The Conference’s directive states that Catholic hospitals have “an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally . . . This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions.”

Executive director Rev. Thomas G. Weinandy explains that if a patient’s advance directive states that she doesn’t want a feeding tube, “and the reason they don’t want it is they basically want to die, then the Catholic institution would explain to them they can’t cooperate with that and they would have to go to another institution.”

He follows with a hypothetical example of Catholic kindness and compassion:

If someone had a stroke and the doctor says he won’t die though he may be very sick, then they should give him nutrition and hydration [regardless of advance directives]. You can’t just starve him to death. It’s hard to know whether someone can regain consciousness or not.

Barbara Coombs Lee is president of Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit which provides end-of-life counseling and information on advanced directives (living wills). She comments,

If family members believe they know what mom or dad wants but get the message from hospital or nursing home staff that it’s sinful and wrong, that’s a pretty hard thing for a grieving family to deal with. It feels like someone is trying to guilt and shame them.

Guilt and shame. From religion? I can’t imagine.

Related posts:

1. Penn & Teller Episode About Catholic Church – Free Online! The entire episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t, in which...
2. Catholic Church Issues Pre-Sex Prayer The Roman Catholic Church, not content with its current methods...
3. Prop 8 Proponent Abandons Lawsuit Defense – “Fears for life” Hak-Shing William "Bill" Tam, one of the lead proponents of...

“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

it is just a poor and unproductive way to ask “where did everything come from?”

The problem with the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is that it is presented in a way as though “nothing” is another something that could “be,” which is not what “nothing” defines.

Only “something” can “be.” There cannot “be” nothing, because “nothing” doesn’t exist, it isn’t something, and therefore there is’t anything to nothing to “be.”

We can’t say “well, there is both something and nothing” because nothing “isn’t.” There isn’t an “is” to nothing. There can only be an “is” to “something.”

But the question asks for an “is” to nothing – “Why ‘is’ there something rather than nothing?”

They might as well ask “why are circles round but squares aren’t?” It is just as silly.

What they really want to lead you to is that we don’t know exactly how something (matter, or what have you) came to existence. This often leads to the question, “how can something come from nothing” The theist will argue that because we don’t have that answer, then therefore “god did it.” Of course with this they are committing a logical fallacy, particularly an “argument from ignorance.” And if you use there claim against them, that if “something cannot come from nothing” than their god couldn’t have come from nothing, they will say, “but god has always existed and is outside of time and space.” So they believe a supernatural all-powerful, all-knowing being, has always been, but they can’t believe that perhaps something natural has always been? Seems rather curious and self-serving.

Name: Terry Stone
Age: 59
Hometown: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Occupation: Executive Director, CenterLink
Why I Found Him at Creating Change:

Terry came to Creating Change because it is an opportunity to network with community centers and be a part of a great conference to discuss equality and learn from each other!

Why are community centers important to Terry? Because he serves as Executive Director of CenterLink, which connects the over 168 LGBT Community Centers found throughout 45 of the United States. Half of these centers half budgets under $50,000 with no full-time staff, but many are still the only LGBT presence in many of their regions. Community centers, like Cortland, NY’s run by Lisa Tibbles, connect folks to resources, organize for change, provide support for coming out, provide direct healthcare (40% of centers), and also work to serve the needs of LGBT youth, elders, and people of color.

CenterLink serves two important purposes. First, it helps the centers connect with each other, share ideas and resources, and collaborate regionally. Second, it helps advocate for all community centers nationally. This is essential to the queer equality movement because sometimes a community center is the only visible recruitment center and educational resource for potential activists.

Terry Stone has worked in the movement for over 20 years. He knows that we will see a day when there is no question that we’re all equal. A primary concern for him right now is finding ways for aging couples to access benefits like social security.

What He’d Change in America:

Terry thinks we need to change the focus away from looking at differences and looking at the bigger picture of all the similarities we have. This is true not just with LGBT issues, but in general with all matters of identity like race and gender.

We should always be asking ourselves: “How do our actions influence each other?”

The woman who offered to take our picture was apparently a professional photographer. I think she made us look great!

Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools. [...]

The bill, which has yet to be voted on, is patterned on even more aggressive efforts in other states to fuse such issues. In Louisiana, a law passed in 2008 says the state board of education may assist teachers in promoting “critical thinking” on all of those subjects. [...]

The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.

I’m all for teaching competing scientific theories and comparing them. I don’t think creationism qualifies as a scientific theory — but maybe teachers should talk about creationism and why it’s not science, just like all the other creation myths.

Debunking religious nonsense shouldn’t really be part of a science class, but it seems at least with creationism, there are enough adherents to make it worth debunking in the classroom, just like if there were a minority of students who held to a flat earth.

Amaziah ... did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, but not with a perfect heart. 2 Chronicles 25:1-2

And the first thing that he did was murder the murderers of his father.

Now it came to pass, when the kingdom was established to him, that he slew his servants that had killed the king his father. 2 Chronicles 25:3

Next he killed 10,000 Edomites (children of Seir).

And Amaziah strengthened himself, and led forth his people, and went to the valley of salt, and smote of the children of Seir ten thousand. 2 Chronicles 25:11

And then he rounded up another 10,000 Edomites and pushed them all off a cliff. And "they all were broken in pieces."

And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces. 2 Chronicles 25:12

(Note: So we know that these killings were "right in the sight of the Lord," and, therefore, are God-approved killings.)

But then, after he got back from slaughtering the Edomites, Amaziah began to worship the Edomite gods.

After that Amaziah was come from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them. 2 Chronicles 25:14

Which, unlike throwing 10,000 people off a cliff, was not right in God's eyes.

So God sent a prophet to tell Amaziah that God was going to destroy him.

Wherefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against Amaziah, and he sent unto him a prophet, which said unto him ... God hath determined to destroy thee. 2 Chronicles 25:15-16

Next Amaziah had a meeting with king Joash of Israel, who has this to say to Amaziah:

The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle. 2 Chronicles 25:18

Which means nothing at all to me.

But then Joash says something a bit more comprehensible.

Thou sayest, Lo, thou hast smitten the Edomites; and thine heart lifteth thee up to boast: abide now at home; why shouldest thou meddle to thine hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? 2 Chronicles 25:19

Which means, I guess, "Back off, big guy."

But Amaziah didn't back off and Joash defeated him ("for it came of God").

But Amaziah would not hear; for it came of God, that he might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they sought after the gods of Edom. ... And Judah was put to the worse before Israel. 2 Chronicles 25:20-22

Although Amaziah's army was defeated by Joash's, Amaziah survived the battle. But years later there was a conspiracy against him and he was killed.

Now after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the LORD they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish: but they sent to Lachish after him, and slew him there. 2 Chronicles 25:27

It's clear that God caused the defeat of Amaziah's army, and, therefore caused the death of many of his soldiers. But did God also cause Amaziah's death? That seems a bit less clear to me.

What do you think?

I've added the deaths of Amaziah's soldiers to the list of God's killings. Since the Bible doesn't say how many were killed by Joash's army, I'll give it the usual 1000.

