At approximately a quarter-pound per Rapid Deployment Kit, it is difficult for the military to ignore that the MPS is shipping well over 30 tons of these kits each year. This number only accounts for the Campus Crusade for Christ’s shipments, the tonnage is likely doubled because other organizations use larger bibles that contain both the old and new testament. Operation Care’s mere 16 tons of delivered goods doesn’t come close in comparison.
Presumably the US military has noticed this drain on their resources. Operation Care was founded in 2006 and was noticed and warned in 2008. Campus Crusade for Christ’s effort has been ongoing since 2002, and they have received no equivalent warning. It is reasonable to assume that the US military is not embarrassed to assist with flooding bibles into to an Islamic country. This implies governmental approval of this subtle crusade.
And the supposition that "the troops need bibles" is somewhat faulty. Military chaplains may order bibles through the military supply system in order to give them to troops who ask for them. Although the supply system is slower than MPS, ordering bibles through it can be logistically planned for in advance.
So assuming that the US Military realizes that they are flooding Islamic areas with bibles, it could also be assumed that they approve of the practice. Perhaps I'm building a house of cards here, but the Christianization of the US armed forces has been well documented (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4).
I am all for military members getting what they want and need. Every soldier who wants a bible, or the Torah, or Talmud, or Qu'ran or any other religious text should be able to have one. And if the military supply system can't get a religious text to a solder then kind donations through the Military Postal Service should certainly take up the slack.
But just how many bibles should each soldier receive? And just what do these Christian agencies expect soldiers to do with all those surplus bibles?
I have written three other, shorter entries on the ongoing effort to flood Iraq with bibles, which can be read here. I am currently preparing one more entry on the subject of sending bibles to Iraq, so keep checking back.
Crossposted to ExChristian.net
Only in a Christian Nation - Subjugate your spouse!
I've been doing some work on upcoming blog entries. One of the biggest problems I have in writing is when a word that I want to use slips away from me when I actually try to write it. This is VERY frustrating, so I have several bookmarks that I go to when I need to find that word again.
I bookmark the Merriam Webster dictionary, the OneLook Reverse Dictionary, and Thesaurus.com. Two of these services are ad supported, and of course the content of the ads is based on the context of the search term, so it is possible to get some weird advertising if you look up strange words.
Still, I was stunned into laughter just now, when I looked up the word "subjugate" in the oneline thesaurus. Here are the three contextual advertisments that Google Adsense thought to be the best fit:
I bookmark the Merriam Webster dictionary, the OneLook Reverse Dictionary, and Thesaurus.com. Two of these services are ad supported, and of course the content of the ads is based on the context of the search term, so it is possible to get some weird advertising if you look up strange words.
Still, I was stunned into laughter just now, when I looked up the word "subjugate" in the oneline thesaurus. Here are the three contextual advertisments that Google Adsense thought to be the best fit:
Sponsored LinksHow disappointing. There is absolutely NO advertising for Dr. Horrible or Cthulhu.
Punished Wife
Punished Wife (1987) Movie Reviews, Ratings, & Rankings
Movies.TopTenReviews.com
Is Your Husband Gay?
5 Signs Your Husband Is Gay. Browse Our Free Articles Now!
www.LifeScript.com
How to Love Your Spouse
A Proven System. Guaranteed Results Get Free Marriage Help Immediately.
MarriageMax.com
Religious Extremism Toward Teachers of Evolution
Blake Stacey is a writer that I admire very much - and now this... I'm quoting a recent post by Blake Stacey in full here, because I think it has direct bearing on what I've been doing over the weekend. Don't worry, the author was thoughtful enough to allow me to copy it through a Creative Commons license. Just check out Blake Stacey's website for more great writing.
=====
Creation, Power and Violence
by Blake Stacey
Science after Sunclipse blog
=====
Creation, Power and Violence
by Blake Stacey
Science after Sunclipse blog
The amount of hatred one can earn simply by speaking one’s mind and doing one’s job never fails to astonish me. All the more remarkable is how the people who hate so viciously are the very ones you’d expect to be tolerant, or at least quietly begrudging — people whose ancestors, both familial and ideological, were themselves the targets of bigotry in generations past, when different powers were the oppressors. Yet today, even in a country which prides itself on a long list of freedoms, speaking the plain, factual truth of the world is a sure way to win oneself ire, derision and abuse.
