http://www.statesgraphic.com/view/full_story/6465271/article-An-Inconvenient-Truth
“Religion? Fifty-five percent of Americans believe Christianity was established by the
Constitution as our official government religion, but 60% of Americans cannot name five of the Ten Commandments.
Fifty percent of all high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife, and one out of three guessed that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered by Billy Graham.”
Those who believe so strongly in Christianity seem to know next to nothing about it. It’s frightening to think that these are the people who want to establish it as the national religion.
“History? Twelve percent, on one survey, identified Joan of Arc as the wife of Noah. Only one out of four could name our first president. Just 10 percent knew how many justices sit on the Supreme Court, and only 14% could name the author of the Declaration of Independence.”
No wonder, with such an ignorance of history, it should be no surprise that Americans would be foolish enough to believe that America was founded as a Christian nation.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The UK must Remain Secular
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100027407/labour-the-natural-party-of-religious-believers-suddenly-nero-is-chasing-the-christian-vote/
“Keith Cardinal O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, was monumentally unimpressed by these overtures. He said that, under the government of Murphy’s party, the country had witnessed a “systematic and unrelenting attack on family values”. To paraphrase the Cardinal’s further remarks, apart from embryo experimentation, massive abortion rates, civil partnerships and same-sex adoption, what has Labour ever done to offend the Romans?”
Oh dear me the sky is falling the Labour Party of the UK is standing up for human rights. If they have to offend a few uptight religious nuts to do so, then so be it. I applaud the actions of the Labour Party for taking a stand and not allowing religious interests to interfere with the push towards a secular society.
“It is time for Christians to take the offensive.” All those who believe in secularism, Christians included, should be prepared to stand against any Christian who seeks break down the wall between Church and State. Warner’s article comes off as a thinly-veiled call for a theocracy in the UK. He seems to believe that opposition to tax breaks for married couples is a direct to the faithful. Marriage should not be rewarded by the state. He complains about the state’s secular influence on Catholic schools (if they are going to get state funding they must follow state rules), yet he’d have no problem with the state creating rules that would encourage/force people to live by a religious agenda. Under a very specific religion I might add.
“Keith Cardinal O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, was monumentally unimpressed by these overtures. He said that, under the government of Murphy’s party, the country had witnessed a “systematic and unrelenting attack on family values”. To paraphrase the Cardinal’s further remarks, apart from embryo experimentation, massive abortion rates, civil partnerships and same-sex adoption, what has Labour ever done to offend the Romans?”
Oh dear me the sky is falling the Labour Party of the UK is standing up for human rights. If they have to offend a few uptight religious nuts to do so, then so be it. I applaud the actions of the Labour Party for taking a stand and not allowing religious interests to interfere with the push towards a secular society.
“It is time for Christians to take the offensive.” All those who believe in secularism, Christians included, should be prepared to stand against any Christian who seeks break down the wall between Church and State. Warner’s article comes off as a thinly-veiled call for a theocracy in the UK. He seems to believe that opposition to tax breaks for married couples is a direct to the faithful. Marriage should not be rewarded by the state. He complains about the state’s secular influence on Catholic schools (if they are going to get state funding they must follow state rules), yet he’d have no problem with the state creating rules that would encourage/force people to live by a religious agenda. Under a very specific religion I might add.
Woman Sees Jesus in Pizza Sauce Makes Rational People Laugh
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/pizzeria-worker-sees-jesus-in-sauce-bucket-on-first-friday-of-lent-1.640418
“When Mary Louise Salerno saw Jesus Christ in a bucket of pizza sauce, her instinct was not to alert the media or even to tell many friends.”
*Facepalm* Why is it that the supposed divine son of God makes appearances in odd places like a bucket of pizza sauce? It’s below his level of dignity is it not? Those crazy fundamentalists are good for a laugh.
“That is when she saw it, the image of a man with long hair and a beard in the leftover sauce.”
This description accurately describes a good friend of mine though I’m not sure I’d want to see him unexpectedly staring at me, it’d be rather unnerving. The point is we have no actual proof of what Jesus (if he did exist) actually looked like. I’ve never understood how a man who was born in the Middle East is always portrayed in artwork as being European.
“Even an atheist would find it unmistakable.” I find it unmistakable that this image looks like what we believe Jesus looked like, not what he looked like. I also find it unmistakable that the people who believe this is some miraculous sign are completely off the wagon. “Mr. Salerno, 55 and also from Old Forge, said he is not a churchgoing man but he is religious, and seeing Jesus on that pizza sauce bucket was all the proof he needs.” Yup, completely off the wagon.
Interesting note: if you tilt your head a certain way it looks like a hotdog. Another view point makes it look like a, nah, I won’t bother saying what.
“When Mary Louise Salerno saw Jesus Christ in a bucket of pizza sauce, her instinct was not to alert the media or even to tell many friends.”
*Facepalm* Why is it that the supposed divine son of God makes appearances in odd places like a bucket of pizza sauce? It’s below his level of dignity is it not? Those crazy fundamentalists are good for a laugh.
“That is when she saw it, the image of a man with long hair and a beard in the leftover sauce.”
This description accurately describes a good friend of mine though I’m not sure I’d want to see him unexpectedly staring at me, it’d be rather unnerving. The point is we have no actual proof of what Jesus (if he did exist) actually looked like. I’ve never understood how a man who was born in the Middle East is always portrayed in artwork as being European.
“Even an atheist would find it unmistakable.” I find it unmistakable that this image looks like what we believe Jesus looked like, not what he looked like. I also find it unmistakable that the people who believe this is some miraculous sign are completely off the wagon. “Mr. Salerno, 55 and also from Old Forge, said he is not a churchgoing man but he is religious, and seeing Jesus on that pizza sauce bucket was all the proof he needs.” Yup, completely off the wagon.
Interesting note: if you tilt your head a certain way it looks like a hotdog. Another view point makes it look like a, nah, I won’t bother saying what.
Prayer at the Detriot City Council
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100225/METRO01/2250408/1409/metro/Watchdog-group-objects-to-Detroit-City-Council-s-prayers
Bravo to the Freedom From Religion Foundation for reminding the Detroit City Council that the First Amendment calls for the separation of Church and State
“The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based watchdog group, sent a letter Tuesday to the council accusing it of violating First Amendment mandates separating church and state. A 1983 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows prayers before government meetings as long as they are nondenominational.
Rebecca Markert, an attorney for the 14,600-member group, said a review of recent Detroit council invocations online indicates "these prayers are rarely, if ever, nondenominational."
The duty of elected officials in America is to represent the people not just the Christian people. The Council should not be abusing the privilege given to it by the U.S. Supreme Court. The prayers can be tolerated as long as they are in fact nondenominational.
Bravo to the Freedom From Religion Foundation for reminding the Detroit City Council that the First Amendment calls for the separation of Church and State
“The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based watchdog group, sent a letter Tuesday to the council accusing it of violating First Amendment mandates separating church and state. A 1983 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows prayers before government meetings as long as they are nondenominational.
Rebecca Markert, an attorney for the 14,600-member group, said a review of recent Detroit council invocations online indicates "these prayers are rarely, if ever, nondenominational."
The duty of elected officials in America is to represent the people not just the Christian people. The Council should not be abusing the privilege given to it by the U.S. Supreme Court. The prayers can be tolerated as long as they are in fact nondenominational.
The Ten Commandments are a bad idea
http://www.americustimesrecorder.com/columns/local_story_055204413.html
The author says that you can’t argue with the Ten Commandments. I’m going to do just that. Most of the Commandments are not compatible with a free society. The author says that not even an atheist can argue with the Ten Commandments that statement is foolish. There are commandments that go against what being an atheist means. The following argument against most of the Ten Commandments will be from an atheist perspective but I’ll try to factor in viewpoints of non-Christian religions as well.
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
If I’m an atheist then I have no gods before me. Is that a breaking of the commandment? In a free society I should be able to choose to have 1 God, 20 Gods, or no Gods. In the article it states, “the Ten Commandments, a germane part of the Judeo-Christian belief.” Clearly, this law is not compatible with non-Judeo-Christian faiths, despite what the author tries to argue.
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
This commandment is another assault on free speech and doesn’t really make any sense. If we were to live by it then we wouldn’t be allowed to display a statue of the Buddha. Even more unthinkable, for Americans, statues of the Founding Fathers would have to be removed.
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
Again, this goes against free speech. Not to mention, the Judeo-Christian God is not my God and if you do not prescribe to the Judeo-Christian beliefs then he is not “your God”. Therefore, feel free to take the name of God in vain.
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
Never mind all the absurd reasons you can be put to death for working on the Sabbath day in a society that functions in a 24/7 manner this just isn’t practical. If emergency workers get called to an accident on the day of the Sabbath they should not have to choose between God and saving a life.
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
We now come to the first argument that might be a good one to live by. However, what if the father and mother are abusive? Children should not have to subject themselves to abuse. This commandment prevents us from taking logical action to protect our own well being. It calls for a submission to authority that may not always be warranted.
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
No arguing with this one though God seems to forget that rule again and again in the Bible.
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
Yes we shouldn’t commit adultery (even though polygamy was actually then norm throughout history) but, it is not something that should be made into a punishable offence. Think about the invasions of privacy this implies.
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
No arguing with this one.
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
I’m sure there are laws in place against making false accusations against anyone. It’s too bad religions themselves aren’t able to follow this one. The witch hunt comes to mind. Not a bad commandment, just not always followed by religions.
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Jealousy is part of what makes us human. Jealousy can be a motivator if channeled in a positive light. I go over to my neighbour’s house and see the brand new HDTV he has. It’s natural for me to want one myself, so I work and save up and soon I have my own TV. Jealousy can drive our economy. Also, what’s with the idea of putting the wife on the same levelhis animals? This is blatant sexism that should not be tolerated in a free society.
Whenever I hear people talk about how the Ten Commandments are a good code to live their life by they usually point to the ones referring to no killing, stealing, committing adultery, and respecting the father and mother. In our society the only three that could legally be enforced are stealing, killing, and false witness. People say the commandments are good without knowing what all of them are or thinking of the implications enforcing them could have.
The author says that you can’t argue with the Ten Commandments. I’m going to do just that. Most of the Commandments are not compatible with a free society. The author says that not even an atheist can argue with the Ten Commandments that statement is foolish. There are commandments that go against what being an atheist means. The following argument against most of the Ten Commandments will be from an atheist perspective but I’ll try to factor in viewpoints of non-Christian religions as well.
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
If I’m an atheist then I have no gods before me. Is that a breaking of the commandment? In a free society I should be able to choose to have 1 God, 20 Gods, or no Gods. In the article it states, “the Ten Commandments, a germane part of the Judeo-Christian belief.” Clearly, this law is not compatible with non-Judeo-Christian faiths, despite what the author tries to argue.
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
This commandment is another assault on free speech and doesn’t really make any sense. If we were to live by it then we wouldn’t be allowed to display a statue of the Buddha. Even more unthinkable, for Americans, statues of the Founding Fathers would have to be removed.
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
Again, this goes against free speech. Not to mention, the Judeo-Christian God is not my God and if you do not prescribe to the Judeo-Christian beliefs then he is not “your God”. Therefore, feel free to take the name of God in vain.
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
Never mind all the absurd reasons you can be put to death for working on the Sabbath day in a society that functions in a 24/7 manner this just isn’t practical. If emergency workers get called to an accident on the day of the Sabbath they should not have to choose between God and saving a life.
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
We now come to the first argument that might be a good one to live by. However, what if the father and mother are abusive? Children should not have to subject themselves to abuse. This commandment prevents us from taking logical action to protect our own well being. It calls for a submission to authority that may not always be warranted.
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
No arguing with this one though God seems to forget that rule again and again in the Bible.
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
Yes we shouldn’t commit adultery (even though polygamy was actually then norm throughout history) but, it is not something that should be made into a punishable offence. Think about the invasions of privacy this implies.
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
No arguing with this one.
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
I’m sure there are laws in place against making false accusations against anyone. It’s too bad religions themselves aren’t able to follow this one. The witch hunt comes to mind. Not a bad commandment, just not always followed by religions.
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Jealousy is part of what makes us human. Jealousy can be a motivator if channeled in a positive light. I go over to my neighbour’s house and see the brand new HDTV he has. It’s natural for me to want one myself, so I work and save up and soon I have my own TV. Jealousy can drive our economy. Also, what’s with the idea of putting the wife on the same levelhis animals? This is blatant sexism that should not be tolerated in a free society.
Whenever I hear people talk about how the Ten Commandments are a good code to live their life by they usually point to the ones referring to no killing, stealing, committing adultery, and respecting the father and mother. In our society the only three that could legally be enforced are stealing, killing, and false witness. People say the commandments are good without knowing what all of them are or thinking of the implications enforcing them could have.
Argument From Morality
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2734053/the_moral_argument_for_god_c_s_lewis.html?cat=9
The article is making an argument for the existence of God based on the Argument From Morality. The article is lengthy but here are the main points of the article.
“The "Moral Argument" for C. S. Lewis is as follows:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.
2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.
3.) Therefore, God exists.”
Keep that argument in mind. Before I go any further with this argument I want to focus on another point that the author makes in the article, it should give you an idea of the type of mind we are dealing with.