I'm not sure what to do about Amaziah, though. It's clear that God was out to get him and that he was eventually assassinated, so I suspect God was involved somehow in his killing. But I couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, so I'll leave him off the list for now.

He’s a bit of a lone voice at the moment but really worth listening to. Point of Inquiry recently interviewed him and describe the interview this way:

“In response to growing public skepticism—and a wave of dramatic attacks on individual researchers—the scientific community is now bucking up to more strongly defend its knowledge. Leading the charge is one of the most frequently attacked researchers of them all—Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann.

In this interview with host Chris Mooney, Mann pulls no punches. He defends the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change, and explains why those who attack it consistently miss the target. He also answers critics of his “hockey stick” study, and explains why the charges that have arisen in “ClimateGate” seem much more smoke than fire.

Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Pennsylvania State University faculty, and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. His research focuses on the application of statistical techniques to understanding climate variability and change, and he was a Lead Author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report. Among many other distinguished scientific activities, editorships, and awards, Mann is author of more than 120 peer-reviewed and edited publications. That includes, most famously, the 1998 study that introduced the so called “hockey stick,” a graph showing that modern temperatures appear to be much higher than anything seen in at least the last thousand years. With his colleague Lee Kump, Mann also recently authored the book Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. Finally, he is one of the founders and contributors to the prominent global warming blog, RealClimate.org.”

via Michael Mann – Unprecedented Attacks on Climate Research | Point of Inquiry.

Download MP3

See also:
Spinning exoneration of Dr. Michael Mann Into “Whitewash”
Climate change deniers’ tawdry manipulation of “hockey sticks”
Freedom of information and responsibility

Permalink

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta

• ‘Hockey stick’ graph creator Michael Mann cleared of academic misconduct (guardian.co.uk)

That didn’t make sense to me, so I asked, “Why would Ted need to ask your permission? It’s not like Mary’s your daughter.”

“Well you know Mary’s father; he would nod his head and say yes to anyone. So Mary gave me the responsibility of accepting or rejecting any man she might want to court.”

People not familiar with Christian fundamentalism may not know what courting is, so here’s a definition from a Christian: “Courting is young adults seeking each other under their parents’ supervision for the purpose of finding a spouse in the will of God.” Basically it’s formal dating without the physical intimacy and with more parental involvement.

Apologies to my mother, but having to grant Ted permission is weird. I feel sorry for him. It’s not even her parents — and he had to ask them too!

My mom continued: “We gave him a plan of things we want him to read to help him grow in Christ. We gave him a book a couple months ago on the will of God and he finished it. He’s a good kid.”

If I were him, I’d say screw this. This isn’t an engagement — it’s just permission to get to know someone more formally to see if they are a suitable candidate for marriage.

Oh, and did I mention they want to wait until marriage to kiss?

Yes, you read that right. They’re waiting for marriage, not only to have sex, but to kiss each other.

Poor, poor lovers.

As a Christian I would I have thought this was all very honorable. Now I see it as a little pathetic and a waste of time and guilt.

First, it’s demeaning. Mary is an adult. She’s 21 and doesn’t need a friend to tell her who she can and can’t have a relationship with. I would not let my mother tell me if  I could go out with a girl, and I don’t think she should be telling this girl whether she is allowed to “court” a guy. That is a decision she should make herself. Sure, my mom can give advice. But it’s Mary’s decision, not her parents’ decision and certainly not my parents’.

Second, it’s sexist. Ted has to ask Mary’s gatekeeper, but notice Ted doesn’t have a gatekeeper. There is an undercurrent here that women are weak; they cannot take care of themselves; they do not have the right to make an important relational decision by themselves. It’s insulting and misogynistic.

Third, it’s arrogant. My parents do not know who is the best match for this girl. Rarely do people really know how something will turn out for themselves much less someone else. Some people who seem perfect turn out to be rotters. Others who seem like jerks turn out to be loving, caring husbands. And we remember our hits (“I never did like him!”) and forget our misses.

Now of course we all have opinions, and sometimes there are clear indicators that someone might not be the best companion for someone (“Is that a body in your freezer, Ted?”). If we care for them we’ll probably make our opinion known — but it’s their life, and it’s their decision.

Christianity makes a big deal out of freedom, but these practices are a direct result of my mother’s Christianity. This is not freedom; it’s an oppression of rules and regulations. Some would say this is not “true Christianity” (which they define as whatever they believe), but virtually all forms of Christianity have core features of dogma that prey upon fear and guilt. Thus the concept of “sin” and “redemption.”

As I watch this overdramatization of Christian courtship, I wish I could say to Mary, “You don’t need my mother to approve of your relationship. If you love him, be with him. Screw the legalism.”

And to Ted, I’d say, “Run.”

When I go out to a store or a mall, it is not unusual for me to see someone wearing a religious shirt. Often times those shirts are actually aggressively religious. It goes without saying that Christians and Jews wear religious necklaces like the crucifix or a Jewish star. There are also a ton of religious bumper stickers on cars.

Should atheists wear shirts and necklaces that identify us as atheists? Do you have those things and how often do you wear them? I have a few atheist shirts, but I usually only wear them to atheist meetings and/or events. I worry that if I wore them while out in the general public, my family and I might be the victim of violence. I doubt very much that Christians have that same fear from atheists. What does that say about them?

I want to know what other atheists have experienced in this regard. I have not received a lot of problems from my atheist bumper sticker, but that is I think in large part due to the fact that on the road there isn’t much people can do. I have once been solicited by a Christian at a gas station though and have had some college kids yelling about god as they drove passed me. But nothing really violent has come from my bumper sticker. This might be in part due to the fact that people are more accustom to being bombarded with bumper stickers with messages they don’t agree with. But I think an atheist shirt in a Wall-mart may cause a larger issue. What do you think?

FOLLOWING the news this week that Irish police have arrested seven Muslims suspected of conspiracy to murder Swedish artist Lars Vilks who drew Big Mo’s head on the body of a pooch, the “offensive” cartoon has been given another airing in Sweden.

Vilks' drawing that led to Muslim fury

According to this report, leading Swedish newspapers yesterday published the cartoon as a sign of solidarity with Vilks.

Justifying its decision to reproduce the Modogtoon, Dagens Nyheter said in an editorial:.

Lars Vilks is not alone in this conflict. A threat against him is, in the end, a threat against all Swedish people.

The four men and three women accused of plotting Vilk’s assassination were arrested on Tuesday in the towns of Cork and Waterford in an operation coordinated with US and European security agencies.

Vilks has a 100,000-dollar (74,000-euro) bounty on his head from an Al-Qaeda-linked group.

One wonders how much more would the bountry would have been had Vilks put Mad Mo’s mug on porker.

Dagens Nyheter called on the Swedish state to give Vilks:

All the protection he needs.

It said authorities must take action:

Against an attack aiming at one of our most fundamental rights, freedom of expression.

The Expressen tabloid also published the cartoon with a picture of Vilks. The paper said:

Expressen decided to publish the drawing for two reasons: to allow readers to see the controversial work and to defend freedom of expression which is more and more threatened.

'What don't we want? Halal menus!'

UPDATE: See this report for more details on the Vilks conspiracy.