Both history and current events teach us that forces of prejudice and inequity oppose the dissemination of truth to certain sectors of society. As recently as 2006, the Afghan schoolteacher Mohammed Halim was drawn and quartered by motorbikes, the remains of his body put on display so that others would think twice before defying Taliban law and committing the unforgivable crime of teaching female children. I doubt the Taliban thugs who beat the algebra teachers of Ghazni have any particular animosity towards the mathematics; given a moment’s reflection, they might wholeheartedly support the math lessons necessary to train engineers who then build weapons to be used against the United States. The crime in their eyes, I’d wager, is not the material, but the audience.
In the country where I grew up and am writing now, the story is a little different: most of the time, hatred against educators does not escalate to physical violence, although threats of violence are common enough, and most of the time, the factor provoking abuse is not the audience, but the lesson itself.
The plain truth I’m talking about is the biological principle of evolution. The single most powerful idea in biology, this discovery has withstood decades of criticism to emerge triumphant as one of the most well-checked propositions in human history. Learn about evolution, and you can go to work on diseases, or help find out where species both living and extinct fit into the family tree of life. You can understand the living world, and help preserve human life within it.
Open your mouth about evolution around the wrong people, though, and you can find yourself harassed, ejected from your job and even beaten in the street.
Just ask these people.
Steve Bitterman was an instructor who taught the Western Civilization course at Southwestern Community College in Red Oak, Iowa. In 2007, at the age of sixty, he was fired because he did not teach the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth. (How many faithful Christians there are in this country who see that story as an allegory, and a powerful, meaningful one, of the loss of innocence!) “I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here,” he said afterward. “From my point of view, what they’re doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century.”
Alex Bolyanatz was an assistant professor of anthropology at Wheaton College, a Protestant liberal-arts college in Illinois. He had been popular with both students and his fellow teachers, but in the spring of 2000, he received a letter from his provost issuing a stern rebuke: “During your term at Wheaton College,” Stanton Jones wrote, “you have failed to develop the necessary basic competence in the integration of Faith and Learning, particularly in the classroom setting.” Jones castigated Bolyanatz for not treating creationism with respect and instead teaching evolution as the plain, scientific truth. Bolyanatz had repeatedly made the point that evolution did not conflict with his own religious faith, but claiming that “The evolutionary model does not discount faith” was not enough to save his job. His experience parallels that of Howard J. Van Till, who taught physics at Calvin College in Michigan. When Van Till made the modest claims that evolution had been scientifically proven and that Biblical texts were influenced by the cultures in which they’d been written, angry community members pressured Calvin College’s Board of Trustees into forming an investigative committee, which subjected Van Till to four years of inquiry. He was, eventually, cleared, but not until the committee had performed, he said, “a test of the entirety of my theological position.”
Likewise, Richard Colling graduated from Olivet Nazarene University and taught there for twenty-seven years. A man of strong religious convictions, he argued that one could believe in the Christian God and still accept the scientific truth of evolution. In 2004, he published a book about this belief, and for his pains, he was barred from teaching general biology or having his book used in the school.
Colling had been granted tenure, so that at least his job and paycheck were secure, even though the ejection from the community he loved brought him significant anguish. Nancey Murphy of Fuller Theological Seminary did not have that shield, and so when her negative review of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial aroused Johnson’s ire, she had to fight for her job. Johnson, a lawyer who was one of the instigators in rebranding creationism as “Intelligent Design,” has never displayed a grasp of basic biological facts, but that didn’t stop him from calling up a Fuller trustee and starting a campaign to get Nancey Murphy fired.
Gwen Pearson taught biology at the Permian Basin branch of the University of Texas, located in the city of Odessa. Her three years as an assistant professor ended with assaults on her integrity and her physical self:
This all became a great deal more serious when I began to get messages on my home answering machine threatening to assist me in reaching hell, where I would surely end up. I also received threatening mail messages: “The Bible tells us how to deal with nonbelievers: ‘Bring those who would not have me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ May Christians have the strength to slaughter you and end your pitiful, blasphemous life!”
An envelope containing student evaluations from my evolution class was tampered with. A student wrote a letter to the president of the university claiming that I said in class that “anyone who believes in God gets an F.” Despite the fact that she had never been in my class, and it was clearly untrue, a full investigation of the charge ensued.