“If you ask evolutionists about the origins of life, they simply don't know what to say except that maybe life emerged on planet earth as a result of extraterrestrials, or life-ingredients came to earth from space. But this just pushes the question back to, "Then where did that life come from"? You have to keep going back to the origination of life, sometime.”
Evolutionists say they don’t know what to say because evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. I’ll repeat that, since it seems to be unable to get through the skulls of nitwits like this author, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolutionists are being honest when they say they don’t know. Any answer they give to the origin of life is based simply on assumptions. Also the author misses out on the irony of asking “then where did that life come from?” Well sir, where did God come from?
Now back to the argument from morality. If we assume that all humans get their morality from one single creator, then would we not all have the same views on morality throughout our various cultures?
“It is not true, however, that all humans have a moral conscience — some are diagnosed without it and are labeled sociopaths or psychopaths. If we ignore them as an aberration, though, we still have vast differences in morality between different societies. C.S. Lewis claimed that different cultures had “only slightly different moralities,” but anthropologists and sociologists can only regard such a claim with derision. As a student of Greek and Roman history, Lewis himself surely knew that his claim was false.” (http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/argumentmorals.htm).
Why would an all powerful and moral God create a different set of guidelines for different people and cultures? Does it believe that some cultures are more deserving of morality than others? What about the sociopaths and psychopaths? You’d have to argue that God got it wrong when it came to these people but, that’s not good for an all knowing and all powerful God. Perhaps it’s the result of a flaw in our evolutionary nature.
“It can be argued, for example, that our moral conscience was evolutionarily selected for, especially in light of animal behavior which is suggestive of a rudimentary “moral conscience.” Chimpanzees exhibit what appears to be fear and shame when they do something that violates the rules of their group. Should we conclude that chimpanzees fear God? Or is it more likely that such feelings are natural in social animals?” (http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/argumentmorals.htm)
The Bible speaks of mans need to dominate animals. The authors likely felt that animals didn’t have a sense of morality and that we humans, through supposedly God given rights, had to pass on our own moralities. Here we see evidence though, that animals have a sense of morality, and as suggested previously, it’s unlikely those animals are contemplating the existence of God. It doesn’t make sense that animals would be worrying about pleasing God if there’s no place for them in the afterlife.
Morality is not absolute it does not exist in the same way through cultures or individuals. If the argument is that God exists because there is morality in all of us, then God does not exist, because morality does not exist within all of us.
The article is making an argument for the existence of God based on the Argument From Morality. The article is lengthy but here are the main points of the article.
“The "Moral Argument" for C. S. Lewis is as follows:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.
2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.
3.) Therefore, God exists.”
Keep that argument in mind. Before I go any further with this argument I want to focus on another point that the author makes in the article, it should give you an idea of the type of mind we are dealing with.
“If you ask evolutionists about the origins of life, they simply don't know what to say except that maybe life emerged on planet earth as a result of extraterrestrials, or life-ingredients came to earth from space. But this just pushes the question back to, "Then where did that life come from"? You have to keep going back to the origination of life, sometime.”
Evolutionists say they don’t know what to say because evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. I’ll repeat that, since it seems to be unable to get through the skulls of nitwits like this author, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolutionists are being honest when they say they don’t know. Any answer they give to the origin of life is based simply on assumptions. Also the author misses out on the irony of asking “then where did that life come from?” Well sir, where did God come from?
Now back to the argument from morality. If we assume that all humans get their morality from one single creator, then would we not all have the same views on morality throughout our various cultures?
“It is not true, however, that all humans have a moral conscience — some are diagnosed without it and are labeled sociopaths or psychopaths. If we ignore them as an aberration, though, we still have vast differences in morality between different societies. C.S. Lewis claimed that different cultures had “only slightly different moralities,” but anthropologists and sociologists can only regard such a claim with derision. As a student of Greek and Roman history, Lewis himself surely knew that his claim was false.” (http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/argumentmorals.htm).
Why would an all powerful and moral God create a different set of guidelines for different people and cultures? Does it believe that some cultures are more deserving of morality than others? What about the sociopaths and psychopaths? You’d have to argue that God got it wrong when it came to these people but, that’s not good for an all knowing and all powerful God. Perhaps it’s the result of a flaw in our evolutionary nature.
“It can be argued, for example, that our moral conscience was evolutionarily selected for, especially in light of animal behavior which is suggestive of a rudimentary “moral conscience.” Chimpanzees exhibit what appears to be fear and shame when they do something that violates the rules of their group. Should we conclude that chimpanzees fear God? Or is it more likely that such feelings are natural in social animals?” (http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/argumentmorals.htm)
The Bible speaks of mans need to dominate animals. The authors likely felt that animals didn’t have a sense of morality and that we humans, through supposedly God given rights, had to pass on our own moralities. Here we see evidence though, that animals have a sense of morality, and as suggested previously, it’s unlikely those animals are contemplating the existence of God. It doesn’t make sense that animals would be worrying about pleasing God if there’s no place for them in the afterlife.
Morality is not absolute it does not exist in the same way through cultures or individuals. If the argument is that God exists because there is morality in all of us, then God does not exist, because morality does not exist within all of us.
Actually Secularism Will Work
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/only-spirituality-can-sol_b_474221.html
Deepak Chopra argues that, “If there is anything that will at this moment heal our wounded planet with its immense problems of social injustice, ecological devastation, extreme economic disparities, war, conflict and terrorism, it is a deeper experiential understanding and knowledge of our own spirit.”
On the contrary, rather than wasting our time trying to deepen our understanding and knowledge of the spirit, which has never been proven to exist, we must take a secularist approach to solving these problems.
Secularism can be defined as, “the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence” (Kosmin, Barry A. "Contemporary Secularity and Secularism." Secularism & Secularity: Contemporary International Perspectives. Ed. Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar. Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC), 2007.). We need to work in the here and now to help our follow humans to reach out to them.
Our society must put humans before God. Chopra gives mention to the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion. He says that getting closer to God and developing a better understanding is the key to solving the world’s problems. I’m sure those who were behind the horrors that occurred in the name of religion also felt they were getting closer to God. Either way, we need to take action on the “immense problems” we face today. I fear that if we as a society move in a direction in which we seek a better spiritual understanding that we will never find the answers to our problems because the answers will not come.
Chopra’s argument comes off as a fancy way of saying, “we need to pray more.” After all, prayer is a way in which the faithful attempt to bring themselves closer to God. Now, who is more likely to save a dying child? A group of people praying, mediating, or doing whatever they can to enlighten their sense of spirituality or a group of doctors who through years of training and practice are able to perform the necessary procedures to save her life? Will spirituality stop our “ecological devastation” or will finding and rooting out the causes of the devastation? I’m sure that getting in touch with your spiritual side can be very fulfilling if you believe but, it is not an effective approach to solving world issues. It is a personal journey not meant to help the whole.
Deepak Chopra argues that, “If there is anything that will at this moment heal our wounded planet with its immense problems of social injustice, ecological devastation, extreme economic disparities, war, conflict and terrorism, it is a deeper experiential understanding and knowledge of our own spirit.”
On the contrary, rather than wasting our time trying to deepen our understanding and knowledge of the spirit, which has never been proven to exist, we must take a secularist approach to solving these problems.
Secularism can be defined as, “the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence” (Kosmin, Barry A. "Contemporary Secularity and Secularism." Secularism & Secularity: Contemporary International Perspectives. Ed. Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar. Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC), 2007.). We need to work in the here and now to help our follow humans to reach out to them.
Our society must put humans before God. Chopra gives mention to the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion. He says that getting closer to God and developing a better understanding is the key to solving the world’s problems. I’m sure those who were behind the horrors that occurred in the name of religion also felt they were getting closer to God. Either way, we need to take action on the “immense problems” we face today. I fear that if we as a society move in a direction in which we seek a better spiritual understanding that we will never find the answers to our problems because the answers will not come.
Chopra’s argument comes off as a fancy way of saying, “we need to pray more.” After all, prayer is a way in which the faithful attempt to bring themselves closer to God. Now, who is more likely to save a dying child? A group of people praying, mediating, or doing whatever they can to enlighten their sense of spirituality or a group of doctors who through years of training and practice are able to perform the necessary procedures to save her life? Will spirituality stop our “ecological devastation” or will finding and rooting out the causes of the devastation? I’m sure that getting in touch with your spiritual side can be very fulfilling if you believe but, it is not an effective approach to solving world issues. It is a personal journey not meant to help the whole.
Olympian Proves He's a Moron
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=32367
I don’t often hear news about fundamentalist Christians here in Canada but, as it turns out one of our very own Olympians gave an interview to Baptist Press recently spouting out the typical fundamentalist ideas.
“I've had atheists on my team and they have no problem talking to God before the run," Rush said. "Everybody likes it. Even the atheists, for instance, they like how it sets the tone. We all come together and I pray about things that they want, too. Maybe they're not in a period of their life where they believe in God, I guess. I don't know. I don't really believe in atheists."
I can’t speak for these “atheists” so I don’t know what’s going through their minds, maybe they simply believe in being kind and respectful to their fellow man. They also likely understand that in a team support you can’t have divisions that could negatively affect your performance. However, I’m not on that team so I don’t have to worry about keeping my thoughts to myself. How can one not believe in atheists?
“Rush may not believe in atheists (choosing instead to believe what Romans 1 says about all men knowing the truth but suppressing it in unrighteousness), but he does believe in his responsibility to share his faith with everyone, including atheists.”
We are not suppressing the truth. We have examined the evidence and through it we see that this world and ourselves came to being without the assistance of a creator. Rush defines atheists when he says they don’t believe in God followed by saying he doesn’t believe in atheists. Someone needs to explain to Rush that he did in fact define what an atheist is. There are people who do not believe in God, we do exist.
I should say that from reading the interview Rush seems like a decent guy, his intentions don’t appear to be as sinister as his American counterparts. His misunderstanding of the nature of atheists though is rather frustrating.
I don’t often hear news about fundamentalist Christians here in Canada but, as it turns out one of our very own Olympians gave an interview to Baptist Press recently spouting out the typical fundamentalist ideas.
“I've had atheists on my team and they have no problem talking to God before the run," Rush said. "Everybody likes it. Even the atheists, for instance, they like how it sets the tone. We all come together and I pray about things that they want, too. Maybe they're not in a period of their life where they believe in God, I guess. I don't know. I don't really believe in atheists."
I can’t speak for these “atheists” so I don’t know what’s going through their minds, maybe they simply believe in being kind and respectful to their fellow man. They also likely understand that in a team support you can’t have divisions that could negatively affect your performance. However, I’m not on that team so I don’t have to worry about keeping my thoughts to myself. How can one not believe in atheists?
“Rush may not believe in atheists (choosing instead to believe what Romans 1 says about all men knowing the truth but suppressing it in unrighteousness), but he does believe in his responsibility to share his faith with everyone, including atheists.”
We are not suppressing the truth. We have examined the evidence and through it we see that this world and ourselves came to being without the assistance of a creator. Rush defines atheists when he says they don’t believe in God followed by saying he doesn’t believe in atheists. Someone needs to explain to Rush that he did in fact define what an atheist is. There are people who do not believe in God, we do exist.
I should say that from reading the interview Rush seems like a decent guy, his intentions don’t appear to be as sinister as his American counterparts. His misunderstanding of the nature of atheists though is rather frustrating.
Dawkins Drama
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/02/richard-dawkins-unleashes-tirade-against-fans.html
It looks like things are getting ugly over at Richard Dawkin’s site. I’ve never spent time on the forum myself but, Dawkins comments in regards to what is going on at the forums appears to be reflective of the sad state of internet discussion forums across the web.
“Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose [...] that somebody on website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”
It is wonderful that Dawkins has invested his own time in money into a forum where follow atheists could meet to discuss topics relevant to them. Unfortunately, people often feel as if they are entitled to say whatever they want, including insulting comments towards the gracious host. The owner of the forum has the right to deal with the “trolls” in the manner he sees fit.
Dawkins has every right to restrict speech on a forum he has personally invested in. If you want to insult him, go to another forum to do so. Do not do it on his personal site. You do not enter a person’s home allow them to treat you with kindness and open arms, only to start behaving in a disrespectful and childish manner.
I say bravo to Dawkins for taking a stand against the often vile internet community.
It looks like things are getting ugly over at Richard Dawkin’s site. I’ve never spent time on the forum myself but, Dawkins comments in regards to what is going on at the forums appears to be reflective of the sad state of internet discussion forums across the web.
“Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose [...] that somebody on website expressed a “sudden urge to ram a fistful of nails” down your throat. Also to “trip you up and kick you in the guts.” And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as “a slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.”
It is wonderful that Dawkins has invested his own time in money into a forum where follow atheists could meet to discuss topics relevant to them. Unfortunately, people often feel as if they are entitled to say whatever they want, including insulting comments towards the gracious host. The owner of the forum has the right to deal with the “trolls” in the manner he sees fit.
Dawkins has every right to restrict speech on a forum he has personally invested in. If you want to insult him, go to another forum to do so. Do not do it on his personal site. You do not enter a person’s home allow them to treat you with kindness and open arms, only to start behaving in a disrespectful and childish manner.