Meanwhile, we have learned that a French food chain’s decision to introduce halal-only menus at some of its outlets is proving about as popular as a fag-machine in a fitness centre.

According to this report around 70 angry Frenchies wearing pig masks invaded the Villeurbanne branch of Quick after it decided to strip pork products from its menu in order to serve the religious needs of the local population.

Protesters said it was unacceptable that a chain of restaurants should exclude and segregate the French in their own country.

HAT TIP: BarrieJohn (Modog) and Alan (piggies)

Publicly funded daycare operators in Quebec are welcoming the province’s announcement it will ban religious instruction in government-subsidized daycares.

Quebec Family Minister Tony Tomassi made the announcement Wednesday, one day after saying he would not prevent daycare centres from teaching religious beliefs.

“The mission of [early-childhood education centres] is really to help families integrate into Quebec culture,” said Annie Turcot, spokesperson for a coalition of publicly funded daycares on the island of Montreal.

On Tuesday, Tomassi had said that Quebec’s public daycares reflect family values and religious instruction was normal in the province.

But on Wednesday, he said the practice will be prohibited.

He said an internal audit has revealed about 20 daycares, which receive public funding, include religious instruction in their educational programs.

“So we have to verify it,” said Tomassi. Once that’s done, he said he will meet with the daycare administrators, and work with them to eliminate religion from their program.

Tomassi refused to commit to withdrawing the permits of centres that do not comply.

A few years ago, Tomassi’s department, which was then run by current Education Minister Michelle Courchesne, granted a permit to an Islamic association so it could open an 80-spot daycare centre in Laval, north of Montreal.

The organization’s objective is to “spread Islamic education among Muslims and non-Muslims.”

Another example is that of the Beth Rivkah centre in Montreal, which is run by Rabbi Yosef Minkowitz. Its website states that all “daily activities are driven by the spirit of Torah and the Jewish tradition.”

Go further: PQ

The opposition Parti-Québécois is demanding the government go even further and declare all daycares secular.

“A lot of people in Quebec [think] this should change,” said party critic Nicolas Girard.

Girard accused the Liberals of being so out of step with public opinion that they have resorted to insulting him as a tactic. During question period, he said one minister called him a racist.

The Quebec government has gone too far, said officials with the Quebec Jewish Congress.

“I don’t see these secularists taking down the cross on Mount Royal, I don’t see them asking for the cross to be removed from the National Assembly, and I don’t see them going to work on December 25th,” said the group’s president Adam Atlas.

Atlas said he is hoping to meet with ministry officials to discuss the ban.

The daycare brouhaha has unfolded amid the controversy surrounding a Muslim woman in Quebec who was kicked out of a government-sponsored French class because she refused to remove her niqab — a traditional face covering.

Discuss what you will.

Need a topic?

What the %&$*# is happening on Lost? I’m obsessed with the show and yet I’m still so damn confused about everything.

The Default Bias can be seen in religion.  Greater than ninety percent of religious people belong to the religion of their birth — the default religion offered to them by the accident-of-birth.   Heck, even later converters choose from only those right in front of their noses.  But least self-righteous, hyper-rationalists dismiss the Default Bias as a uniquely theistic defect, let me illustrate this bias among largely atheistic Europeans.  The example below is taken from a 17 min TED talk by Dan Ariely (Duke University) on behavioral economics.

When looking at organ donation rates in European countries, we see that the distribution is bimodal — high donators and low donators.  Though people in these countries will object, the following pairs of countries are more similar than not and yet have opposite rates: Netherlands-Belgium, UK-France, Denmark-Sweden.  Intuitively inspecting which country falls into which mode reveals no clear pattern.   So what causes this difference?

Simple!  The Organ Donation check box on their driver license applications differ.  The low donating countries have the default as “I will NOT donate”, where as high donating countries have “YES I will donate” as the default.

	Low Donor Countries Leave it unchecked and your organs will NOT be donated
	High Donor Countries Leave it unchecked and you become a donator !

______
Notes:

• HT to Leah for the video
• Luke does a superb interview with Stephen Maitzen (Atheist philosopher at Acadia University in Nova Scotia) where they discuss the accidental nature of belief choices using interesting phrases like: “The Argument from Divine Hiddenness”, “The Demographics of Theism” and “Clustered Distribution of Theism”.  Give it a listen if you have time.

These have been going around recently. They’re a pair of videos criticizing Intelligent Design, created by Gordon J. Glover, author of Beyond the Firmament. Glover is a Christian trying to integrate science with a moderate Evangelical approach to scripture.

It’s nice to see some push-back coming from the middle, but the effort is a bit odd from an atheist standpoint. ID is being mocked for its intellectual vacuousness, but Glover still maintains a fairly high view of scripture.

Part 1:

Part 2:

But now that it’s happened again – this time in regard to a contraceptive pill – both the name of the female who refused to do her job, as well as her religious affiliation, are being kept from public scrutiny.

Jo-Ann Thomas, left, and Janine Deeley: both victims of religious zealotry

The first case involved Jo-Ann Thomas, 37. When she demanded to know why the pharmacist on duty was refusing her the pill, an assistant:

Went bright red, and after a pause said ‘I can’t tell you’.

Pressed on the matter, the assistant said:

Don’t say anything to anyone – it’s because of his religion.

Ms Thomas added:

I just stared at her with my mouth open. I was angry because he is a dispensing chemist and it is his job to dispense drugs. If he can’t do that on religious grounds then perhaps he should not be in the profession. This is a perfectly legal drug but there is a man introducing his own laws. It cannot be right that he can pick and choose the drugs he sells.”

I am a 37-year-old woman and not a daft girl who does not know what she is doing. And the chemist has no right to tell me whether I can or can’t take the pill. It’s my choice not his. It his religion not mine.

How many young girls has he turned away who need the pill? If they are his views why didn’t he come and face me and tell me. The chemist staff were trying to cover up for him and were embarrassed.

The pharmacists and staff at the pharmacy refused to comment but Dr John Radford, Rotherham’s Director of Public Health said:

Pharmacists do have the right to use their discretion in selling over the counter drugs. These drugs will be stocked by the pharmacy to be supplied when a prescription is written by a doctor. Any pharmacy refusing to sell a drug has a duty to provide the customer with information as to where they can obtain it including over the counter at an alternative pharmacy or via their GP or practice nurse on prescription.

A spokesman for Lloyd’s which operates 1,300 pharmacies across the country said :

We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the customer. However, a pharmacist’s personal decision to refuse to supply the morning after pill is an issue for the community pharmacy as a whole.

The code of ethics put in place by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain allows pharmacists via a conscience clause the right to refuse.

The code states that if supplying the morning after pill is contrary to a pharmacist’s personal religious or moral beliefs they are entirely within their rights not to supply it.

Lloyds was forced to apologise again this week after a South Yorkshire woman, Janine Deeley, was turned away by the female chemist at Lloyds pharmacy in Duke Street, Sheffield, when she went to pick up her prescription.

The mother-of-two, 38, said:

The pharmacist said she had my other medication but wasn’t going to give me the pill. I initially thought that was a bit strange and perhaps I was supposed to pick them up somewhere else. She said no, she wasn’t giving me the contraceptive because it was against her religion. I thought she must have been joking.