There were other problems. Often I arrived in class to find “Dr. Feminazi” scrawled on the blackboard. An emotionally disturbed student assaulted me on campus. In town, Maurice Sendak’s award-winning book Where the Wild Things Are was removed from school libraries, as it might “confuse children as to the true nature of Beelzebub.” The California-based Institute for Creation Research (ICR) preached in the county stadium to 10,000 local people.
I finally resigned when I received an admonition from the dean in my yearly reappointment letter to “accommodate the more intellectually conservative students with a low threshold of offensibility” in my evolution course. Rather than compromise my academic freedom, I chose to leave what seemed to be a dangerous place.
Pearson was faced with an intolerable situation — people who had seemingly never contemplated the nobility of forgiveness — and left of her own volition, but Chris Comer was not so lucky. A dedicated employee of the Texas Education Agency, Comer was serving as Director of Science when she forwarded a brief e-mail message mentioning that the philosopher Barbara Forrest would be giving a talk at an Austin public events center. Forrest and her colleague Paul Gross are authors of Creationism’s Trojan Horse, a book which details how creationism has masqueraded as serious science in order to slip particular religious beliefs into the public schools. For sending a brief “FYI,” Comer was forced to resign.
Paul Mirecki was professor of religious studies and department chair at the University of Kansas. He planned to teach a class called “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies,” but canceled those plans after two men beat him in the street one December morning. He had displayed an acerbic tongue in online discussion forums, and he later apologized for his less temperate remarks; neither that apology nor sympathy for a physically assaulted human being stayed the KU administration, who forced him to step down as department chair.
The real occurrence of violence gives death threats a certain cachet of intimidating force. Eric Pianka, a biologist at UT Austin, gave a speech before the Texas Academy of Science, which was presenting him with a distinguished-service award. In his speech, he articulated his fears that overpopulation will lead to a disaster for the human species. The story then took a twist which a fiction writer would be hard-pressed to surpass: a creationist named Forrest Mims claimed that Pianka advocated releasing the Ebola virus to eliminate 90% of the world’s population. Other creationists, like William Dembski, soon picked up the story, leading to online hysteria. Within days, Pianka himself and others in the Texas Academy of Science received death threats.
“I don’t bear any ill will towards anybody,” Pianka told one reporter, and elaborated: “I’ve got two granddaughters, man. I’m putting money in a college fund for my granddaughters. I’m worried about them.”
The issue of creationism has been simmering for decades, sometimes frothing up into great legal battles which attract widespread attention. The most recent of these watershed events happened in Dover, Pennsylvania, where a school board tried to push “Intelligent Design” into the science classrooms.
Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican and faithful Lutheran, delivered a landmark verdict in which he summarized the claims of Intelligent Design proponents as “breathtaking inanity.” Once the verdict was revealed, Judge Jones became the target of character assassination and even received death threats for the crime of doing his job.
His decision put Judge Jones on the cover of Time Magazine, but you don’t have to be famous to have someone get very upset about you. Michael Korn sent threatening letters, adorned with skulls and crossbones, to several biology professors at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Several of the messages were delivered by slipping envelopes under the professors’ office doors after working hours; Korn’s missives referred to “killing the enemies of Christian society.” He then skipped town and is currently a fugitive from justice.
When will one of these threats come to fruition? When will self-righteous anger, fueled by ignorance, unchecked thanks to prejudicial culture, meet a loosening of inhibitions and end in grief? If you think this is such a long shot that it could never happen and isn’t worth bothering about, what about the sad story of Rudi Boa?
A 28-year-old graduate of Edinburgh University with degrees in chemistry and forensic science, Boa was backpacking across Australia with his girlfriend, Gillian Brown. At a bar in Tumut, New South Wales, Boa had an argument over religion with another traveler, Alexander York. Later that night, it appears, York attacked Brown and in the ensuing fight, Boa was stabbed, once, in the chest. York was found guilty of manslaughter. A community center in Phnom Penh, through which Boa had traveled shortly before his death, was later founded and named in his honor, using donations from the Boa family.
I wonder: when will this happen in America? All the ingredients are already here. It doesn’t take an organized conspiracy, just a culture in which the enemy has already been defined.
We fight over scarce resources, whether they be oil or cocaine, and we invent new scarcities over which to wage war, treasures whose very existence depend upon human perception and whose value can never be tested through experiment and rational investigation. Even when this contest does not lead to physical violence, it deranges lives and brings anguish.