I say bravo to Dawkins for taking a stand against the often vile internet community.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Beauty Pagent Contest Suggests Gays Should be Killed
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26767822-954,00.html
Fox News has never been known for its journalistic integrity so it’s no surprise it would give a voice to the airhead Lauren Ashley who stated in an interview that,
“"In Leviticus it says: 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.'
"The Bible is pretty black and white.
"I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone.
"If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life."
Ashley, your blind hypocrisy is one of the many factors that drove me away from religions years ago. According to your insightful analysis God like loves everyone except for homosexuals. If God loves all people but not homosexuals, does that mean that you view them as not being people?
“"I have a lot of friends that are gay, and ... I have a lot of friends who have different views, and we share our views together. There's no hate between me and anyone."
I hope those so called friends realize the hate you are spreading could negatively impact their lives. They should come out, so to speak, against your intolerance. Ms. Ashley you do nothing to contribute to society.
Fox News has never been known for its journalistic integrity so it’s no surprise it would give a voice to the airhead Lauren Ashley who stated in an interview that,
“"In Leviticus it says: 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.'
"The Bible is pretty black and white.
"I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone.
"If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life."
Ashley, your blind hypocrisy is one of the many factors that drove me away from religions years ago. According to your insightful analysis God like loves everyone except for homosexuals. If God loves all people but not homosexuals, does that mean that you view them as not being people?
“"I have a lot of friends that are gay, and ... I have a lot of friends who have different views, and we share our views together. There's no hate between me and anyone."
I hope those so called friends realize the hate you are spreading could negatively impact their lives. They should come out, so to speak, against your intolerance. Ms. Ashley you do nothing to contribute to society.
Glenn Beck is a Conspiracy Nut
http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-equates-climate-change-movement-with-birthers-truthers/
The headline of this article says it all, “Glenn Beck Equates Climate Change Movement With Birthers, Truthers.” I’m happy to see that Beck has enough sense to attack the Birthers and the Truthers, he scores points in that respect. However, comparing the climate change movement to those conspiracies is absurd. The Birthers is a movement detached from reality based on the idea of a non-existent birth certificate that has been proven multiple times to exist. The Truther movement, while at first glance may be convincing to some, is refuted through wonderful investigative work most of which is summed up nicely at the website Debunking 9/11. How those movements can be compared to climate change is puzzling. It is a movement with massive amounts of evidence leaning in its favour and only a small amount of evidence going against it. In other words, it’s the exact opposite of the Truther movement.
The headline of this article says it all, “Glenn Beck Equates Climate Change Movement With Birthers, Truthers.” I’m happy to see that Beck has enough sense to attack the Birthers and the Truthers, he scores points in that respect. However, comparing the climate change movement to those conspiracies is absurd. The Birthers is a movement detached from reality based on the idea of a non-existent birth certificate that has been proven multiple times to exist. The Truther movement, while at first glance may be convincing to some, is refuted through wonderful investigative work most of which is summed up nicely at the website Debunking 9/11. How those movements can be compared to climate change is puzzling. It is a movement with massive amounts of evidence leaning in its favour and only a small amount of evidence going against it. In other words, it’s the exact opposite of the Truther movement.
Bernier Climate Sceptic
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/02/24/13008936.html
Maxime Bernier, the fool who proved his incompetence at holding a cabinet position after leaving sensitive briefing documents for an upcoming NATO meeting at his girlfriend’s house (Globe and Mail: Couillard a helpless victim? Cry me a river) has proven his idiocy with his coming out as a climate sceptic saying, “there is no scientific consensus on the matter.” Bernier goes on to repeat the common sceptic arguments.
Mentions of global cooling? Check. Talking about how there has been no warming in the past decade? Check. It’s the usual comments we’ve come to expect from the sceptics. I’m not a fan of alarmists either but, Bernier is defining an alarmist as anyone who says that climate change is happening and that action needs to be taken. People who hold that view are not alarmists. An alarmist is someone who claims that the Earth is going to be on an irreversible path to becoming a giant fireball within the next few decades. Scientific consensus on how quickly climate change is happening is not strong. However, scientists are very clear that climate change has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. Bernier’s recent statements seem to be a desperate cry for attention since he resigned from his cabinet position a way to remind us all that he still exists. I’ll gladly acknowledge his existence, if only to expose his ignorance.
Maxime Bernier, the fool who proved his incompetence at holding a cabinet position after leaving sensitive briefing documents for an upcoming NATO meeting at his girlfriend’s house (Globe and Mail: Couillard a helpless victim? Cry me a river) has proven his idiocy with his coming out as a climate sceptic saying, “there is no scientific consensus on the matter.” Bernier goes on to repeat the common sceptic arguments.
Mentions of global cooling? Check. Talking about how there has been no warming in the past decade? Check. It’s the usual comments we’ve come to expect from the sceptics. I’m not a fan of alarmists either but, Bernier is defining an alarmist as anyone who says that climate change is happening and that action needs to be taken. People who hold that view are not alarmists. An alarmist is someone who claims that the Earth is going to be on an irreversible path to becoming a giant fireball within the next few decades. Scientific consensus on how quickly climate change is happening is not strong. However, scientists are very clear that climate change has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. Bernier’s recent statements seem to be a desperate cry for attention since he resigned from his cabinet position a way to remind us all that he still exists. I’ll gladly acknowledge his existence, if only to expose his ignorance.
Court Asks Delaware Schools to Stop Opening Meeting with Christian Prayer
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20100224/OPINION01/2240450/-1/newsfront2/Prayer-and-the-school-board
A small victory for the separation of Church and State occurred recently following a decision in Delaware to ask school board meetings from being opened with a Christian prayer.
“A Federal judge in Delaware has finally handed down a ruling on the last remaining issue raised in a 2005 lawsuit that challenged the Indian River School Board's policies concerning Christian prayers. This ruling, which is sure to be appealed, asks that school board meetings not be opened with a Christian prayer.”
The decision hasn’t gone as far as to outright ban the right to pray, most likely to prevent a large public backlash. Not to mention, an outright ban would be an attack on freedom of religion. The rational approach would be to allow for all prayers (secularist moments of silence included) to be said at the start of the meetings. What this decision does most effectively though, is reminding Americans that Christianity is not the only religion out there.
A small victory for the separation of Church and State occurred recently following a decision in Delaware to ask school board meetings from being opened with a Christian prayer.
“A Federal judge in Delaware has finally handed down a ruling on the last remaining issue raised in a 2005 lawsuit that challenged the Indian River School Board's policies concerning Christian prayers. This ruling, which is sure to be appealed, asks that school board meetings not be opened with a Christian prayer.”
The decision hasn’t gone as far as to outright ban the right to pray, most likely to prevent a large public backlash. Not to mention, an outright ban would be an attack on freedom of religion. The rational approach would be to allow for all prayers (secularist moments of silence included) to be said at the start of the meetings. What this decision does most effectively though, is reminding Americans that Christianity is not the only religion out there.
Blame it on the Evil Atheists
http://catholicinsight.com/online/political/article_961.shtml
The following line nearly had my laughing aloud. “Surrounded by a cabinet and special counsellors selected specifically for their atheist, pro abortion, anti-family, views, the President now presents his sacrificial offering as follows” Yes, the evil atheists want to kill your babies and let gays get it on. I’m not surprised by this view I’ve heard it many times before. Apparently atheism, the lack of a belief in a God, goes hand-in-hand with supporting abortion. Not all atheists are pro-abortion. Christopher Hitchens, one of the “four horsemen” isn’t exactly pro-abortion.
“On the issue of abortion, Hitchens prioritizes in affirming that he believes a fetus should be regarded as an "unborn child", but opposing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, supporting the development of medical abortion techniques, and fundamentally believing in access to contraceptives and reproductive rights in order to obviate surgical abortion altogether.” Belief Watch: Pro-life Atheists
Personally, I do not like what abortion implies, the thought makes me uncomfortable but, it is not my decision to make.
The following line nearly had my laughing aloud. “Surrounded by a cabinet and special counsellors selected specifically for their atheist, pro abortion, anti-family, views, the President now presents his sacrificial offering as follows” Yes, the evil atheists want to kill your babies and let gays get it on. I’m not surprised by this view I’ve heard it many times before. Apparently atheism, the lack of a belief in a God, goes hand-in-hand with supporting abortion. Not all atheists are pro-abortion. Christopher Hitchens, one of the “four horsemen” isn’t exactly pro-abortion.
“On the issue of abortion, Hitchens prioritizes in affirming that he believes a fetus should be regarded as an "unborn child", but opposing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, supporting the development of medical abortion techniques, and fundamentally believing in access to contraceptives and reproductive rights in order to obviate surgical abortion altogether.” Belief Watch: Pro-life Atheists
Personally, I do not like what abortion implies, the thought makes me uncomfortable but, it is not my decision to make.
Irrational Laws in Indonesia
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1002/S00549.htm
In Indonesia religion and freedom from religion are under assault.
“In 2007 the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted with concern that mixed-faith couples – in which the man and woman hold different recognized beliefs – faced difficulties in officially registering their marriages and that their children were not provided with birth certificates, as they were not the products of “lawful” marriage. Paradoxically, people that change their religion in order to marry their partner can face stigmatization.
Furthermore, there is no provision for individuals with no religious belief to enter into a civil marriage contract, and no legal documentation for those without such a belief. This results in people keeping their atheist beliefs secret and when the time comes to marry, they make the choice of either marrying in a religious ceremony that is devoid of meaning for them, or not marrying at all, which can leave their family and offspring without legal protection.
Moreover, under Indonesian Law No. 23 of 2006 on Civic Administration, individuals are required to record their faith on legal documents such as identity cards and birth certificates. Atheists who ascribe to no religion or those who wish to leave the column blank or to register under one of the “non-recognized” religions face discrimination and harassment - including refusal of employment. “
Here is an issue where secularists and the religious should come together to say that this is unacceptable. Surely the religious can agree that there is no harm in mixed-faith couples (leaving out the fundamentalists of course). Atheists should not have to be forced into hiding who they are. This story is a reminder that while the voices of atheism are growing, we still have a way to go.
In Indonesia religion and freedom from religion are under assault.
“In 2007 the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted with concern that mixed-faith couples – in which the man and woman hold different recognized beliefs – faced difficulties in officially registering their marriages and that their children were not provided with birth certificates, as they were not the products of “lawful” marriage. Paradoxically, people that change their religion in order to marry their partner can face stigmatization.
Furthermore, there is no provision for individuals with no religious belief to enter into a civil marriage contract, and no legal documentation for those without such a belief. This results in people keeping their atheist beliefs secret and when the time comes to marry, they make the choice of either marrying in a religious ceremony that is devoid of meaning for them, or not marrying at all, which can leave their family and offspring without legal protection.
Moreover, under Indonesian Law No. 23 of 2006 on Civic Administration, individuals are required to record their faith on legal documents such as identity cards and birth certificates. Atheists who ascribe to no religion or those who wish to leave the column blank or to register under one of the “non-recognized” religions face discrimination and harassment - including refusal of employment. “
Here is an issue where secularists and the religious should come together to say that this is unacceptable. Surely the religious can agree that there is no harm in mixed-faith couples (leaving out the fundamentalists of course). Atheists should not have to be forced into hiding who they are. This story is a reminder that while the voices of atheism are growing, we still have a way to go.
Court Rules Against Cross Ban in Italy's Schools
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10022305.html
“The Council of Europe has declared that it is not within the scope of the European Court of Human Rights to force Italian schools and public offices to remove crucifixes.”
“The council vote follows a massive public uproar in Italy, after the court ordered the Italian government to remove crucifixes from public spaces. The ruling came in response to a single complaint made by a Finnish woman who lives in Italy and who said that, as an atheist, she wanted her children to be free of religious influences.
The court ruled unanimously that crucifixes in Italian public school classes are contrary to the rights of parents to “educate their children in line with their convictions” and to the children’s right to freedom of religion under article 2 of the 1st Protocol, and art. 9 of the Convention.”
If I understand this correctly, then what the Council of Europe is saying is that even though the displaying of crosses in the school goes against the European Union Convention, Italy, a member of the EU, does not have to abide by that law. Shouldn’t membership into the EU have to include meeting the condition that the member country abides by the standards of the Convention? Why should Italy receive the benefits of being an EU member if it wants to seek exemption from the rules? Europe is supposedly the shining beacon of hope for secularists yet the influence of religion in the public domain is still strong and may be getting stronger.
“The Council of Europe has declared that it is not within the scope of the European Court of Human Rights to force Italian schools and public offices to remove crucifixes.”
“The council vote follows a massive public uproar in Italy, after the court ordered the Italian government to remove crucifixes from public spaces. The ruling came in response to a single complaint made by a Finnish woman who lives in Italy and who said that, as an atheist, she wanted her children to be free of religious influences.
The court ruled unanimously that crucifixes in Italian public school classes are contrary to the rights of parents to “educate their children in line with their convictions” and to the children’s right to freedom of religion under article 2 of the 1st Protocol, and art. 9 of the Convention.”
If I understand this correctly, then what the Council of Europe is saying is that even though the displaying of crosses in the school goes against the European Union Convention, Italy, a member of the EU, does not have to abide by that law. Shouldn’t membership into the EU have to include meeting the condition that the member country abides by the standards of the Convention? Why should Italy receive the benefits of being an EU member if it wants to seek exemption from the rules? Europe is supposedly the shining beacon of hope for secularists yet the influence of religion in the public domain is still strong and may be getting stronger.