She added:

I don’t mind the fact that she’s got a religion but she shouldn’t force it down anybody’s neck and it shouldn’t affect her work.

Miss Deeley also said she was worried teenagers like her two daughters, Carlie, 18, and 14-year-old Lauren, might be put off using contraception if they encountered such difficulties.

I don’t want the pharmacist to lose her job but I think that if she’s going to be a pharmacist she shouldn’t expect people to accept her religion. She should accept that, in this country, we have the legal right to contraception and, if it’s against her religion, she shouldn’t be doing that job.

A spokeswoman for Lloyds pharmacy said she was not aware which religion the pharmacist belonged to, and an investigation had been launched.

She added:

Lloyds pharmacy is very sorry that Ms Deeley was refused supply of her prescribed contraceptive pill at our Duke Street pharmacy.We have launched an investigation into the incident and been in contact with her to apologise for any distress and inconvenience caused.

A spokesman for NHS Sheffield added:

We take patient concerns very seriously and while we have not yet received a complaint from Ms Deeley we would be happy to investigate the matter on her behalf if she gets in touch through our normal complaints system.

Hat Tip: Ian E

The reason that people who can discern clearly what is afoot are so deeply disturbed is simple, and all the comments touch on it. The campaign to defend Geithner and Emanuel, both architects of the administration’s finance friendly policies has gone beyond what most people would see as spin into such an aggressive effort to manipulate popular perceptions that it is not a stretch to call it propaganda. ...

[By 2009] The financial services industry had become systematically predatory. Its victims now extended well beyond precarious, clueless, and sometimes undisciplined consumers who took on too much debt via credit cards with gotcha features that successfully enticed into a treadmill of chronic debt, or now infamous subprime and option-ARM mortgages.

Over twenty years of malfeasance, from the savings and loan crisis (where fraud was a leading cause of bank failures) to a catastrophic set of blow-ups in over the counter derivatives in 1994, which produced total losses of $1.5 trillion, the biggest wipeout since the 1929 crash, through a 1990s subprime meltdown, dot com chicanery, Enron and other accounting scandals, and now the global financial crisis, the industry each time had been able to beat neuter meaningful reform. But this time, the scale of the damage was so great that it extended beyond investors to hapless bystanders, ordinary citizens who were also paying via their taxes and job losses. And unlike the past, where news of financial blow-ups was largely confined to the business section, the public could not miss the scale of the damage and how it came about, and was outraged.

The widespread, vocal opposition to the TARP was evidence that a once complacent populace had been roused. Reform, if proposed with energy and confidence, wasn’t a risk; not only was it badly needed, it was just what voters wanted.

But incoming president Obama failed to act. Whether he failed to see the opportunity, didn’t understand it, or was simply not interested is moot. Rather than bring vested banking interests to heel, the Obama administration instead chose to reconstitute, as much as possible, the very same industry whose reckless pursuit of profit had thrown the world economy off the cliff. There would be no Nixon goes to China moment from the architects of the policies that created the crisis, namely Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers.

Your Thoughts?

They plan to become doctors, researchers and professors, but these students from Liberty University, an evangelical school, also believe God created the Earth in a week, some 6,000 years ago.

Alright, right to the point:

Matthew 20

Yay, another parable! This one about how some dude hires people to work the field for the day. He hires some in the morning, some at midday, and some in the afternoon. Then he pays them all the same, saying again, “The last shall be first, and the first shall be last.” Umm. Okay. On what planet is it fair to pay people the same for very different amounts of work? If that’s how God is, I’ll find another one, thanks, just like I’d find another employer. What terrible business practices! The only people who will ever show up for work are people who do it last minute. I get his point, or at least the point that was drilled into me  growing up, that people will share heaven equally no matter when they became saved. But what a horrible way to illustrate it! Heaven=eternity, so life is a mere instant. I see it as very different than hours and hours of difference in work. But maybe that’s not even what he meant. Right now, I’m thinking my own bias may be getting in the way of really understanding the point. I don’t really understand this “last shall be first” nonsense. What does that even mean, anyways?  It’s like one of those things that sounds profound and mysterious and super smart, but really isn’t when you stop to think about it. In fact, it doesn’t really say anything at all. Example: “Life is like a sunrise: you are born into the day and die into the night.” Totally just made that up (though I am sure someone has said it before me). Sounds pretty, but it really doesn’t mean anything profound. I bet everyone knows that you live until you eventually die. So it’s not a particularly meaningful statement. Neither is “the last shall be first and the first shall be last.” The disciples don’t ask about the meaning to this parable, so they don’t get a scathing reply nifty explanation for what it meant.

Jesus then predicts his death again, saying he would be betrayed, but don’t worry. He’ll come back to life! Not to get ahead of myself, but weren’t the disciples later surprised when this happened? Why? Peter said he believed Jesus was the Son of God. God just freaking told them that he would come back to life after three days. Why did this end up being so shocking? Well, that’s later in the story, so sorry if I spoiled the ending for you.

Then the mother of the Zebedees (James and John, if I remember right?) brothers asks Jesus to let one of her kids sit at his right hand. Jesus tells her no, and the other disciples get a bit pissed. I would be, too. That’s kind of annoying. At least we know that overbearing, helicopter parenting isn’t a new thing!

Then Jesus heals two blind men. Yeah, we’ve heard this before. At this point, it’s getting repetitive. We get the point: Jesus is a superhero. Yawn. Think I’m going to go watch Batman Returns. At least Christian Bale is kinda hot. Well, you can feel free to take the “kinda” out of there.

End of Chapter 20.

Matthew 21

I am officially sick of Matthew. We’ve gone from crazy Jesus to just plain boring Jesus. Somebody save me. Blargh. Okay, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey. Um, okay. The title of that is “The Triumphant Entry.” Dude, I can sympathize. When I was in high school (in 2000-2002), I drove a sad little 1988 Toyota Corolla to school. The only palm branches set out for me would have been in mocking scorn, too. Oh, wait. I think they forgot to write the part in there where people were actually making fun of Jesus for riding in on the time period’s equivalent to a 1988 Toyota Corolla (there are worse cars, but there were probably worse donkeys then, too). And this is the part where I avoid complete blasphemy by making a joke about Jesus riding someone’s ass. . . oops, I think I just said it. Quick, move on! They quote a prophecy here. I’ve stopped looking back at the prophecies because I started noticing that they weren’t exegetical. How many people actually go back and read the prophecies quoted in the New Testament in their original context? Not many. Because up to the point where I stopped bothering, not one of them made any sense to apply to Jesus. They were all about the Israelites in that time period. Very poor scholarship, and I wonder what it does to more moderate lines of thought in trying to take the New Testament in it’s cultural context. Jesus and his disciples didn’t seem to worry about it much! Just thought I’d reiterate that, as that is a point I have yet to see on any web sites or read anywhere else. I’m sure someone has noticed it, I just haven’t seen their notes on it. It is also important because I heard many times how Jesus fits every prophecy made about the Messiah. But if you read some of the prophecies quoted, they aren’t all clear that they are even talking about the Messiah in the first place, so I wonder how these people who say that know. I think someone just made it up one Sunday in the pulpit and it spread (and yes, that does happen!).