Many of the names I’ve mentioned in this essay belong to faithful Christians. These people, who have suffered because they accept the scientific truth of evolution, are not raving atheists or infidel interlopers. They learned the hard way that some folks just aren’t satisfied with “theistic evolution,” with the idea that the Creation took a long time or that science and religion answer different kinds of questions. Compromise and coexistence are, quite simply, not good enough. Those who advise such a friendly relationship find themselves, dare I say it, expelled.
And stories which begin with unshakable hate do not end very well.
UPDATE (20 April 2008): I should have known that my Gentle Readers would have additional items to offer. See, for example, the story of Kanawha County, West Virginia and this list of incidents, which overlaps with my own.
Oh, and I’ve also been alerted to the unfortunate case of Terry Gray, a Christian biochemist whose negative review of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial sparked an unhappy response from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which eventually forced Dr. Gray to recant.
The denial of climate change
Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize today for his work on climate change. His film, “An Inconvenient Truth” won an academy award. Good for Al.There is some disagreement among the scientifically knowledgeable that Mr. Gore should have received the Nobel. It is thought to be a political statement by the Nobel committee, and the film is known to have a few errors in it, even though the science it is based upon is valid.
But according to the second annual “America’s Report Card on the Environment” survey, most Americans accept the fact of global climate change, and want Bush to do something about it. This survey (PDF link), conducted by the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University in collaboration with the Associated Press, states that:
A striking 84% want a great deal or a lot to be done to help the environment during the next year, by President Bush, the U.S. Congress, American businesses, and/or the American public.This report says that Americans blame American businesses and Bush’s policies for the declining environment, and that a large majority of Americans are sure that global warming has been, and is currently happening, and that the consequences are likely to be serious.
But there are a few very loud deniers of climate change. I know a couple of religious deniers personally, and if my small sampling of deniers is any indication of the majority, they deny climate change due to religious and/or dogmatic reasons instead of scientific reasons.
The dogmatic, instead of reviewing the science and coming to a conclusion instead start with the conclusion and poke holes in the ongoing climate change science. But even these dogmatic types of skeptic are being overwhelmed with evidence, and are starting to come around.
Christians are having a harder time with climate change, and even though some religious leaders have come around to accepting the evidence, many have not.
The religious group Answers in Genesis advises caution over Global Warming. They lay the majority of the blame on natural events, such as a natural cycle of fluctuating solar output. The belief that nothing happens outside of God’s plan is strong in AIG, and so any talk of climate change that hints at a future global disaster is immediately downplayed, and the blame put on those who are against the “Christian Worldview.” From their article in Answers Magazine, “Human-Caused Global Warming is Slight so far”:
Christians especially need to be cautious when it comes to the issue of global warming and other environmental issues. One of the reasons is that these issues have been hijacked by individuals who desire to change our way of life, and in particular, the Christian worldview that has guided the Western Hemisphere.I can understand why AIG is wary about this - if they admit the scientific validity of climate change, then how close do they come to admitting the scientific validity of other disciplines - such as evolution?
The problem with overcoming arguments with deniers is that there is not one single “killer” piece of evidence for climate change that will knock their socks off, demonstrate simply and clearly that climate change is happening, and that it is an Earth-based, rather than Sun initiated phenomenon. Deniers point to past warming, to solar radiation changes, to the Maunder Minimum and the Modern Maximum number of sunspots, and claim that even “if” climate change is happening we can’t prove that it is humankind’s fault. And if it isn’t our fault, then there is nothing we can, or should, do about it.
There would be an easy way to find out if climate change is caused by the sun, or by humans. It is a simple experiment that most freshmen who took physics or chemistry would find familiar. To discover the temperature trends of a substance without actually placing a thermometer in the substance, you instead measure the amount of energy being radiated by that substance. That’s the basic principle behind infrared thermometers.It is easy to measure the amount of energy that is received by our Earth. We know what the solar energy density is when it reaches the Earth so it is simple to calculate how much of it strikes our planet.
It is also possible to measure how much energy is radiated from the Earth. It would require a satellite aimed at our planet to take a measurement of that radiation, but the tools and science to do so are amazingly simple.