It Does Matter
http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/the-devil-s-advocate-politics-isn-t-about-policy-just-status-wrangling-1.2166327
“I don’t think it really matters if science teachers mention intelligent design.”
It depends on the context in which they mention intelligent design. As long as they say it’s a creationist explanation for evolution that has not been accepted by any peer reviewed journal then fine go ahead and mention it. If on the other hand, the science teacher says that it is an alternative theory for evolution, then we have a problem. ID is not science, it’s creationism and must be acknowledged as such.
“I don’t think it really matters if science teachers mention intelligent design.”
It depends on the context in which they mention intelligent design. As long as they say it’s a creationist explanation for evolution that has not been accepted by any peer reviewed journal then fine go ahead and mention it. If on the other hand, the science teacher says that it is an alternative theory for evolution, then we have a problem. ID is not science, it’s creationism and must be acknowledged as such.
They Should Teach it if They Want the Funding
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100027255/archbishop-nichols-tell-us-will-catholic-schools-provide-abortion-information-as-the-government-insists/
Ignore the author of this article who spews out conspiracy drivel about organizations being run by power loving lefties. Yes, the catholic schools should provide abortion information if they are receiving any sort of funding from the government. It’s that simple.
Ignore the author of this article who spews out conspiracy drivel about organizations being run by power loving lefties. Yes, the catholic schools should provide abortion information if they are receiving any sort of funding from the government. It’s that simple.
God Didn't Do It
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/mailbag/The-theory-of-evolution-is.6094178.jp
“His favourite piece of evidence in favour of evolution is the universality of DNA but this could just as easily be evidence for a common designer.”
How is this evidence for a common designer? Science shows that the universality of DNA is evidence for evolution that doesn’t need a designer. The writer of this article has just assumed that there is a God and therefore is saying that evolution can’t happen without one.
“This highly intelligent code system with its multi-layered control systems, speaks clearly of a brilliant creator. Codes don't write themselves, even with the hoped for billions of years.”
It’s the typical it’s so complex therefore it couldn’t have happened without a creator argument. If we take the belief that there was a creator, then he is anything but brilliant. Listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson who speaks about the chaos of the universe that makes most of it unfavourable for the development of life. Hardly sounds like a brilliant creator does it? I’m not a biologist and I will admit it’s difficult to prevent my eyes from glazing over when reading up on the theories regarding the origins of genetic code but, it seems the evidence is there and multiple theories exist for genetic code origin, none of which include God. However one point I found in reading stood out that goes against the writer’s statement of, “Even the simplest proteins composed of let's say, 100 amino acids, could not possibly form by chance due to the mathematical laws of probability!” Well that’s just it, they didn’t form by chance, “The genetic code is not a random assignment of codons to amino acids” (Freeland SJ, Hurst LD (September 1998). "The genetic code is one in a million". J. Mol. Evol. 47 (3): 238–48. doi:10.1007/PL00006381. PMID 9732450. http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00239/bibs/47n3p238.html.). As I said, I’m not a biologist but, I highly doubt this writer is either, nor has he performed any basic level of research. He appears to be unable to fathom the idea that all of this happened without a God.
“The Cambrian explosion of multiple creatures, all fully formed and fit for purpose with the absence of missing links, shows that the theory of evolution is unproven and unsound.”
Go read The Greatest Show on Earth the evidence is there the missing links are there. Learn to keep up with the scientific literature. If this writer is going to state that evolution is unproven and unsound, then the burden of proof lies on him to prove God, which he hasn’t. He has taken arguments for evolution and simply added “godditit” in an unscientific attempt to prove his point. Let’s also not forget that tireless question of, “who made God?”
“His favourite piece of evidence in favour of evolution is the universality of DNA but this could just as easily be evidence for a common designer.”
How is this evidence for a common designer? Science shows that the universality of DNA is evidence for evolution that doesn’t need a designer. The writer of this article has just assumed that there is a God and therefore is saying that evolution can’t happen without one.
“This highly intelligent code system with its multi-layered control systems, speaks clearly of a brilliant creator. Codes don't write themselves, even with the hoped for billions of years.”
It’s the typical it’s so complex therefore it couldn’t have happened without a creator argument. If we take the belief that there was a creator, then he is anything but brilliant. Listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson who speaks about the chaos of the universe that makes most of it unfavourable for the development of life. Hardly sounds like a brilliant creator does it? I’m not a biologist and I will admit it’s difficult to prevent my eyes from glazing over when reading up on the theories regarding the origins of genetic code but, it seems the evidence is there and multiple theories exist for genetic code origin, none of which include God. However one point I found in reading stood out that goes against the writer’s statement of, “Even the simplest proteins composed of let's say, 100 amino acids, could not possibly form by chance due to the mathematical laws of probability!” Well that’s just it, they didn’t form by chance, “The genetic code is not a random assignment of codons to amino acids” (Freeland SJ, Hurst LD (September 1998). "The genetic code is one in a million". J. Mol. Evol. 47 (3): 238–48. doi:10.1007/PL00006381. PMID 9732450. http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00239/bibs/47n3p238.html.). As I said, I’m not a biologist but, I highly doubt this writer is either, nor has he performed any basic level of research. He appears to be unable to fathom the idea that all of this happened without a God.
“The Cambrian explosion of multiple creatures, all fully formed and fit for purpose with the absence of missing links, shows that the theory of evolution is unproven and unsound.”
Go read The Greatest Show on Earth the evidence is there the missing links are there. Learn to keep up with the scientific literature. If this writer is going to state that evolution is unproven and unsound, then the burden of proof lies on him to prove God, which he hasn’t. He has taken arguments for evolution and simply added “godditit” in an unscientific attempt to prove his point. Let’s also not forget that tireless question of, “who made God?”
Read the Bible
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/22/william-ingram-even-atheists-should-read-the-bible.aspx
I disagree with the last line about the Bible being a great book though I do agree with the main point of the article. I’ve heard people who say the Bible is a good book full of lessons on how to live one’s life only to say right after that they haven’t actually read the Bible. The Bible is an important book in Western history and should be read and understood by everyone. We all need to interpret it for ourselves rather than have others tell us what to think. Non-believers wanting to be critical of Christianity need to understand its view point, the Bible is the best source for that view point. Similarly, I am reading the Quran. As I said to my mother, if I am going to be critical of the faith I need a better understanding of the faith.
Confession, I have not read the Bible from front to back. I have read the majority of the four gospels and have studied it from various sources including Sunday school back in my Church going days. I certainly have more knowledge of it than I currently have of the Quran. I promise now to read through the Bible once I finish with the Quran. I encourage anyone who has not read the books, believer or non-believer, to go do so as well.
I disagree with the last line about the Bible being a great book though I do agree with the main point of the article. I’ve heard people who say the Bible is a good book full of lessons on how to live one’s life only to say right after that they haven’t actually read the Bible. The Bible is an important book in Western history and should be read and understood by everyone. We all need to interpret it for ourselves rather than have others tell us what to think. Non-believers wanting to be critical of Christianity need to understand its view point, the Bible is the best source for that view point. Similarly, I am reading the Quran. As I said to my mother, if I am going to be critical of the faith I need a better understanding of the faith.
Confession, I have not read the Bible from front to back. I have read the majority of the four gospels and have studied it from various sources including Sunday school back in my Church going days. I certainly have more knowledge of it than I currently have of the Quran. I promise now to read through the Bible once I finish with the Quran. I encourage anyone who has not read the books, believer or non-believer, to go do so as well.
Atheism and Demon Worship Blamed for Church Arson
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-churchfires_24tex.ART.State.Edition1.4ba005e.html
“One of two East Texas church arson suspects kept books on demon possession and atheism as well as assault rifles and guns, and may have left graffiti offering inside information about one of the attacks in a local store bathroom, according to court records.”
First off, church burning is completely unacceptable and atheists everywhere should work to condemn such actions. Destructive acts like that only undermine efforts to bring atheism into a more positive light this foolish arsonist isn’t doing us any favours. As for the article, the argument is amusing. It’s trying to pin a link between atheism and Satanism i.e. the finding of an inverted cross. I can’t speak for Bourque but I will say this, believing atheism and Satanism go together is insane. Perhaps Bourque did believe that atheism=Satanism and that he was being some sort of rebellious bad-ass fighting against the oppression of the Church. No, he’s a moron, end of discussion. Dallas News doesn’t score any points though for trying to link the two views together and implying that they led to the arsons. I’m not trying to argue that atheists can’t act violently but, you’d never hear the words “Bible found in abortion shooter’s home” and have the media spin it to blame the Bible for the shooting. The article also mentions guns being found at Bourque’s house. Why not blame the guns? Why not imply that the evil evil guns made him do it? Don’t forget about the graffiti he left, it could be prove that graffiti artists are church burners waiting to happen.
Wondering what the books were? “Demon Possession and The Atheist's Way.” I imagine their sales might start to spike as this story spreads.
“One of two East Texas church arson suspects kept books on demon possession and atheism as well as assault rifles and guns, and may have left graffiti offering inside information about one of the attacks in a local store bathroom, according to court records.”
First off, church burning is completely unacceptable and atheists everywhere should work to condemn such actions. Destructive acts like that only undermine efforts to bring atheism into a more positive light this foolish arsonist isn’t doing us any favours. As for the article, the argument is amusing. It’s trying to pin a link between atheism and Satanism i.e. the finding of an inverted cross. I can’t speak for Bourque but I will say this, believing atheism and Satanism go together is insane. Perhaps Bourque did believe that atheism=Satanism and that he was being some sort of rebellious bad-ass fighting against the oppression of the Church. No, he’s a moron, end of discussion. Dallas News doesn’t score any points though for trying to link the two views together and implying that they led to the arsons. I’m not trying to argue that atheists can’t act violently but, you’d never hear the words “Bible found in abortion shooter’s home” and have the media spin it to blame the Bible for the shooting. The article also mentions guns being found at Bourque’s house. Why not blame the guns? Why not imply that the evil evil guns made him do it? Don’t forget about the graffiti he left, it could be prove that graffiti artists are church burners waiting to happen.
Wondering what the books were? “Demon Possession and The Atheist's Way.” I imagine their sales might start to spike as this story spreads.
Atheist Bus Campaign Banned in New Zealand
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10628222
“Organisers of a controversial campaign to get pro-atheism ads on buses say they may go to the Human Rights Review Tribunal after transport company NZ Bus backtracked on plans to allow the ads.”
I hope this means that NZ Bus will no longer allow any religious messages on their buses as well. I’m not arguing against the company’s right to not run the ads. My concern is over the public backlash that caused the ads to be pulled.
“NZ Bus tentatively approved the ads for buses in major centres, but later backtracked after receiving a number of complaints from the public and staff.”
I have some advice to the protestors, if the ads offend you, don’t ride the bus that’s how capitalism works, you vote with your dollar. Personally, I wouldn’t get too worked up over seeing an ad for religion on a bus, as long as I knew the other view was also given a chance to be displayed.
“Organisers of a controversial campaign to get pro-atheism ads on buses say they may go to the Human Rights Review Tribunal after transport company NZ Bus backtracked on plans to allow the ads.”
I hope this means that NZ Bus will no longer allow any religious messages on their buses as well. I’m not arguing against the company’s right to not run the ads. My concern is over the public backlash that caused the ads to be pulled.
“NZ Bus tentatively approved the ads for buses in major centres, but later backtracked after receiving a number of complaints from the public and staff.”
I have some advice to the protestors, if the ads offend you, don’t ride the bus that’s how capitalism works, you vote with your dollar. Personally, I wouldn’t get too worked up over seeing an ad for religion on a bus, as long as I knew the other view was also given a chance to be displayed.
Nuclear Bombs=Global Warming Apparently
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022310/content/01125113.guest.html
“I'm curious about the link between global warming and Iran. It seems like a nuclear weapon is the ultimate example of man-made global warming. So why aren't President Obama and all the other Nobel Peace Prize winners who believe in man-made global warming, why aren't they stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons to help save the environment?”
I’m not even sure where to begin. I ask you to read over that quote several times, allow yourself to get over the shocking stupidity of it. The idiocy here is incredible. FAIR WARNING, I’m about to go into a curse filled rant so if foul language offends you skip over these next few sentences. Where the fuck is the evidence for a link between nuclear weapons and man-made global warming? How does this make any damn sense at all? This caller has made a claim with absolutely no fucking proof at all. NOTE: Curse filled rant now over. I apologize for that, but this has to be the stupidest thing I’ve read since I started going over transcripts of Rush’s show.
Rush responds by going into his own rant about the blame America first crowd. Apparently the Liberals aren’t being critical of Iran because they think, at least according to Rush, “By the same token, they understand, hey, we've got a nuke, who are we to say Iran shouldn't have a nuke? Who are we to say? Maybe Iran should have a nuke and we shouldn't 'cause we're the bad guys.” I think by American standards I’d be considered a Liberal. Here’s what I believe. I believe in Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that having nuclear weapons can be a deterrence because using the bomb would result in a retaliation that could be devastating to your country. Now sure, it can be argued that a country such as Iran will approach this with a martyr mentality and won’t care about the consequences of using a nuclear weapon. I certainly don’t believe in what Rush is saying, that Iran should have a nuke but the U.S shouldn’t. I don’t want Iran to get the bomb but it’s likely to happen. No, pre-emptive strikes aren’t the answer, though it needs to be made clear to Iran that use of nuclear weapons will result in destructive counter-attacks. In the ideal world all countries would give up their nuclear weapons, though that is a very optimistic point-of-view.