Jesus goes into the temple and gets mad at the people who were buying and selling there (so stop trying to sell Girl Scout cookies to me at church already!). Since Matthew is the “angry” perspective of Jesus, I am surprised at the lack of passion I could have sworn is in the Bible somewhere. Maybe it’s in another version of the Gospel.

Then he gets pissed at a tree for not having any fruit and curses it so it won’t wither again. He’s going back on a manic phase, folks. Because if he could do that, why not make it just bear fruit for him? No need to lose your temper when you could just twitch your nose and make anything you want appear! Oh, wait, wrong fictional character. Anyhoo, Jesus continues into the temple where he proceeds to stump some religious leaders. Then he talks about how prostitutes are getting into heaven before “they” are, whoever “they” he is referring to in this parable. Maybe the same religious leaders, maybe another crowd. Doesn’t say.

One last parable, basically about how he was going to die. The Pharisees want to arrest him, but don’t because of the crowd.

Is anyone else starting to notice a pattern here? Jesus displays certain patterns. At times, he’s nice and he heals people. Other times, he is irritable and seems to perform miracles out of spite. These are the only times he tells parables, too. I was kidding a long time ago when I said he sounded bipolar, but I am really starting to think he is displaying some sort of pattern of mental illness. It’s possible, yes, that it’s Matthew’s perspective, and that Matthew is the one who suffered from something. But I kind of doubt it. Most people who perform miracles and think they are from God do suffer from either bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, or some other biological/medical problem such as seizures, migraines, or tumors. So, very important question of the night: Why do people believe Jesus, but no one else? Why is everyone else a liar, lunatic, or legend, but Jesus is lord? It doesn’t actually make any sense when you study it with a psychological eye.

So in closing, I would just like to say this:

Dear Josh McDowell and others who supposedly converted based on reading the Bible one dark, cold, lonely night: please explain to me what exactly you saw in it that was so powerful. Because I’m not seeing it. Really, I mean that. Jesus either sounds mentally ill or incredibly boring throughout most of it. Sure, he does some nice things, but I’m sure just about everyone has done nice things at least once in their life. If you did it for the money, I promise I won’t judge you. I’ve been down hard enough on my luck to briefly consider staging a re-conversion so I could get lots of love offerings from speaking in churches. And it wouldn’t at all surprise me to learn that you have done this because honestly, at this point, I think this is a ridiculous book and I don’t know how I didn’t see it before. Not that you necessarily have, just that I wouldn’t be surprised. Because like I said, not very moving or powerful. Really, The Time Traveler’s Wife is just as moving despite it’s choppy sappiness, and at least the characters are more likable than Jesus. And some person made that up. I have a hard time believing that a person could be a better writer than God, or that God would ordain anything but his best writers to copy his words. Okay, that is all.

Sincerely,

The Redheaded Skeptic

• Obsolete occupations
• Amanda Marcotte insightful as usual, this time on “New” technology and loneliness
• Someone’s thinking: schoolkids forced to listen to classical music as a form of punishment and it works.
• If you plan to overthrow the US government, you have to register with the US government as a subversive organisation and pay $5. No joke.
• The day they hung an elephant for trampling a man to death.
• Pat Robertson shows his evil once more. The Haiti earthquake was blamed on them daring to rise forth from their slave chains, now he blames the Chile one for them disparaging the great(!) Pinochet. The news is becoming The Onion.
• Kahneman on conflicts between immediate happiness and happiness of memory
• Are pigeons better than humans at the Monty Hall mathematical problem?
• In case you’ve been offline for the last 2 weeks, here’s the next big meme: the Soviet Rick-roll
• And another case of Only In Russia: boozy chimp sent to rehab
• Pedalling for Peace – an upcoming doco about inter-religious dialogue by Benji Holzman (someone I know from Real Life^TM)
• Senator Coburn blocks bill to help victims of the LRA genocides [Update: compromise reached]

Uzziah ... did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah did. 2 Chronicles 26:3-4

God helped him kill Philistines, Arabians, and Mehunim.

He went forth and warred against the Philistines ... And God helped him against the Philistines, and against the Arabians that dwelt in Gurbaal, and the Mehunims. 2 Chronicles 26:6-7

But one day Uzziah did something really awful. He burned some incense without a license.

He transgressed against the LORD his God, and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense. 2 Chronicles 26:16

Azariah and 80 priests descended upon him and told him that only priest can burn incense.

And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the LORD, that were valiant men ... and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests. 2 Chronicles 26:

So God, who saw the whole thing, did what he had to do: he gave Uzziah leprosy. (He was out of small pox at the time.)

"Behold, he was leprous in his forehead ... because the LORD had smitten him. 2 Chronicles 26:20

And Uzziah had leprosy for the rest of his life.

And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death. 2 Chronicles 26:21

The Bible doesn't say that Uzziah died of leprosy. But since leprosy is often fatal when untreated, it is likely that he did.

So what do you think? We know that God gave Uzziah leprosy. But did he kill him?

I find myself taking seriously the following hypothesis, which (for lack of a better name) I call meta-atheism: Despite appearances, many Western adults who've been exposed to standard science and sincerely claim to believe in God are self-deceived; at some level they believe the claim is false.

This looks like an atheist version of a Christian argument (which originated with St Paul): the Christian claims it's obvious that God exists, deep down everyone knows it, and if you claim not to, you're deceiving yourself because you don't want to admit to your own sinfulness and God's moral authority. If you sign up to a scheme like this, and you view your opponent's arguments as mere evidence of their self-deception, you're engaging in logical rudeness.

That said, there are some differences between Rey's version and the Christian one, which boil down the way Rey is less insufferable about it all (Rey says that meta-atheism doesn't entail atheism, he does engage with Christian apologists in his paper, he admits he might be wrong, he doesn't think believers are evil or stupid, and so on). So, assuming we're mollified a bit by some counterbalancing logical politeness, what's the argument for meta-atheism? Rey has 11 points which he thinks count as evidence. A couple seemed particularly relevant to my interests, so I'll concentrate on those.

That's just too silly

One was what Rey calls "detail resistance": the way believers find it odd or even silly to investigate the mechanics of God's supposed actions. As I've mentioned previously, one of the final straws for me, before I stopped going to church, was an argument I was involved in on uk.religion.christian, on the details of how God acts today (yet another rehearsal of the argument that caused me to write this essay, as it happened). During the argument, I realised that I somehow found the discussion itself silly. I started to wonder what was going on in my head, and things unravelled from there.

Likewise, Christians who think God caused the Big Bang would find it silly to look for details of God's involvement in black holes. This feeling of silliness is a clue: Rey observes that "this resistance to detail is strikingly similar to the same resistance one encounters in dealing with fiction. It seems as silly to ask the kind of detailed questions about God as it does for someone to ask for details about fictional characters, e.g.: What did Hamlet have for breakfast?"