So in a simple experiment, using a satellite, it would be easy to calculate how much energy is radiated, as opposed to how much energy is absorbed by our planet. We could prove, or exclude our Sun as a source of climate change during the first week of this satellite’s operation.
If only we had that satellite.But we do have that satellite! The Deep Space Climate Observatory, (which was originally named Triana), was proposed in 1988 by Vice President Al Gore. How about that?
The DSCVR was designed to sit at that neutral point between the Earth and the Sun called the L1 Lagrange Point. It contains a radiometer that would take measurements of the sunlight absorbed and reflected by the Earth, and would confirm or deny the Sun’s influence on climate change. It would also be able to measure Earth’s temperature, and show its change.
Here is a wonderful tool that could potentially shut up climate change deniers – or shut up those scientists who are offering proof of climate change. In this game of conflicting talking heads, Triana is the referee and judge who could take a big step toward determining the rightful winner. And it is a tool we might never use. Although NASA built this satellite, it was never launched.
Even though he has a somewhat stilted public persona, I think that Al Gore is at heart a romantic. Although Triana could do real and valuable science, Gore instead emphasized that it would be able to provide real-time video of the Earth to everyone, in the hopes it would draw us Earthlings together in a similar fashion to Apollo 17’s “Blue Marble” photograph. This was derided by Republicans who tried to kill the project and called the satellite a “75 million dollar screen saver”. Scientists and Democrats fought against the satellite’s death, and instead of being killed, the satellite was mothballed.It is still in storage, at a cost of a million dollars a year. The original team that put it together was disbanded and directed to other projects. It would cost a couple of hundred million dollars to put together a new team, to possibly upgrade the satellite, and to launch it. And that money is a mere pittance when compared to the billions we spend each month in Iraq. Yet we don’t spend that money, and now there are those who deride the satellite and deny its usefulness. A rational person would question this sort of resistance.
When denial becomes this blatant – you have to question motive.
Plastic Jesus called my name! Hallelujah!
This evening while walking through Wal-Mart I passed by the seasonal aisle (currently set to "Christmas") and Jesus Christ caught my eye!He was 11.5 inches tall, with long, light brown plastic-formed hair, fair skin and baby blue eyes. He was in a tan box with a clear plastic front. The box was labeled “Messengers of Faith” and said that I could make plastic Jesus talk if I only pressed the easily accessible button embedded on his back, through the hole in the cardboard packaging.
There was a whole shelf full of action figures in the “Messengers of Faith” lineup: Jesus, Esther, Paul, Mary and Moses. They're manufactured by the company One2Believe, who also sells the “Tales of Glory Figurine Sets” and the “Spirit Warriors” action figures.
According to One2Believe founder, David Socha, these action figures are designed to offer a more Christian choice against the "spawns of Satan" toys that are already on Wal-Mart's shelves. Satanic toys like Spiderman, or Darth Vader.
From what I could see, the “Tales of Glory” figures are a sort of “Bible Babies” theme, ripped off from a similar tradition of Jim Henson's “Muppet Babies” except less interesting. The “Spirit Warriors” only include Samson and Goliath, who were somewhat taller than the “Messengers of Faith” set, and with muscles that Arnold Schwarzenegger could never flex on his best day.
As I examined these figures, I was immediately struck by their poor quality. I grew up with the original G I Joe figures, the fully positional action figures with fuzzy buzz cuts and Kung Fu Grip ™. The “Messenger of Faith” Jesus doesn't come close to being nearly as cool as Joe. He isn't as flexible, his head and neck mismatch the color of his torso, his hair is plastic and he's not as positionable. However, his pop-in head and neck assembly can be rotated 360 degrees if you ever want to reenact “The Exorcist”.
The package clearly said that Jesus talks. Since I'm a real geek when it comes to toys and gadgets I had to play with it. So I picked the plastic Jesus in his box off the shelf and pressed the “Try Me” button in the middle of his back.
And the plastic Jesus called my name in a clear and foreboding voice:
“MARK!!”
HO - leee Frikken Cow! That's my NAME!
I was so startled that I almost dropped Jesus on his head! It would have served him right for surprising me like that! Wow! Talk about a cardio workout!
But, as I said, I'm a geek. And I'm a Skeptic too. So of course, instead of instantly believing that I was receiving a sign from God through a plastic, talking “action figure”, I waited for my heart rate to normalize, then I tentatively pressed the button in Jesus's back again.