The rant from Rush also deals with the view that Liberals blame America for global warming therefore, America should do all the work there is truth to Rush’s rant here. It ignores however, the fact that global warming is a world problem and we all need to pull our weight.
“I'm curious about the link between global warming and Iran. It seems like a nuclear weapon is the ultimate example of man-made global warming. So why aren't President Obama and all the other Nobel Peace Prize winners who believe in man-made global warming, why aren't they stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons to help save the environment?”
I’m not even sure where to begin. I ask you to read over that quote several times, allow yourself to get over the shocking stupidity of it. The idiocy here is incredible. FAIR WARNING, I’m about to go into a curse filled rant so if foul language offends you skip over these next few sentences. Where the fuck is the evidence for a link between nuclear weapons and man-made global warming? How does this make any damn sense at all? This caller has made a claim with absolutely no fucking proof at all. NOTE: Curse filled rant now over. I apologize for that, but this has to be the stupidest thing I’ve read since I started going over transcripts of Rush’s show.
Rush responds by going into his own rant about the blame America first crowd. Apparently the Liberals aren’t being critical of Iran because they think, at least according to Rush, “By the same token, they understand, hey, we've got a nuke, who are we to say Iran shouldn't have a nuke? Who are we to say? Maybe Iran should have a nuke and we shouldn't 'cause we're the bad guys.” I think by American standards I’d be considered a Liberal. Here’s what I believe. I believe in Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that having nuclear weapons can be a deterrence because using the bomb would result in a retaliation that could be devastating to your country. Now sure, it can be argued that a country such as Iran will approach this with a martyr mentality and won’t care about the consequences of using a nuclear weapon. I certainly don’t believe in what Rush is saying, that Iran should have a nuke but the U.S shouldn’t. I don’t want Iran to get the bomb but it’s likely to happen. No, pre-emptive strikes aren’t the answer, though it needs to be made clear to Iran that use of nuclear weapons will result in destructive counter-attacks. In the ideal world all countries would give up their nuclear weapons, though that is a very optimistic point-of-view.
The rant from Rush also deals with the view that Liberals blame America for global warming therefore, America should do all the work there is truth to Rush’s rant here. It ignores however, the fact that global warming is a world problem and we all need to pull our weight.
It's Hate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605124.html
“How exactly does the idea of executing gays evolve in a majority-Christian nation?”
Simple: the execution of gays is supported by the Bible. Let’s take a look at the “word of God” that must be followed by Christians.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13
“18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
“Samuel 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.”
“Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Notwithstanding contradictory statements in the Bible stating that murder is wrong, what some Ugandans are now calling for isn’t exactly un-Christian. Those who say that such laws would be un-Christian aren’t willing to accept the fact that Christianity can be used for evil as much as it can be used for good. To them being Christian means being tolerant of others but, that is only one interpretation of what it means to be a Christian. In the end it might suffice to say that there is no such thing as Christian vs. un-Christian. If we are to define a true Christian as someone who lives by the word of the Bible then it would be impossible for anyone to be a true Christian. There are too many contradictory demands in the Bible that make it impossible follow exactly as it was written. The accusations of being un-Christian could be turned on those who don’t believe in killing gays. Assuming we stick with our (impossible) criteria for being a true Christian, then not killing gays makes a person un-Christian.
I wonder. would it be easier for the more progressive Christians to admit that there is something wrong with the faith? No belief set that speaks of morality should have room for ideas that call for the murder of gays. It seems that progressives are still trying to desperately hold on to the word of the Bible, they know it’s an outdated text filled with rules incompatible with modern society. However, many are still convinced that this is God’s word and to change it would be blasphemous. If they want to start calling those who condone such murderous acts un-Christian, they’d have to change the tenets of the faith itself.
“How exactly does the idea of executing gays evolve in a majority-Christian nation?”
Simple: the execution of gays is supported by the Bible. Let’s take a look at the “word of God” that must be followed by Christians.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13
“18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
“Samuel 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.”
“Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Notwithstanding contradictory statements in the Bible stating that murder is wrong, what some Ugandans are now calling for isn’t exactly un-Christian. Those who say that such laws would be un-Christian aren’t willing to accept the fact that Christianity can be used for evil as much as it can be used for good. To them being Christian means being tolerant of others but, that is only one interpretation of what it means to be a Christian. In the end it might suffice to say that there is no such thing as Christian vs. un-Christian. If we are to define a true Christian as someone who lives by the word of the Bible then it would be impossible for anyone to be a true Christian. There are too many contradictory demands in the Bible that make it impossible follow exactly as it was written. The accusations of being un-Christian could be turned on those who don’t believe in killing gays. Assuming we stick with our (impossible) criteria for being a true Christian, then not killing gays makes a person un-Christian.
I wonder. would it be easier for the more progressive Christians to admit that there is something wrong with the faith? No belief set that speaks of morality should have room for ideas that call for the murder of gays. It seems that progressives are still trying to desperately hold on to the word of the Bible, they know it’s an outdated text filled with rules incompatible with modern society. However, many are still convinced that this is God’s word and to change it would be blasphemous. If they want to start calling those who condone such murderous acts un-Christian, they’d have to change the tenets of the faith itself.
Israeli Scientist Doubts Evolution
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/the_don_mcleroy_of_israel.php
“Gavriel Avital, the chief scientist in the education ministry, has made a few statements that show he is a lunatic.
"If textbooks state explicitly that human beings' origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don't believe the evolutionary account is correct," Avital said yesterday.
"There are those for whom evolution is a religion and are unwilling to hear about anything else. Part of my responsibility, in light of my position with the Education Ministry, is to examine textbooks and curricula," he said. "If they keep writing in textbooks that the Earth is growing warmer because of carbon dioxide emissions, I'll insist that isn't the case."
Avital, as Myers is quick to point out, has no right to be the chief scientist in the Education Ministry. Yes, there are people who do not believe that evolution is correct, they choose to ignore the scientific evidence that shows it is capable of taking place without the guidance of a god. Science education though, is about teaching theories that have been peer reviewed and accepted among the general science population. Science is not about teaching “opinions”.
Religion, as defined by dictionary.com is
“A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Religious opinions about how we came to be are based on “devotional and ritual observances” unlike science and evolution which is based upon testing and empirical evidence. Furthermore, evolution cannot be a religion because it contains no moral code, it is not a guideline on how to conduct human affairs. Its’ purpose is to explain certain functions of nature. To say that there are those who “are unwilling to hear about anything else” is misguiding. The reason that scientists oppose “other opinions” is because they have not been proven by science. However, the nature of science permits the presentation of new ideas as long as there is evidence to support the idea. A scientist will not dismiss a theory that says evolution is wrong, provided that theory has proof behind it.
At the end of the quote Avital implies that he is a climate sceptic. Why do the two stances of creationist and climate sceptic go hand-in-hand? There’s an unfortunate desire to fight against science and reason.
“"Today I am pleased that more and more scientists engaged in pure science, rather than being employed in the name of an ideology, are reaching the conclusion that the world must have a master. Nothing is given to chance," he said. "These are my opinions and I won't deny them just because I was appointed to an Education Ministry position." (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?itemNo=1151223).
What exactly is this “pure science?” Well according to dictionary.com it’s,
“Systematic observation of natural phenomena solely for the discovery of unknown laws relating to facts; the study of science alone, not including its relations to other subjects”
So “pure science” is the study of science alone, not including its relations to other subjects. Avital is right to say that it means science is not being employed in the name of an ideology but, that also means that “pure science” should not be influenced by religious ideas. Has Avital studied evolution? Did he start from the premise that anything is possible i.e. evolution occurred naturally or by the hand of God? Did he then examine research and evidence to come to a conclusion? No, it’s likely Avital worked the other way starting with the idea of God then taking evidence to fill in the gaps with God.
“Gavriel Avital, the chief scientist in the education ministry, has made a few statements that show he is a lunatic.
"If textbooks state explicitly that human beings' origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don't believe the evolutionary account is correct," Avital said yesterday.
"There are those for whom evolution is a religion and are unwilling to hear about anything else. Part of my responsibility, in light of my position with the Education Ministry, is to examine textbooks and curricula," he said. "If they keep writing in textbooks that the Earth is growing warmer because of carbon dioxide emissions, I'll insist that isn't the case."
Avital, as Myers is quick to point out, has no right to be the chief scientist in the Education Ministry. Yes, there are people who do not believe that evolution is correct, they choose to ignore the scientific evidence that shows it is capable of taking place without the guidance of a god. Science education though, is about teaching theories that have been peer reviewed and accepted among the general science population. Science is not about teaching “opinions”.
Religion, as defined by dictionary.com is
“A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Religious opinions about how we came to be are based on “devotional and ritual observances” unlike science and evolution which is based upon testing and empirical evidence. Furthermore, evolution cannot be a religion because it contains no moral code, it is not a guideline on how to conduct human affairs. Its’ purpose is to explain certain functions of nature. To say that there are those who “are unwilling to hear about anything else” is misguiding. The reason that scientists oppose “other opinions” is because they have not been proven by science. However, the nature of science permits the presentation of new ideas as long as there is evidence to support the idea. A scientist will not dismiss a theory that says evolution is wrong, provided that theory has proof behind it.
At the end of the quote Avital implies that he is a climate sceptic. Why do the two stances of creationist and climate sceptic go hand-in-hand? There’s an unfortunate desire to fight against science and reason.
“"Today I am pleased that more and more scientists engaged in pure science, rather than being employed in the name of an ideology, are reaching the conclusion that the world must have a master. Nothing is given to chance," he said. "These are my opinions and I won't deny them just because I was appointed to an Education Ministry position." (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?itemNo=1151223).
What exactly is this “pure science?” Well according to dictionary.com it’s,
“Systematic observation of natural phenomena solely for the discovery of unknown laws relating to facts; the study of science alone, not including its relations to other subjects”
So “pure science” is the study of science alone, not including its relations to other subjects. Avital is right to say that it means science is not being employed in the name of an ideology but, that also means that “pure science” should not be influenced by religious ideas. Has Avital studied evolution? Did he start from the premise that anything is possible i.e. evolution occurred naturally or by the hand of God? Did he then examine research and evidence to come to a conclusion? No, it’s likely Avital worked the other way starting with the idea of God then taking evidence to fill in the gaps with God.
CPAC Speaker Calls for Theocracy
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-22/nonsense-at-cpac/?cid=hp:mainpromo2
“Pawlenty also declared that America’s first “basic constitutional principle” is “God’s in charge.”
There’s a word for that: theocracy. There is no place in a rational secular society for a legal system based on one religion. The danger of believing the laws of your country come from God is that the law-makers will never question the laws. In their mind’s God’s law is the only law and there is no room for compromise. The Christian God is an oppressive dictator with a severe case of bi-polar disorder. Anyone who stands for freedom will not tolerate the push towards a legal system based on the word of the Bible. True power belongs to the people. Democracy must stand against those who would push for a religious theocracy.
“Pawlenty also declared that America’s first “basic constitutional principle” is “God’s in charge.”
There’s a word for that: theocracy. There is no place in a rational secular society for a legal system based on one religion. The danger of believing the laws of your country come from God is that the law-makers will never question the laws. In their mind’s God’s law is the only law and there is no room for compromise. The Christian God is an oppressive dictator with a severe case of bi-polar disorder. Anyone who stands for freedom will not tolerate the push towards a legal system based on the word of the Bible. True power belongs to the people. Democracy must stand against those who would push for a religious theocracy.
Joe Stack
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021910/content/01125107.guest.html
“All right, back this. I have two, smack-in-the-middle-of-TIME Magazine articles about Mr. Andrew Joseph Stack, or is it Joseph Andrew Stack? Is it Joe Stack? You know, the media always, when they throw in somebody's middle name, it's a key, it's a tip-off -- they're trying to portray somebody as wacko insane”
It’s no surprise that Rush Hudson Limbaugh is familiar with this tactic. I’ve lost track of how many times Rush Hudson Limbaugh has used “Barak Hussein Obama” as if there is some sort of sinister reason behind Obama having the middle name Hussein. In the irrational world of the fringe movement it works like this, “Barak Hussein Obama, let’s see Hussein, Saddam Hussein, a supporter of terrorism Hussein was a terrorist and a dictator, Hussein, terrorist, dictator, Barak Hussein Obama therefore, Obama is a terrorist. “ You can see how ridiculous this thought process is, let’s illustrate it another way. Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Hudson is a river in New York, a plane crashed into the Hudson, Hudson, Rush’s middle name, the Hudson synonymous with a plane crash therefore, Rush Hudson Limbaugh caused the plane crash in the Hudson. I digress; there is a more serious issue at hand in this transcript the insane actions of Joe Stack who took his anti-tax anger too far by flying a plane into an IRS building. Did he have any political affiliations?