Invisible dragons

Rey also mentions "betrayal by reactions and behaviour". Christians would respond that of course, they're not perfect, but what Rey has in mind is not moral failings. Rather, it's the sort of thing Hume refers to: though people make protestations of faith, "nature is too hard for all their endeavours, and suffers not the obscure, glimmering light, afforded in those shadowy regions, to equal the strong impressions, made by common sense and by experience".

We've been here before: Rey is thinking about how someone who anticipated-as-if a religion was true would behave, and comparing that with how most believers actually behave. Previously, we've mentioned that it's odd that believers already know the ways in which tests for God will fail: if you're a Christian, you've got an idea of which prayers are realistic, a strange proposition, when you think about it. And if you're an atheist and feel like stumping a Christian, ask them what sin is committed by parents who pray for healing rather than taking their dying kid to a doctor.

Recently, I did block the site “ladyboykisses.com” after one of my readers pointed out that the site used the offense terminology of “shemales” to advertise itself. I definitely do not want my readers to be uncomfortable or attacked, but as long as it’s not outwardly offensive, it can stay on the site.

Today, I noticed another interesting juxtaposition. Check it out (click to embiggen):

There are a surprising number of Scientology ads appearing here on the blog. They are incredibly vague and bizarre. For the record, SCIENTOLOGY is a dangerous cult who doesn’t care about your happiness, only about controlling your life and all of your assets! If you choose to click on an ad, do so very cautiously and do not buy in to anything they tell you!! With this in mind, their ads are kind of amusing. One says:

To love is the road to strength; to love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. Scientology.org

Huh? I actually kind of agree with that sentiment, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the absurd beliefs (redundant, I know) and manipulative tactics of the Church of Scientology.

Here’s another:

Who am I? Where am I going? What am I? What do I want to be? What do I want to have? Scientology.org

Scientology offers the following answers, respectively: “Nobody;” “Broke;” “A pawn;” “Brainwashed;” “No free will.”

And here’s another:

You are not your name, your job, or the clothes you wear, so who are you? Scientology.org

That’s right, Scientology gets to decide who you are. By the way, I’m still Zack Ford, and that’s not changing any time soon.

Another:

Love, Hate, What is the answer? Scientology.org

What is the answer? What is the question?

And this one takes the cake:

You live. You hope. You dream. So who are you? Know yourself. Know life. Scientology.org

Scientology isn’t really happy about all that living, hoping, and dreaming. They’ll help you stop all that.

Anyways, if you see a Scientology ad, have a good laugh. If you think I should block these ads, feel free to comment and say so. I’ll consider it.

In case you missed it, here was the other funny ad juxtaposition I found last week. Enjoy:

Yes. Yes, you do. Every day.

That’s why you want to download Creationist Claims by Insomnia Addict — it’s the iPhone version of The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaak.

And it’s free!

How awesome is that?

(Thanks to Elsa for the link!)

Yesterday morning, half listening to the radio while doing other things, I heard the story of a death row inmate who had taken an overdose of pills in an attempted suicide.  The way you or I feel about capital punishment, is at the moment, irrelevant.  The inmate was scheduled for execution either that day or very soon (as I said, I was only half listening).  He was granted a stay of execution and taken to the medical center where they plan to keep him until his health is stable, so he will be healthy enough to be executed.  I’m having trouble with this concept because sick people die all the time, so why does someone facing execution have to be at the peak of good health to die?

Is this how it works on death row?  I’m imagining the following scenario:  Your number is up, your time has come, they deliver the last meal as you’ve ordered it and you say, “Hey guys, you know what I’m not feeling so good, I don’t even think I can eat this food I’m so sick to my stomach.  Can we just do this execution another day when I’m feeling a little better?”

Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony here?  The guy, who was due to die, tries to off himself and they save his life because…what they don’t want to miss out on the pleasure of killing him and maybe save some ever more scarce tax dollars.

The constant debate for the past year has been health care reform.  Huge numbers of people die, in this country, because they cannot afford medical care, yet we give it to someone we are about to kill.

Atheists try to make belief in God seem like something just to help people cope, but it is the exact opposite! They deny God to help them cope with the coming judgment.

You can find it on a number of Christian YouTube profiles. I don’t know why it is so popular because it is just so damn idiotic. It rings of the same bell as Satan going against God even though he knows that he exists and will destroy him. Similarly, this concept assumes that atheists believe in God and know that they will burn in hell for eternity for denying God.

This doesn’t make any sense firstly because by definition an atheist does not believe in God. Furthermore, it assumes that people with the knowledge that there are only two paths: one that leads to eternal life and happiness and another that leads to eternal suffering and damnation that people would actually choose the latter.

There is no amount of sin that you religious people think atheists enjoy so much that can compensate for damnation. And implying that people choose to go to hell is just disgusting. So, religious people please get your concepts straight and try using some logic and reason before spouting out nonsense.

Share this:

More »

Related posts:

1. Pascal’s Greatest Blunder
2. What The Hell?
3. Purposeful Anger

But the important news is that I've survived, mostly. You might want to stay upwind of me, but otherwise I'm feeling pretty good right now.

Anti-gay forces in Florida have effectively stopped entertainment industry tax incentives for movies and TV shows with gay characters. Way to lose jobs! They say it has something to do with not being “family friendly”. Last time I checked, hate was not a family value. But perhaps fear is?

I have worked in the entertainment industry quite a bit and am originally from Florida…excuse me, that’s Miami. South Florida is a whole other lifestyle than the rest of the state.

This just seems to be shooting yourself in the feet. With the economy as fragile as it is with people begging for more job creation, doesn’t make a lick of sense to remove that large part of revenue generated by the entertainment industry. This could potentially upset enough people in the entertainment industry to not go to Florida at all for Los Angeles Lite. That is, except for Kirk Cameron flicks. And I’d doubt that he’d spend 75 million on any of his projects.

“Smoking, profanity, nudity and sex are also out” meaning any portrayal of actual life as it stands is not appropriate. But it bugs me that sex orientation is defined as obscene without even having any sexual acts. Where is the line drawn? Who decides what’s profane? Are bi chicks ok? As long as they’re hot?

No doubt this will keep a lot of money out of Florida and back into California– or into Nevada, Vancouver, or anywhere else.

Smooth move, Florida lawmakers. Smooth move.

• Why the Proposition 8 Ruling Matters to Atheists (0)
• Stupid Florida! (0)
• Something about professors and dominatrixes (2)

So I'll be starting another series of posts on God's suspected killings, those killings in which God would be a "person of interest" based upon the evidence provided by the Bible.

And I'd like you all to help me with this. Search the scriptures to uncover the bodies in the Bible and find scriptural evidence for God's guilt or innocence. Then let me know in the comments or by email, so we can start an investigation. Let's not let any of these cases become cold.

I'd especially like help on this from believers (I know you're out there). It's your book and your God. So you should be interested in knowing whom he has killed and why. Once you are convinced that God was responsible for a particular killing, why not explain why the killing was justified in the comments or guest post?

Because when it comes to these cases, we are all believers, with the Bible our only witness and its words infallible (except when it contradicts itelf).

A 101-year-old woman in China has baffled doctors after growing a huge goat-like horn on her forehead.