And the plastic Jesus said, in a much meeker, quieter tone of voice, “Mark?”
What? That came out as a sort of whimper... maybe Jesus was actually afraid of me? Maybe Atheists scare him? Maybe Wal-Mart weakened him?
Ha! “You have no power here!” Emboldened, I pushed the button in his back again.
And the plastic Jesus said, in a whimpering voice, “mmaaaarrr – ip!”
The last part of his vocalization faded into electronic submission that was almost, but not quite, reminiscent of Andre Delambre's voice calling “Help me, Help me!” while trapped in a web in the 1958 movie classic “The Fly”.
Aha! This has to be battery related! I tossed the depleted Jesus back on the shelf and pulled out the hopefully more fully charged Jesus that was standing behind him.
Yep! When I pressed the button the second plastic Jesus said, “John! Three-Sixteen!” in a William Shatner-esque fashion before continuing in a much kinder tone with, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...”
Hm. Jesus seems to speak about himself in third-person King James. The blue eyes, brown hair and surfer's tan weren't enough, Jesus has to speak in archaic English too.
You have no idea how much my geek side was begging me to buy Jesus right then and there. I was arguing with myself! If I could have found a way to make the $14.95 go to a charity of my choice instead of the One2Believe company at that moment, I would have done it – in half a heartbeat. I might buy him anyway tomorrow – but it will be an expensive purchase because I'll donate an additional $30 to the Freedom from Religion Foundation just to balance the scales a little.I want that plastic Jesus. In my head I'm already planning how to reprogram his little voice box. Maybe I'll be able to reverse engineer his electronics, wipe out his voice and drop in my own favorite recordings. Maybe I'll have to gut plastic Jesus and stuff his interchangeable torso with the little 256 MB MP3 player I have kicking around in my desk drawer. Ah, Jesus with a USB hookup strikes my fancy!
Whatever – I've got plans. Now excuse me, I need to dig up some Sam Kinison and Andrew Dice Clay recordings! Oh, and maybe some Shatner too – after all, both have that same stiff stage presence. Klingon! Does anyone have any Klingon recordings? Nevermind... I'll just scan through my Star Trek VHS tapes...
===================
17 Oct 07 - Update
I did it. I bought one last weekend. He's still in his box, and when I get some time I'll document his unpacking and eventual plastic & electronic dissection.
Two corrections - the dolls on the shelf, and the Jesus in my possession all have brown eyes, not blue. I didn't notice eye color when I was examining Jesus the first time because, well, he had just called my NAME!
But the photo of Plastic Jesus? I got it from a news page that talked about the One2Believe product. Several articles talking about the One2Believe product line showed photos of blue-eyed Jesus. Someone in the One2Believe Marketing Department must have had words with the product developers...
Second correction - Jesus doesn't speak in archaic King James. Although the message isn't different from a King James Bible, he instead seems to speak in a Mr. Rogers version of the Bible.
But soon, I shall give Jesus the gift of tongues! Mwhahahahah!
Maybe I'll put the resulting Jesus up for sale on Ebay. I wonder if anyone would bid on it?
Falwell's Legacy
Jerry Falwell was a tree. Old and rotting at the core, but big - oh very big. And it is the oldest, biggest trees that do the most damage when they fall in a forest.
Remember that I said that it will take generations to undo the harm that this man has done to our country? Falwell has left a legacy: Liberty University.
Newt Gingrich gave Saturday's commencement address at Liberty University. Between bible verses, Newt had this to say:
Liberty University is a poor excuse for a school. It's greatest claim to fame is that it recently gained provisional accreditation from the American Bar Association, which allows graduates of Liberty University to take any bar examination in the United States. Even before its accreditation it offered a "School of Law" that theoretically prepared its students for the bar exam. Liberty University, as a Tier 4 school, probably doesn't worry too much about academics. Tier 4 schools usually have a student body GPA of between 2.5 and 3.5, while a Tier 1 law school will expect an average student body GPA of between 3.3 and 3.9.