There have been reports of Stack’s link to the Tea Party movement. Do these links have any basis in reality or are they simply a way to cast a bad light on the movement? (Note: that last statement is not intended in any way to be an endorsement of the Tea Party, they are nuts but they aren’t necessarily Joseph Stack nuts.) There certainly doesn’t appear to be any direct links to the Tea Party movement itself. Stack’s anger was a reflection of the anti-government and anti-tax sentiments that exist throughout America on both the left and the right. It’s rather disgusting that some are referring to Stack as a patriot (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/joe-stacks-daughter-samantha-bell-calls-dad-hero/story?id=9903329&page=2) taking an innocent life for political motivations is not patriotism it is terrorism. Of course, his name is Stack and not Muhammad so it’s unlikely that the America press will call it what it is.
“All right, back this. I have two, smack-in-the-middle-of-TIME Magazine articles about Mr. Andrew Joseph Stack, or is it Joseph Andrew Stack? Is it Joe Stack? You know, the media always, when they throw in somebody's middle name, it's a key, it's a tip-off -- they're trying to portray somebody as wacko insane”
It’s no surprise that Rush Hudson Limbaugh is familiar with this tactic. I’ve lost track of how many times Rush Hudson Limbaugh has used “Barak Hussein Obama” as if there is some sort of sinister reason behind Obama having the middle name Hussein. In the irrational world of the fringe movement it works like this, “Barak Hussein Obama, let’s see Hussein, Saddam Hussein, a supporter of terrorism Hussein was a terrorist and a dictator, Hussein, terrorist, dictator, Barak Hussein Obama therefore, Obama is a terrorist. “ You can see how ridiculous this thought process is, let’s illustrate it another way. Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Hudson is a river in New York, a plane crashed into the Hudson, Hudson, Rush’s middle name, the Hudson synonymous with a plane crash therefore, Rush Hudson Limbaugh caused the plane crash in the Hudson. I digress; there is a more serious issue at hand in this transcript the insane actions of Joe Stack who took his anti-tax anger too far by flying a plane into an IRS building. Did he have any political affiliations?
There have been reports of Stack’s link to the Tea Party movement. Do these links have any basis in reality or are they simply a way to cast a bad light on the movement? (Note: that last statement is not intended in any way to be an endorsement of the Tea Party, they are nuts but they aren’t necessarily Joseph Stack nuts.) There certainly doesn’t appear to be any direct links to the Tea Party movement itself. Stack’s anger was a reflection of the anti-government and anti-tax sentiments that exist throughout America on both the left and the right. It’s rather disgusting that some are referring to Stack as a patriot (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/joe-stacks-daughter-samantha-bell-calls-dad-hero/story?id=9903329&page=2) taking an innocent life for political motivations is not patriotism it is terrorism. Of course, his name is Stack and not Muhammad so it’s unlikely that the America press will call it what it is.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Well it is in the Bible
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/showing_children_gods_love_wit.php
“It worked for Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz, who applied "biblical discipline" to two of their children. Now one is very, very quiet and causes no trouble at all, while the other is positively angelic. The Schatzes were arrested Saturday morning after their adopted daughter,
Christians, aren’t they such a loving bunch of people? I can hear the screams of the apologists now, “What they did does not represent Christianity you can’t use the minority to describe the majority.” I wouldn’t argue that there aren’t good Christians out there who are motivated by their faith to make this world a better place. We can’t ignore however, the fact that those who are motivated to do good get their inspiration from the same source as those that do evil. That common used phrase, “that’s not very Christian” seems to show an ignorance of what’s written within the Bible. By beating their children the Schatz were simply invoking an old school style of the religion, one that is arguably more in line with Christianity than the modern version. “He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15”. That quote is only one of many great advices on parenting brought to you by the authors of the book that is supposed to be the guideline of a moral society. Shame on all of us godless heathens who refuse to follow the will of god by creating laws that make it unacceptable to beat children! For shame.
This is not a Defense
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/you_are_a_religious_man_and_yo.php
“In an appalling act of bias, Judge Cherie Blair suspended the sentence of a man convicted of assaulting another and breaking his jaw because the assailant was a "religious man". Apparently just being a member of a particular cult is sufficient to get your criminal penalties reduced by a few years in her court; the scales of justice aren't quite fairly balanced for the godless.”
The idea that someone can have a case against them suspended on the ground that they are a religious man is an insult to those who stand for the separation of Church and State. If I ever end up on trail I’ll tell the judge I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let’s see how well that goes over.
Sainthood
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/19/montreal-saint-andre.html
Sainthood is a strange concept. It boils down to two things 1) You performed actions in your life that were favourable towards the Church and religion 2) You performed miracles in life and death. I suppose they realized that if the first option was the only criteria for becoming a Saint then any devout follower of the Church could be considered a Saint and we all know that in the world of the Catholic Church we can’t allow everyone to be considered equal now can we.
“He was beatified in 1982 after a case of healing in 1956 was recognized officially by the
Last December, Pope Benedict XVI attributed to him a second miracle healing described as scientifically inexplicable, a requirement of sainthood. Details of the miracle have not been disclosed to the public.”
Miracles have never been proven by scientific examination, likely because they aren’t given the opportunity to be examined scientifically. If any event occurs, no matter how unlikely it seems, it should be studied instead of simply being described as scientifically inexplicable. Translated: I can’t conceive of this happening without the power of god therefore, it must be a miracle. The appropriate method would have been to subject the healing case to a scientific analysis. If there was even a fraction of a percent of a chance that the healing was due to natural causes, then god and a miracle must be ruled out. Miracles exist within the realms of the supernatural meaning a natural cause of healing cannot be considered miraculous. I’m also amused with the fact that details of the second miracle have not been disclosed to the public. Is it too much to ask for the public to be allowed to determine for themselves whether or not they believe a miracle occurred? Maybe the Church is just uncomfortable with giving people a chance to think for themselves.
PZ Myers is My New Hero
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/dont_pay_for_crazy_uncle_ratzi.php
PZ Myers is my new hero. I’ve known about him for a while but it was only today that I started reading through his blog. How did I become convinced that I’ll be following Myers blog for some time? It was this rather lovely statement,
“However, this is being treated as a state visit and the British government is plunking down £20 million for the dubious privilege of having a weird geezer in a dress pretend to be speaking for an imaginary man in the sky to a gullible public. The guy has plenty of money of his own — he should pay for his own damn junket. Or the Catholic churches in
He’s talking about the Pope of course. As I’ve said before the Catholic Church is a useless out-dated institution. The spread and support of religious ideas should not be funded on the tax payer dollar, unless the country is a theocracy in which case the government would need to be overthrown. If the Pope really stood for fighting world poverty he would demand that the money be donated to charities to help those who actually need it. As Myers said, spread your message by all means, just do it on your own dime.
Fundies they are Good for a Laugh
I love Fundies Say The Darndest Things. If you haven’t heard about it go check it out. Anyway, this site provides a mixture of shock and laughter at the things some of the more, umm, lesser intelligent members of our species have to say. They usually go beyond stupid to the point of not being worth arguing against but, I could not let this one quote go un-discussed. “All Test Tube Babies as well as anyone who in any way participates in any procedures that relate to the creation of such Abominations or laws that allow it - should be executed without trial.” Ok, I know I shouldn’t be questioning the logic of a fundie. Shame on me but, I just can’t help it. In the face of this statement, calls for abortion doctors to be executed actually starts to sound slightly rational, at least they are aware of what they are doing. It seems that this insult to humanity (that is the writer of this quote) believes that test tube babies should be executed merely for their existence. I’m sure he has a similar stance on gays and witches. What grounds does he base this on? Correct me if I’m wrong but, where does God call for the execution of test tube babies in the Bible? He says that this is an issue of playing God that has gone way too far. By deciding who lives and dies based on your own world view aren’t you playing God yourself? What is being proposed here would require significant expansion of the power of the state making them more God-like. Again, I apologize for trying to find the logic in the ranting of a fundie.
There is No Reason
“Everything happens for a reason”, what to people mean when they say this? Do they believe there is a reason behind say for example, leaving work early because their child is sick to find out later that a fire broke out after they left and one worker was killed. Proponents of the “everything happens for a reason” mindset would say that some force, not necessarily a god though, acted to protect them from the fire.
The statement was once brought to my attention when I asked, “How is it that in America they believe they have god given rights, yet many people around the world do not have rights? Doesn’t exactly make a strong case for a god that cares for its’ creation” the response I received was “everything happens for a reason.” Unsurprisingly, that response wasn’t followed up with the answer to, what is the reason? This scenario I experienced shows the flaw in this argument, that the believer is often ignorant of the reason. Sure you could say getting called out of work because of the sick child clearly had a reason but, most of the time the statement is a more mystical way of saying “I don’t know”. I may just be a cold-hearted cynic but many things that happen have no reason, in fact they are closer to being the products of madness than reason. A young girl is raped her perception of the world shattered. What is the reason? A woman who has faced constant abuse from her husband commits suicide leaving the child alone either in the hands of a cruel father to a childhood of orphanages. What is the reason? Why can we not accept that things, good or bad, just happen?
It's not Science Stupid
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/west_bend_wisconsin_aspiring_t.php
It’s nice to take a break from the torture that is reading up on Rush Limbaugh. I’ve now found myself going through PZ Myers’ blog. Here he is discussing David Weigand, a candidate for the board of education the West Bend School district. One of the two statements made by Weigand that Myers stands out as displaying a strong ignorance towards how science works.
“If evolution is taught in school, students should be taught the truth about it and the scientific data surrounding it. Ideas that were once championed by evolutionists are no longer valid, much like the false science behind man-made global warming. Students deserve the truth.”
Now I’m not exactly sure what these supposedly invalid ideas are and Myers doesn’t make mention of them either. I’m going to assume that it means that previous claims regarding evolution have been refuted to be replaced by more solid evidence showing evolution to be a fact, that’s how science works. It’s all about constantly testing the theory to get rid of the old ideas that don’t get it right and bring in the ones that do. It’s a common tactic for intelligent designers to say that Darwin was wrong on such and such. Ignoring the fact that those ideas may have already been proven wrong by scientists only to bring in evidence that does a better job of pointing in favour towards evolution. I suppose I should address the other statement made by Weigand, Myers does address it to though he doesn’t point out the entertaining irony of the statement,
“Origin studies, (whether Creation or evolution) and the idea of "millions of years" does not belong in the science classroom because these are not testable, repeatable or observable; they are philosophical and accepted by faith.”
The irony here is rich. “Not testable, repeatable or observable” that’s exactly what scientists say about god. The creationists, sorry, intelligent designers, are demanding that god is worked into the scientific theory of evolution. They miss the point that god cannot be tested scientifically because it is not “testable, repeatable or observable.” Evolution and the development of the planet works fine without including god, Myers points out the massive amounts of evidence that already exists. If the creationists, sorry I just can’t refer to them as intelligent designers anymore, want to teach their alternative theory in the class room then it first needs to be approved by peer reviewed academic processes and become widely accepted by the scientific community. By all means, teach creationism, in a class on religious studies, but keep it out of the science class.
Exposing Hacks
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/christopher_maloney_is_a_quack.php
From PZ Myers’ blog:
“Maloney is a naturopath in the state of
Parents waiting for vaccinations can provide their children with black elderberry, which blocks the H1N1 virus. A single garlic capsule daily cuts in half the incidence and the severity of a flu episode for children.”
Myers has encouraged readers to spread the word that Maloney is a hack. The best way for rational thinkers to expose hacks like Maloney is to expose them to the wider world. Say it with me, “Maloney is a hack.”
No Connection
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021810/content/01125106.guest.html
“Don't you realize that this is nothing more than in a roundabout way of getting cap-and-trade legislation and get the Republicans to sign on to it? This is nothing more than a trick. There aren't going to be any new nuclear power plants. The government's going to be loaning money. The government doesn't know how to build anything. It's going to take years and years and years for regulatory approval. Obama's own base is gonna stop 'em. Obama's own base is gonna oppose it. It ain't ever going to happen. But he's going to get a lot of praise: "He's coming around, no more windmills, no more solar panels, Obama is going nuclear." It's a lie. Everything they say is a lie”
The world that Rush Limbaugh lives in is a strange and demented one. He is a true partisan hack. Only someone with a dislike towards Obama as strong as Rush has would see a proposal to build nuclear power plants as a front to bring in cap-and-trade. How does this even make any sense? Where’s the connection between nuclear power and cap-and-trade? One is a form of energy the other is a system to pay for credits and reduce carbon emissions. I’m a supporter of both nuclear power and cap-and-trade (though I would prefer a free market system over a government mandated one) but, this is just ridiculous. I don’t disagree with the assertion that the government will be unable to build the plants, we had this same issue in Ontario with government plans to build a new power plant being suspended. The point here though, is that Rush is drawing connections where none exist. Look, I get it, government can be highly incompetent and we shouldn’t be too optimistic about the prospects of a nuclear power plant getting up and running anytime soon. Notwithstanding that however, putting forward ideas that border on the thought of a conspiracy is not part of an intelligent debate.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Go Ahead Sue: We Have the Truth!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021710/content/01125115.guest.html
“In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud), ok let’s assume global warming is a hoax (it’s not) could Al Gore be sued for fraud? He certainly gained from The Inconvenient Truth but, so do Holocaust deniers yet they are not sued for fraud. Why is this? It’s because they believe in their own deception and it is not intentional. Therefore, you could argue that, “sure the evidence now shows global warming to be a hoax (again not true) but when Al Gore made the Inconvenient Truth he believed in the evidence we had at the time, he wasn’t intentionally deceiving anyone. “ Al Gore is simply repeating ideas that have been put forward by scientists before him, would they be sued as well for originally creating the idea? Who exactly would sue Al Gore? One of the elements of common law fraud is “plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity”, which means that anyone who has always maintained that climate change is a hoax could not sue Al Gore since, they were not ignorant of its falsity. It may be possible that a believer turned denier could sue Al Gore but only if they could improve that they were somehow damaged by the results of Al Gore’s actions. They would have to prove for example, “that because of Al Gore’s movie I went out and bought an electric car. I was seriously injured in a crash because the car was small and did not offer adequate protection.” A case like that would be very difficult to prove. What about the company that sold the car? Why wouldn’t you charge them for knowingly selling you a dangerous vehicle?