Zhang Ruifang claims the growth first appeared only last year and has since expanded to be more than 6cm long.

Now her family in Linlou, Henan province, are concerned about a second mark on the other side of her forehead.

“[At first] we didn’t pay too much attention to it,” said Mrs Zhang’s youngest son Zhang Guozheng.

“Now something is also growing on the right side of her forehead — it’s quite possible that it’s another horn.”

This is obviously proof of creationism — how else would she get a horn on her forehead, if it wasn’t from God?

The New York Times reports that, following the Irish scandal (which we recently reported on), new abuse allegations have surfaced over the last few weeks in the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany.

Rev. Federico Lombardi, Press Office Director for the Vatican, addressed the issue by reading a note on Vatican Radio. In part:

. . . over recent weeks the debate on the sexual abuse of minors has also involved the Church in certain central European countries (Germany, Austria and Holland). And it is on this development that we wish to make some simple remarks.

The main ecclesiastical institutions concerned – the German Jesuit Province (the first to be involved, through the case of the Canisius-Kolleg in Berlin), the German Episcopal Conference, the Austrian Episcopal Conference and the Netherlands Episcopal Conference – have faced the emergence of problem with timely and decisive action. They have demonstrated their desire for transparency and, in a certain sense, accelerated the emergence of the problem by inviting victims to speak out, even when the cases involved date from many years ago.

Yes, a desire for transparency. Timely and decisive action. Remember those words.

Pope Benedict’s brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, directed the Regensburg boys choir from 1964 to 1994. Thirty years.

A number of abuse cases at the two Catholic Bavarian boarding schools from which the boys were drawn have since surfaced.

The director and composer Franz Wittenbrink, who lived in the Regensburg boarding school of the choir until 1967, said the school had an “elaborate system of sadistic punishments combined with sexual lust.”

He said the headmaster at the time “would choose two or three of us boys in the dormitories in the evenings and take them to his flat.” He said there had been red wine, and that the priest had masturbated with the pupils. “Everyone knew about it,” said Wittenbrink.

The likelihood that Ratzinger was unaware? Wittenbrink comments:

I find it inexplicable that the Pope’s brother Georg Ratzinger, who had been cathedral bandmaster since 1964, apparently knew nothing about it.

Der Spiegel reports on the “transparency” and “timely and decisive action” taken by the local diocese.

Despite many indications, the Regensburg Diocese did not make abuse cases public until contacted by SPIEGEL last Thursday. Now the chair has pledged to investigate everything rigorously and to present an interim report at the end of March.

“Timely and decisive action.” Covering up sexual abuse cases dating to the 1970s and 1980s is “timely and decisive”? This shows a “desire for transparency”?

Much as anti-gay California lawmaker Roy Ashburn “desired transparency” only after he was arrested for DUI leaving a gay bar, the Catholic cult only “desires transparency” after being caught for its decades-long strings of abuses and crimes.

With transparency like this, who needs curtains?

Georg Ratzinger responded to the allegations in a recent interview.

In an interview published Sunday, Ratzinger was quoted as saying by the Rome daily La Repubblica that there was “discipline and rigor” but no terror during his 30 years as head of the Regensburg choir from 1964 until 1994.

[He] said the abuse accusations also reflected “a certain animosity toward the church.”

That’s right. The people claiming that Catholic priests beat and sexually abused them are only doing so because they hate the church, not because they were beaten and sexually abused by pedophiles who went unpunished.

Related posts:

1. Catholic Church Asks Parishioners to Cover Costs of Sex Abuse Lawsuits In a revolting move clearly demonstrating the true depravity of...
2. Catholic Cardinal Blames Islamization of Europe on Atheists A leading Catholic cardinal blames secular thinking, and atheists in...
3. US Conference of Catholic Bishops Takes End-of-Life Decisions Away from Patients and Doctors The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has adopted a directive...

What a way to treat the victims: no compassion, no atonement, just a passing of the buck to a Demonic power that is “pure spirit” and “invisible”.

Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that “the Devil is at work inside the Vatican”, according to the Holy See’s chief exorcist.

Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican’s chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as “cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon”.

He added: “When one speaks of ‘the smoke of Satan’ [a phrase coined by Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true – including these latest stories of violence and paedophilia.”

Continues: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece

Why? Because, if he were any good, he would by now have captured Beelzebub in a bottle, and sold him for mega-bucks on eBay, or some other online auction site.

Father Amorth

In what amounts to a major admission of failure, the demented old spook-chaser ­ – Father Gabriele Amorth, 85 – is reported today as saying that sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that

The Devil is at work inside the Vatican.

Amorth –  the Vatican’s chief exorcist for 25 years who claims to have he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession – said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as:

Cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon.

He added:

When one speaks of ‘the smoke of Satan’ [a phrase coined by Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true – including these latest stories of violence and paedophilia.

Amorth, who has just published Memoirs of an Exorcist, a series of interviews with the Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, said that the attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in 1981 had been the work of the Devil, as had an incident last Christmas when a mentally disturbed woman threw herself at Pope Benedict XVI at the start of Midnight Mass, pulling him to the ground.

But Father José Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Rome-based exorcist, said that Amorth had “gone well beyond the evidence” in claiming that Satan had infiltrated the Vatican corridors.

Cardinals might be better or worse, but all have upright intentions and seek the glory of God.

Father Amorth told La Repubblica that the devil was:

Pure spirit, invisible. But he manifests himself with blasphemies and afflictions in the person he possesses. He can remain hidden, or speak in different languages, transform himself or appear to be agreeable. At times he makes fun of me.

Really! Why would he do that, we wonder?

He said it sometimes took six or seven of his assistants to hold down a possessed person. Those possessed often yelled and screamed and spat out nails or pieces of glass, which he kept in a bag.

Anything can come out of their mouths – finger-length pieces of iron, but also rose petals.

He said that hoped every diocese would eventually have a resident exorcist. Under Church Canon Law any priest can perform exorcisms, but in practice they are carried out by a chosen few trained in the rites.

Amorth was ordained in 1954 and became an official exorcist in 1986. In the past he has suggested that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were possessed by the Devil. He was among Vatican officials who warned that J K Rowling’s Harry Potter novels made a “false distinction between black and white magic”.

He approves, however, of the 1973 film The Exorcist, which although “exaggerated” offered a “substantially exact” picture of possession.

In 2001 he objected to the introduction of a new version of the exorcism rite, complaining that it dropped centuries-old prayers and was “a blunt sword” about which exorcists themselves had not been consulted. The Vatican said later that he and other exorcists could continue to use the old ritual.

He is the president of honour of the Association of Exorcists.

Among many of the amusing comments posted under The Times report was this one from Freethinker reader James Hazan, who wrote:

Father Amorth has just discovered that Satan resides in the Vatican. Where else would he make his home?  – In a synagogue where he is not recognised?!

70,000 cases of demonic possession in 25 years, eh? Even if the good father was working through all the weekends with no holidays (which I’d somehow expect of a very holy man of god) that would be more than 7 cases a day. Do they have some sort of quality management with what they are doing?

Good stuff! And you didn’t even have to get a degree in Biblical Studies like me to enjoy it.