The science course at Liberty University seems to leave a lot to be desired. Liberty does teach the theory of evolution, but I think that's a requirement for accreditation. Alongside evolution, they also teach Creationism of some sort - probably the young-earth version of creationism as shown by this FAQ that answers the question, "Were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?":
What sort of damage must we undo from Falwell's legacy? Graduates of Liberty University may not be well schooled in the sciences, but they are extremely well schooled in loyalty. George Bush has taken advantage of that, perhaps as a gift from one demagogue to another. Positions of power in the Bush administration have been given away to the marginally (or un-) qualified simply because of a demonstration of loyalty. As Cynthia Tucker has said:
Is this "reality based" community slipping? Are we failing the next generation? Could we be doing anything better to teach science and rational thinking to ensure a better legacy for those who come after us? What is our legacy?
Remember that I said that it will take generations to undo the harm that this man has done to our country? Falwell has left a legacy: Liberty University.
Newt Gingrich gave Saturday's commencement address at Liberty University. Between bible verses, Newt had this to say:
A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded. We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights."Radical secularism", "Hostility to American history", "God-given ... human rights". Gingrich is hitting all the hot buttons, isn't he? This further demonstrates that Christianity, as a religion, requires enemies in order to survive, and if there are none to be found then they will be created, either by demagogues or through religious groupthink.
In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms.
Liberty University is a poor excuse for a school. It's greatest claim to fame is that it recently gained provisional accreditation from the American Bar Association, which allows graduates of Liberty University to take any bar examination in the United States. Even before its accreditation it offered a "School of Law" that theoretically prepared its students for the bar exam. Liberty University, as a Tier 4 school, probably doesn't worry too much about academics. Tier 4 schools usually have a student body GPA of between 2.5 and 3.5, while a Tier 1 law school will expect an average student body GPA of between 3.3 and 3.9.
The science course at Liberty University seems to leave a lot to be desired. Liberty does teach the theory of evolution, but I think that's a requirement for accreditation. Alongside evolution, they also teach Creationism of some sort - probably the young-earth version of creationism as shown by this FAQ that answers the question, "Were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?":
Dr. H. L. Willmington addresses this question in Willmington's Guide to the Bible, p. 29, as follows:Just in case you might object that perhaps Dr. Willmington's book isn't part of Liberty University's curriculum, the FAQ helpfully appends a little paragraph attributing the origin of this answer as being prepared by Jerry Falwell, Harold Willmington, Elmer Towns and Larrie Schlapman at Liberty University. The FAQ adds:
Perhaps no other single question concerning the Flood will more quickly bring out the agnostic's sneers and the believer's fears than will this one. But there is now mounting evidence that man and dinosaurs did indeed live on earth at the same time.
...
Thus, to answer the question concerning whether dinosaurs were on the ark, it may be said that inasmuch as they definitely existed with man prior to the Flood, the chances are good that a young pair of these huge reptiles may well indeed have been aboard!
May you consult these answers with an open Bible and an open heart thus allowing God's Holy Spirit help you find the truth (John 14:26). (Verse: But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.)If I took a physics test at Liberty U. and one of my answers included a violation of the conservation of energy, could I still get that answer marked as "correct" because the Holy Spirit told me that God created everything out of nothing?
What sort of damage must we undo from Falwell's legacy? Graduates of Liberty University may not be well schooled in the sciences, but they are extremely well schooled in loyalty. George Bush has taken advantage of that, perhaps as a gift from one demagogue to another. Positions of power in the Bush administration have been given away to the marginally (or un-) qualified simply because of a demonstration of loyalty. As Cynthia Tucker has said:
When President Bush ascended to the White House, he allowed loyalty to him and to Christian fundamentalism to dominate the hiring process. Competence no longer matters. Neither do top-notch educational credentials and expertise.There is a community of people who believe in keeping the State separated from the Church. Some of us are secular, some not. The people in this community believe in keeping science separate from belief, and keeping the study of the natural distinct from philosophies of the supernatural. This community is at risk from religious fundamentalists who are happy to lump the liberally religious together with secularists like myself merely because we agree that scientific explanations of Nature make more sense than supernatural explanations.
Graduates of fundamentalist Christian institutions, especially Mr. Falwell's Liberty University and the Rev. Pat Robertson's Regent University, have been given free rein. Regent law school graduate Monica Goodling - who recently resigned from the Justice Department because of her central role in the burgeoning scandal there - was given broad control over hiring attorneys, despite her limited experience.
In his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote that similar loyalty tests were used in the hiring process for those charged with rebuilding Iraq. Two applicants told him they were asked their views on Roe v. Wade. Given those priorities, the reconstruction process was doomed from the start.