It amuses me how Al Gore has become the poster boy for climate change issues. As if attacking his credibility somehow undermines the climate change argument. Apparently it’s all a lie created by him so he should be sued for fraud. What about all of the organizations that maintain that climate change is real?
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
How do these organizations gain financially from saying climate change is real? More funding perhaps but, their primary goal isn’t to gain funding it’s to study climate change.
Not too long ago I paid a visit to Info Wars, the site run by conspiracy whack-job Alex Jones. On the forums there was a title “Al Gore Sued by 30 000 Scientists for Global Warming Hoax”. I did a Google search for more information. All that came up were links to sites that if their names are any indication are dedicated to conspiracy theories, providing a video that was posted to Youtube with the same title. I did some more digging and discovered that the so-called “30 000 scientists” is based on the Oregon Petition. While it may have 30 000 signatures, not all of them belong to scientists and some were made by pranksters (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308). The creator of the petition has admitted to doing no direct research into global warming, further undermining the credibility of this petition. Even worse, he has aligned himself with HIV denialists and anti-vaccinations (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-2). Yet we are expected to believe that this is all the work of someone with a credible view on climate change.
You know what? I’m going to change my stance; Al Gore should be sued for fraud, just so we can further expose the lunacy of these climate deniers. In fact, John Coleman, who sas called for Al Gore and other climate change proponents to be sued wants to use the legal system as a forum for the debate saying, “"I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html). I personally think it would be hilarious to see that plan back-fire on the deniers. If their argument is that taking this issue to court will settle things once and for all then so be it. Here is a challenge to the deniers, take us climate change proponents to court. If you win, we will pay. If we win, then in agreement with your own terms, it will be settled, climate change will be declared real once and for all. The ball’s in your court deniers.
“In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud), ok let’s assume global warming is a hoax (it’s not) could Al Gore be sued for fraud? He certainly gained from The Inconvenient Truth but, so do Holocaust deniers yet they are not sued for fraud. Why is this? It’s because they believe in their own deception and it is not intentional. Therefore, you could argue that, “sure the evidence now shows global warming to be a hoax (again not true) but when Al Gore made the Inconvenient Truth he believed in the evidence we had at the time, he wasn’t intentionally deceiving anyone. “ Al Gore is simply repeating ideas that have been put forward by scientists before him, would they be sued as well for originally creating the idea? Who exactly would sue Al Gore? One of the elements of common law fraud is “plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity”, which means that anyone who has always maintained that climate change is a hoax could not sue Al Gore since, they were not ignorant of its falsity. It may be possible that a believer turned denier could sue Al Gore but only if they could improve that they were somehow damaged by the results of Al Gore’s actions. They would have to prove for example, “that because of Al Gore’s movie I went out and bought an electric car. I was seriously injured in a crash because the car was small and did not offer adequate protection.” A case like that would be very difficult to prove. What about the company that sold the car? Why wouldn’t you charge them for knowingly selling you a dangerous vehicle?
It amuses me how Al Gore has become the poster boy for climate change issues. As if attacking his credibility somehow undermines the climate change argument. Apparently it’s all a lie created by him so he should be sued for fraud. What about all of the organizations that maintain that climate change is real?
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
How do these organizations gain financially from saying climate change is real? More funding perhaps but, their primary goal isn’t to gain funding it’s to study climate change.
Not too long ago I paid a visit to Info Wars, the site run by conspiracy whack-job Alex Jones. On the forums there was a title “Al Gore Sued by 30 000 Scientists for Global Warming Hoax”. I did a Google search for more information. All that came up were links to sites that if their names are any indication are dedicated to conspiracy theories, providing a video that was posted to Youtube with the same title. I did some more digging and discovered that the so-called “30 000 scientists” is based on the Oregon Petition. While it may have 30 000 signatures, not all of them belong to scientists and some were made by pranksters (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308). The creator of the petition has admitted to doing no direct research into global warming, further undermining the credibility of this petition. Even worse, he has aligned himself with HIV denialists and anti-vaccinations (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-2). Yet we are expected to believe that this is all the work of someone with a credible view on climate change.
You know what? I’m going to change my stance; Al Gore should be sued for fraud, just so we can further expose the lunacy of these climate deniers. In fact, John Coleman, who sas called for Al Gore and other climate change proponents to be sued wants to use the legal system as a forum for the debate saying, “"I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html). I personally think it would be hilarious to see that plan back-fire on the deniers. If their argument is that taking this issue to court will settle things once and for all then so be it. Here is a challenge to the deniers, take us climate change proponents to court. If you win, we will pay. If we win, then in agreement with your own terms, it will be settled, climate change will be declared real once and for all. The ball’s in your court deniers.
Zero Tolerance Has Gone Too Far
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/new.york.doodle.arrest/index.html?hpt=C1
I’ve heard it time and time again, “kids are out of control, there’s no discipline in schools the way there was in the past, kids don’t have to face the consequences of their actions” This latest story from CNN makes such statements a load of bullshit.
“Alexa Gonzalez, an outgoing 12-year-old who likes to dance and draw, expected a lecture or maybe detention for her doodles earlier this month. Instead, the principal of the Junior High School in Forest Hills, New York, called police, and the seventh-grader was taken across the street to the police precinct.
Alexa's hands were cuffed behind her back, and tears gushed as she was escorted from school in front of teachers and -- the worst audience of all for a preadolescent girl -- her classmates.”
All of this for doodling something that wasn’t even close to being offensive on her desk. When our leaders talk about zero tolerance on crime, I doubt this is what they had in mind. The article mentions other stories of children being hand-cuffed for actions that cannot in any rational world be considered offences.
“The Strategy Center, a California-based civil rights group that tracks zero tolerance policies, found that at least 12,000 tickets were issued to tardy or truant students by Los Angeles Police Department and school security officers in 2008. The tickets tarnished students' records and brought them into the juvenile court system, with fines of up to $250 for repeat offenders.”
Ticketing students for not showing up to class is beyond absurd. In the working world if you don’t show up to work you will be fired, unless you have a really good excuse this punishment is justified. You will not however, be charged for not showing up to work. Whatever happened to giving detentions? Treating children like criminals is not going to encourage them to come to school it only fosters resentment towards the system.
“"Instead of a graduated discipline approach, we see ... expulsions at the drop of a hat," said Donna Lieberman, an attorney with the New York branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Several studies have confirmed that the time an expelled child spends away from school increases the chance that child will drop out and wind up in the criminal justice system, according to a January 2010 study from the Advancement Project, a legal action group.”
“Zero tolerance policies” is a euphemism for lazy school officials who don’t want to address the causes of the issues. I hardly think it’s a revolutionary proposal to suggest that rather than punishing kids so harshly for actions that are hardly criminal, we use our time and effort to take action to encourage children to come to school using positive reinforcement.
Let’s not forget about the police. Is it not true that children are raised to look up to the police as protectors of our civil liberties? What then becomes of the image of the police when they are hauling a young girl out by handcuffs for doodling on her desk? The duty of the police is to protect the people but, who are they protecting in this case? It appears to be the paranoid school staff that fail to see how cruel and unusual this punishment is. Common sense is lacking in both the police and education departments. It’s rather sad to see that the institution that is supposed to be preparing children for the future is inept at making logical decisions.
I’ve heard it time and time again “children these days are out of control and too rebellious”. Well now I say, rightfully so, if this is the system they are being subjected to then they should act out against an institution that at one time used reasonable approaches to dealing with inappropriate behaviour but has now dived into the deep end of insanity.
I’ve heard it time and time again, “kids are out of control, there’s no discipline in schools the way there was in the past, kids don’t have to face the consequences of their actions” This latest story from CNN makes such statements a load of bullshit.
“Alexa Gonzalez, an outgoing 12-year-old who likes to dance and draw, expected a lecture or maybe detention for her doodles earlier this month. Instead, the principal of the Junior High School in Forest Hills, New York, called police, and the seventh-grader was taken across the street to the police precinct.
Alexa's hands were cuffed behind her back, and tears gushed as she was escorted from school in front of teachers and -- the worst audience of all for a preadolescent girl -- her classmates.”
All of this for doodling something that wasn’t even close to being offensive on her desk. When our leaders talk about zero tolerance on crime, I doubt this is what they had in mind. The article mentions other stories of children being hand-cuffed for actions that cannot in any rational world be considered offences.
“The Strategy Center, a California-based civil rights group that tracks zero tolerance policies, found that at least 12,000 tickets were issued to tardy or truant students by Los Angeles Police Department and school security officers in 2008. The tickets tarnished students' records and brought them into the juvenile court system, with fines of up to $250 for repeat offenders.”
Ticketing students for not showing up to class is beyond absurd. In the working world if you don’t show up to work you will be fired, unless you have a really good excuse this punishment is justified. You will not however, be charged for not showing up to work. Whatever happened to giving detentions? Treating children like criminals is not going to encourage them to come to school it only fosters resentment towards the system.
“"Instead of a graduated discipline approach, we see ... expulsions at the drop of a hat," said Donna Lieberman, an attorney with the New York branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Several studies have confirmed that the time an expelled child spends away from school increases the chance that child will drop out and wind up in the criminal justice system, according to a January 2010 study from the Advancement Project, a legal action group.”
“Zero tolerance policies” is a euphemism for lazy school officials who don’t want to address the causes of the issues. I hardly think it’s a revolutionary proposal to suggest that rather than punishing kids so harshly for actions that are hardly criminal, we use our time and effort to take action to encourage children to come to school using positive reinforcement.
Let’s not forget about the police. Is it not true that children are raised to look up to the police as protectors of our civil liberties? What then becomes of the image of the police when they are hauling a young girl out by handcuffs for doodling on her desk? The duty of the police is to protect the people but, who are they protecting in this case? It appears to be the paranoid school staff that fail to see how cruel and unusual this punishment is. Common sense is lacking in both the police and education departments. It’s rather sad to see that the institution that is supposed to be preparing children for the future is inept at making logical decisions.
I’ve heard it time and time again “children these days are out of control and too rebellious”. Well now I say, rightfully so, if this is the system they are being subjected to then they should act out against an institution that at one time used reasonable approaches to dealing with inappropriate behaviour but has now dived into the deep end of insanity.
Hardly Number 1
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021710/content/01125112.guest.html
Do you ever wonder how it is, and why it became so, that a population at any one time of less than 300 million people created the highest standard of living? Progress, economic, political, education, by any standard you want to measure, the United States of America has been the greatest collection, population of human beings in the history of the world."
America’s number one, America’s number one, America’s number one! I’m sure if you continue to repeat that statement over and over you’ll come to believe it. There’s nothing wrong with an American wanting America to be number one (who doesn’t want their country to be number one?) just stop making the claim that you are number one when the actual numbers say otherwise. The Human Development Index ranks the United States at 13th overall in 2009 (Canada is 4th by the way). The U.S does have the number one economy (based on 2008 statistics) according to the IMF, World Bank, and CIA World Factbook. The runner-up Japan, is not even close and I doubt the recession will hurt America’s standing in this regard. The U.S is undoubtedly wealthy but, GDP isn’t the best measure of the living standards of all the people. Still, I’ll give this one to Rush, as far as economics are concerned America is number one. Politics is an area that can’t exactly be ranked. What is being ranked has to be defined first. When it comes to performing in math and science the U.S doesn’t rank at number one (http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/education-rankings-by-country/).
If we speak of America being number one statistically then when looking at the economy, education system and HDI then the only category by which they are number is the economy. The HDI ranking speaks a different story to the idea that America has the highest standard of living. The idea that America is number one comes from a nationalism that causes one to take pride in their country. There’s nothing wrong with having pride and love for your country, just don’t let it distort reality.
Do you ever wonder how it is, and why it became so, that a population at any one time of less than 300 million people created the highest standard of living? Progress, economic, political, education, by any standard you want to measure, the United States of America has been the greatest collection, population of human beings in the history of the world."