Is this "reality based" community slipping? Are we failing the next generation? Could we be doing anything better to teach science and rational thinking to ensure a better legacy for those who come after us? What is our legacy?
This university [Liberty University] has 10,000 graduates in pulpits and church boards all over the country," he said. "There will be more every year. They'll carry on.
Christians against hate crime legislation
Wow, I'm seeing a lot about this "dangerous hate crime legislation" from the Christian Conservatives. Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family has this to say about it:
Let's take a look at this. There are two bills in the process, one from the House, and one from the Senate. I'll look at the latest version of each bill, House Resolution 1592 and Senate bill 1105.
Here are some excerpts for HR 1592:
This legislation is absolutely awful! If you hurt someone due to their gender, or sexual orientation, you get your crime tagged as a "hate crime". Of course the Church has to oppose this!
It's just like St. Paul the Apostle said:
"It is a very dangerous piece of legislation. What they have in mind is muzzling the church."Oh my. We Secularists will gang up with those homosexuals and march right into your church and muzzle your preacher. Oh my!
Let's take a look at this. There are two bills in the process, one from the House, and one from the Senate. I'll look at the latest version of each bill, House Resolution 1592 and Senate bill 1105.
Here are some excerpts for HR 1592:
Sec. 3 (A):Here an excerpt from S. 1105:
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.
....
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
This legislation is absolutely awful! If you hurt someone due to their gender, or sexual orientation, you get your crime tagged as a "hate crime". Of course the Church has to oppose this!
It's just like St. Paul the Apostle said:
Romans:No wonder Christians hate this legislation. It contradicts their Biblical message of love.
1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,
1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.
1:29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips,
1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents,
1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless.
1:32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.
National Day of Reason
Thursday, 3 May 2007, is the United States “National Day of Reason”. You may recall that this day is commemorated by law *. During this day everyone in the country is urged to take a moment and reflect upon how reason and critical thinking have led to life saving advances in medicine and technology and how FreeThought and Enlightenment have shown the error of unfounded belief in the supernatural. During this day we celebrate that our government is based on Secular principles that advocate Human Rights.Of course, the National Day of Reason is open to everyone. It doesn't matter if you're Atheist, Agnostic, Secular Humanist, Unitarian, Unicornian, or Pastafarian. Reason ceremonies will be held in the offices of public officials from Mayor all the way to President. We'll celebrate skeptical thought in city halls across the country. And you can be sure that we are all-inclusive, over all Americans.
I personally will spend a few minutes Thursday giving a pint of blood in celebration of the National Day of Reason.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Everyone is included – that's the American Way. Right?
From Religious Tolerance.org
The National Day of Prayer (NDP) is held on the first Thursday in May, according to Federal statute. Originally conceived as a time when Americans of all denominations and religions could gather to pray to their deity/deities, it has evolved into a mainly Evangelical Christian observance. However, there signs that may revert to a more inclusive event.
Local events mark National Day of Prayer
By Ron Orozco / The Fresno Bee
04/28/07 04:32:03
At 7 a.m, the Interfaith Alliance of Central California will present a gathering outdoors at the Fresno County Courthouse. The event will be held near the courthouse statue of three clergy members who created the Forum for Better Understanding.
Al Evans, event organizer and political science instructor at California State University, Fresno, says the event is designed so "every faith represented" will have an opportunity to pray.
Also at 7 a.m., the annual Mayor's Prayer Breakfast will be held at the Visalia Convention Center, where the New Christy Minstrels will perform as special musical guests.
At noon, music, song and prayers will highlight the "America, Unite in Prayer" event at Fresno City Hall.
Fresno pastors Carlos Raines, Jän van Oosten, Bob Willis, J.R. Coleman, Elias Loera and Jim Franklin will take turns every seven to 10 minutes offering prayers in areas such as the church, government, family, education/youth, media, and military/law enforcement/fire department.
Also at noon, a Kings County observance will be presented at Hanford Civic Auditorium, 400 N. Douty St. The event will begin with a lunch at 11:30 a.m.
National Day of Prayer, 2007
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 3, 2007, as a National Day of Prayer. I ask the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, each according to his or her own faith, for the freedoms and blessings we have received and for God's continued guidance, comfort, and protection. I invite all Americans to join in observing this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
* - No, the National Day of Reason is not part of the Federal Statute, I'm using satire to make a point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)