America’s number one, America’s number one, America’s number one! I’m sure if you continue to repeat that statement over and over you’ll come to believe it. There’s nothing wrong with an American wanting America to be number one (who doesn’t want their country to be number one?) just stop making the claim that you are number one when the actual numbers say otherwise. The Human Development Index ranks the United States at 13th overall in 2009 (Canada is 4th by the way). The U.S does have the number one economy (based on 2008 statistics) according to the IMF, World Bank, and CIA World Factbook. The runner-up Japan, is not even close and I doubt the recession will hurt America’s standing in this regard. The U.S is undoubtedly wealthy but, GDP isn’t the best measure of the living standards of all the people. Still, I’ll give this one to Rush, as far as economics are concerned America is number one. Politics is an area that can’t exactly be ranked. What is being ranked has to be defined first. When it comes to performing in math and science the U.S doesn’t rank at number one (http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/education-rankings-by-country/).
If we speak of America being number one statistically then when looking at the economy, education system and HDI then the only category by which they are number is the economy. The HDI ranking speaks a different story to the idea that America has the highest standard of living. The idea that America is number one comes from a nationalism that causes one to take pride in their country. There’s nothing wrong with having pride and love for your country, just don’t let it distort reality.
Everybody Lies
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021710/content/01125106.guest.html
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the President. Being able to do so is the beauty of democracy. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to take this too far making insane comparisons that completely undermine the arguments they are trying to make. For example, I tried to find evidence that there have been tax cuts for small businesses alas, I could not. I feel inclined to *gasp* agree with Rush on this one that Obama isn’t being all that truthful. Rush it seems however, is not content with simply going after Obama’s idea but, his personal appearance referring to him as Dumbo because of the size of his ears. This comparison is not what we should expect from people who are supposed to be offering professional political opinion. It gets worse, Rush goes on to make comparisons to Hitler. Comparing your opponent to Hitler is a tactic over used by both sides of the political spectrum. It is evidence that you’ve run out of intelligent arguments and must now resort to issues that simply invoke rage in your readers/listeners. By all means, disagree with the President, it is not our duty to blindly follow our leaders but, for the sake of civilized debate, drop the childish act.
Rush unsurprisingly comes off has somewhat hypocritical for calling Obama a liar when he says, “I can't handle it. Nobody is calling it The Lost Decade but you, Dumbo. Nobody is calling it The Lost Decade. Who besides him is calling it The Lost Decade?” I believe I can answer that question.
“As the Washington Post reported in January, “The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times … It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers … There has been zero net job creation since December 1999 … Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999—and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009.” http://inthesetimes.com/article/5543/the_senates_reconcilable_differences/
I don’t have enough familiarity with the Post to say whether or not it’s pro-Obama but, it’s still proof that Obama isn’t the only one calling this the “lost decade”. If someone is lying you call them out on it, Obama dose seem to be lying on the tax cut issue, where’s the proof of these tax cuts? Rush is lying when he says Obama is the only one calling it “the lost decade”.
Rush states that “He (Bush) took the unemployment rate down to 4.7%” let’s examine that claim shall we. When Bush entered office in January 2001 the unemployment rate was at 4.2%. From 2001-2004 it reached a peak of 6.3% in June 2003 and sat at 5.4% in November 2004. Rush says that the unemployment rate began to sky rocket when the Democrats took control of the House in 2007 despite the fact that throughout 2007 the unemployment rate never goes higher than 5%. I want to know where this 4.7% comes from. It’s odd that Rush doesn’t mention that at some points during the 2001-2007 period that the unemployment rate goes as low as 4.3% during Bush’s early years. Rush isn’t exactly lying about Bush’s record but, he is being misleading by claiming that the unemployment rate began to sky rocket out of control in 2007. Things didn’t start going bad until the recession hit. Remember though, from 2001-2007 the unemployment rate reached a peak of 6.3%. Correct me if I’m wrong but, there was no recession going on then. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000
Let’s continue with Rush’s odd lies, “state-controlled ABC News.” He can’t be serious can he? ABC is owned by Walt Disney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company). Walt Disney, the company that left wingers consider to be the face of evil out of control-capitalism is state-owned? Well if that’s the case then I want to see Obama and Mickey playing basketball at the White House.
I’ll say it again, there’s nothing wrong with calling out the President when he’s distorting the
truth or telling a lie. Keep in mind however, that you can’t fill your own rant against the President with lies when the main topic of the rant is about lying. It really undermines your argument.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the President. Being able to do so is the beauty of democracy. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to take this too far making insane comparisons that completely undermine the arguments they are trying to make. For example, I tried to find evidence that there have been tax cuts for small businesses alas, I could not. I feel inclined to *gasp* agree with Rush on this one that Obama isn’t being all that truthful. Rush it seems however, is not content with simply going after Obama’s idea but, his personal appearance referring to him as Dumbo because of the size of his ears. This comparison is not what we should expect from people who are supposed to be offering professional political opinion. It gets worse, Rush goes on to make comparisons to Hitler. Comparing your opponent to Hitler is a tactic over used by both sides of the political spectrum. It is evidence that you’ve run out of intelligent arguments and must now resort to issues that simply invoke rage in your readers/listeners. By all means, disagree with the President, it is not our duty to blindly follow our leaders but, for the sake of civilized debate, drop the childish act.
Rush unsurprisingly comes off has somewhat hypocritical for calling Obama a liar when he says, “I can't handle it. Nobody is calling it The Lost Decade but you, Dumbo. Nobody is calling it The Lost Decade. Who besides him is calling it The Lost Decade?” I believe I can answer that question.
“As the Washington Post reported in January, “The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times … It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers … There has been zero net job creation since December 1999 … Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999—and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009.” http://inthesetimes.com/article/5543/the_senates_reconcilable_differences/
I don’t have enough familiarity with the Post to say whether or not it’s pro-Obama but, it’s still proof that Obama isn’t the only one calling this the “lost decade”. If someone is lying you call them out on it, Obama dose seem to be lying on the tax cut issue, where’s the proof of these tax cuts? Rush is lying when he says Obama is the only one calling it “the lost decade”.
Rush states that “He (Bush) took the unemployment rate down to 4.7%” let’s examine that claim shall we. When Bush entered office in January 2001 the unemployment rate was at 4.2%. From 2001-2004 it reached a peak of 6.3% in June 2003 and sat at 5.4% in November 2004. Rush says that the unemployment rate began to sky rocket when the Democrats took control of the House in 2007 despite the fact that throughout 2007 the unemployment rate never goes higher than 5%. I want to know where this 4.7% comes from. It’s odd that Rush doesn’t mention that at some points during the 2001-2007 period that the unemployment rate goes as low as 4.3% during Bush’s early years. Rush isn’t exactly lying about Bush’s record but, he is being misleading by claiming that the unemployment rate began to sky rocket out of control in 2007. Things didn’t start going bad until the recession hit. Remember though, from 2001-2007 the unemployment rate reached a peak of 6.3%. Correct me if I’m wrong but, there was no recession going on then. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000
Let’s continue with Rush’s odd lies, “state-controlled ABC News.” He can’t be serious can he? ABC is owned by Walt Disney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company). Walt Disney, the company that left wingers consider to be the face of evil out of control-capitalism is state-owned? Well if that’s the case then I want to see Obama and Mickey playing basketball at the White House.
I’ll say it again, there’s nothing wrong with calling out the President when he’s distorting the
truth or telling a lie. Keep in mind however, that you can’t fill your own rant against the President with lies when the main topic of the rant is about lying. It really undermines your argument.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
How Effective was the New Deal?
A year into Obama’s stimulus act debate is still raging over whether the plan has been effective in pulling the American economy out of recession. I remain sceptical as the statistics make it doubtful that the stimulus is working still, we are only a year into this and I believe a more proper assessment could be done at the time of the next election in 2012. With the stimulus becoming front and centre in the news again we are seeing debate over the New Deal emerge. Was the New Deal effective in bringing
First off, the effectiveness of the New Deal was being debated during the time of FDR and continues to this day. Whether or not someone believes it was effective is likely to depend on their political views. Failures of the New Deal may not actually be blamed on the New Deal itself, but rather a lack of support for all the proposals that made up the New Deal. I’m simply going to stick with the statistics rather than delve into various political views to come up with answers for why the New Deal worked or did not.
After having read through the following information I developed the sense that the New Deal was not effective in actually pulling
“The number of unemployed in 1929 was estimated at less than four percent, but by 1933 the unemployment rate had jumped up to approximately 25. The New Deal was designed for complete economic recovery during the depression. However, the New Deal did not achieve full economic recovery. It actually had a limited economic impact. The New Deal failed to lower the unemployment rate below 14 percents. However, the New Deal did help maintain an average of 17 percent level the unemployment throughout the 1930s” Fearon, Peter. 2007. "
“Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938. Keynesian economists speculated that this was a result of a premature effort to curb government spending and balance the budget, while conservatives said it was caused by attacks on business and by the huge strikes caused by the organizing activities of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the American Federation of Labor (AFL)” Leuchtenburg p. 242-3
Employment levels appeared to improve only slightly from the 1933 high of 25%, though a strong economy is not one where unemployment sits at 14%. Things would not improve until World War II. “Private sector employment, especially in manufacturing, recovered to the level of the 1920s but failed to advance further until the war.” Today’s stimulus supporters will certainly point out that the World War II recovery was a result of massive spending, which is true. However, the spending in this case was heavily focused on manufacturing weapons for war as opposed to the New Deal and today’s stimulus which focuses on a wide and massive range of spending initiatives.
Economic historians appear to be split on the effects of the New Deal.
“1995 survey of economic historians asked whether "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed with provisos, and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 73% disagreed”
"EH.R: FORUM: The Great Depression". Eh.net. http://eh.net/lists/archives/eh.res/feb-1997/0010.php. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
I believe the issue with the New Deal is that it wasn’t simply one single program aimed at repairing economy but a wide range of programs and reforms. The result is that it becomes difficult to determine what programs were effective and what weren’t, if all we do is examine it as a whole to say whether or not it worked. For now I have to remain sceptical on the effects of the New Deal. The dismal employment numbers during the 30s have me leaning to the side that says it was not effective. Today it seems that the effectiveness of the New Deal will remain a political talking, either it worked or didn’t. If we are to draw a conclusive and solid assessment of the New Deal then every single program and reform would have to examined individually to determine its’ affects on the economy. We could discover exactly what worked and what didn’t and use that knowledge to fine tune the current recovery effort in
Ronald Reagan: Not all he's cracked up to be
Ronald Reagan, the way the right goes on about him today you’d swear he was an infallible god. Republicans argue that his Presidency was the golden era of conservatism and a highlight of American political history. There’s no doubt that Reagan sought to bring in many conservative reforms. “He also strongly advocated the Republican ideal of less government regulation of the economy, including that of undue federal taxation” (Kubarych, Roger M (June 9, 2004). "The Reagan Economic Legacy". Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/7092/reagan_economic_legacy.html. Retrieved August 22, 2007.). However, upon closer examination of his political career we see the picture of a man who if he were around today, may face harsh criticism from some of his supporters on the right.
Whenever the right calls for the return to the age of Reagan, I have to wonder who they are talking about. Sure he held many conservative values but, he hardly seems like the ideal model of a right wing politician today. “In his first term, he froze government hiring and approved tax hikes to balance the budget” (Cannon, Lou (2001), p. 47). Can you name a single Republican today off the top of your head who would support tax hikes? I certainly can’t. During his time as the Governor of California Reagan signed an abortion bill into law, though to be fair he later regretted the decision and declared that he was pro-life (Cannon, Lou (2001), p. 51). Now imagine if a Republican today even considered supporting a pro-abortion bill. Such a decision could gain support among the moderates but, today’s right doesn’t appear to be interested in gaining the moderates. They want a pure brand of conservatism.
Today Obama comes under have criticism for increasing the debt and deficit, it is a cause for concern no doubt. Reagan wasn’t exactly a model of balanced budgets himself considering his “order to cover newly spawned federal budget deficits, the
Any politician today that considers doing anything other than rounding up all the illegal immigrants and building a giant wall along the Mexican border would be condemned by the right, that is unless of course your name is Ronald Reagan.
“Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1982, and had lived in the country continuously. Critics argue that its contention subjecting employers to sanctions were without teeth and that it failed to stem illegal immigration Graham, Otis”
(January 27, 2003). "Ronald Reagan's Big Mistake". The American Conservative. http://www.otisgraham.com/otis_graham_writings/art_ronald_reagans_big_mistake.html. Retrieved August 15, 2007
If Obama where to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants he’d likely be accused of being an immigrant himself and a supporter of terrorists and other enemies of the state. Speaking of which, Reagan negotiated with America’s enemies, as opposed to the current Republican stance of war, war, and war.
“Prior to Gorbachev visiting Washington, D.C., for the third summit in 1987, the Soviet leader announced his intention to pursue significant arms agreements” Keller, Bill (March 2, 1987).
"Gorbachev Offer 2: Other Arms Hints". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5D81131F931A35750C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all. Retrieved March 17, 2008.”
Today it seems like a rather revolutionary idea that the U.S. military is planning to bribe the Taliban to bring those in the organization who are less extreme over to our side yet here we have Reagan, talking to the leader of a nation he once referred to as an “evil empire” (a statement he later disagreed with himself).
Reagan did manage to bring in a new era of conservatism in American politics but these policies were mixed with the decisions of a man who in today’s political climate would have been labeled a moderate. Whoever the ideal Republican of the right is today, it’s not Reagan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)