Brother Richard

It happened last week, three minutes into the second half of his game against Cagliari, when Di Carlo reportedly said “porco dio,” which according to Babelfish, translates into English as “God pig.”

[T]he Verona club’s coach “proffered a blasphemous expression” that was to make him the first victim of a zero-tolerance policy on irreverence.

The president, Giancarlo Abete, declared it would “intervene with official decisions to make clear that blasphemy is within the definition of ‘offensive, insulting or abusive language’ in the rules [that warrant sending-off]“.

Wow. So you can get kicked out of professional coaching for saying “god pig”? What about if he said “praise God!”? Would that be okay? What if it was said mockingly?

Or what about “gosh darn it”? That’s just a nice way of saying “god damn it” — which is blasphemous.

Perhaps next they will mic up all the players and make sure they are not quietly mumbling any blasphemous phrases…

Feel free to listen to it here:

And check out singer/songwriter Joe Harbison’s personal page here.

Yay for skeptic music!

Science bloggers in New Zealand have a much higher profile since the SciBlogs platform was launched last October. I am aware of a large number of teaching blogs out there, some independent, others collaborating. Hopefully Talking Teachers will be accepted as an important component of the teaching blogosphere. Hopefully too it will highlight and encourage the connections between science and teaching.

See a blog for talking teaching at BioBlog for more information. And if you are involved in teaching bookmark Talking Teaching.

Normally, I would say let the market decide. If the people in the area think this is wrong they will pull their kids out of the Catholic School and put them into some other private school or perhaps public school. But the Catholic School has an unfair market advantage here since they are subsidized by the tax payers in the form of tax exceptions.

The fact is that all churches are essentially government subsidized. With that in mind, does this give the government (i.e. the people) a say in how these businesses conduct themselves. For example, there are laws against business discrimination and regulations pertaining to how businesses can conduct themselves.

Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor disagrees with me on this one. Before becoming a Supreme Court judge, she ruled on the case of Hankins v. Lyght. Hankins was a Methodist reverend who had reached retirement age but did not wish to retire. Under employment laws, he did not have to retire and an employer could not fire him for being over retirement age. But the Methodist Church did fire him for being over retirement age anyway. Sotomayor ruled that government laws dealing with employment do not need to be held by religious institutions. In other words, churches don’t need to follow the law.

As long as churches receive tax exempt subsidies, I think they should have to follow the laws of this country. In fact, as long as they are operating within the borders of this nation, they should have to abide by the laws of this nation. The fact that the churches not only can violate the law whenever they feel like it but can also get away with not paying their fair share of taxes makes no sense to me at all. The fact is that my taxes are higher because the churches don’t pay taxes.

Religion has been getting a government bailout ever since there was a government and it isn’t right. Every town has multiple churches and those churches are usually not small meek buildings either. Many are huge elaborate institutions sometimes with multiple buildings. They generally take up large tracts of land that if taxed would save most Americans quite a lot of money.

The Catholic Church in Scotland has accused the Labour government of conducting a “systematic and unrelenting attack on family values”.

Video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8533155.stm

They signed a contract for a billion years — in keeping with the church’s belief that Scientologists are immortal. They worked seven days a week, often on little sleep, for sporadic paychecks of $50 a week, at most.

But after 13 years and growing disillusionment, the Collbrans decided to leave the Sea Org, setting off on a Kafkaesque journey that they said required them to sign false confessions about their personal lives and their work, pay the church thousands of dollars it said they owed for courses and counseling, and accept the consequences as their parents, siblings and friends who are church members cut off all communication with them.

The article depicts people who are so sunk in to the Scientology organization that they know little else. Their entire support structure, including their families, are involved with the church. Even after becoming disillusioned with the Church itself, they remain believers in its odd theories:

Ms. Collbran says she still believes in Scientology — not in the church as it is now constituted, but in its teachings. She still gets auditing, from other Scientologists who have defected …

You have to work at it to lose people like this. Perhaps this is why the organization spokesman seems a little tone deaf:

Mr. Davis, the church’s current spokesman, said Scientologists are no different from Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Amish who practice shunning or excommunication.
“These are common religious tenets,” he said. “The very survival of a religion is contingent on its protecting itself.”

Saying, “hey, we’re no more repressive than the other guy,” is not a winning strategy.

Probably the most encouraging part of the story is the positive effect that ex-Scientologist groups are having, as well as directly confrontational groups like Anonymous:

“Since Anonymous has come forward,” said Marc Headley, who belonged to the Sea Org for 16 years, “more and more people who have been abused or assaulted are feeling more confident that they can speak out and not have any retaliation happen.”

Mr. Headley, who wrote a book about his experiences, is suing the church for back wages, saying that over 15 years his salary averaged out to 39 cents an hour. His wife, who said the church coerced her into having two abortions, has also filed a suit. The couple now have two small children.

DUTCH Catholic bishops have ordered an independent inquiry into alleged sexual abuse of children by priests. The investigation, according to the BBC, would be launched “as soon as possible” into more than 200 reported cases of abuse.

Earlier, the Vatican defended its response to child sex abuse allegations in a number of European states, saying it had reacted rapidly and decisively.

In the latest revelations, the head of an Austrian monastery confessed to abusing a boy more than 40 years ago.

The Dutch Catholic Church offered its apologies to the victims:

To the victims of abuse in Catholic boarding schools, the religious leaders and bishops offer their deep-felt condolences and apologies.

Allegations first centred on a school in the eastern Netherlands, with people saying they were abused by Catholic priests. This prompted dozens more alleged victims from other institutions to come forward in recent days.

It also emerged on Tuesday that the head of a Salzburg monastery, Bruno Becker, had offered his resignation on Monday after confessing to having abused a boy 40 years ago, when he was a monk. Church authorities accepted his resignation immediately.

The German, Austrian, Irish and US churches have all been damaged by sexual abuse scandals.

Earlier on Tuesday, a Vatican spokesman said in a statement the sexual abuse scandals were especially deplorable given the educational and moral responsibilities of the Catholic Church, but that the institutions in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands had shown that it wanted to be transparent.

Said Father Federico Lombardi:

They have demonstrated their desire for transparency and, in a certain sense, accelerated the emergence of the problem by inviting victims to speak out, even when the cases involved date from many years ago.

He denied the Vatican had tried to erect a “wall of silence” around the scandals surfacing in many countries.

On Monday, the German justice minister said Vatican secrecy rules were complicating investigations of the cases.

Allegations of sexual abuse are being investigated in 18 of Germany’s 27 Roman Catholic dioceses, where former students from a number of Catholic schools have alleged sexual abuse by teachers.

The Church says it is doing its best to limit the moral damage caused to it by stressing that paedophilia is a problem not limited to Catholic institutions and teachers, but one which must be tackled in a broader context within civil society.

In Germany, there have also been allegations of abuse at a church choir in the Regensburg Diocese.

These are especially sensitive because the choir was run by the Pope’s own elder brother, Father Georg Ratzinger, from 1964-1993 – though the abuse is alleged to have happened before he took charge.

The Pope's brother Georg admits hitting children – but now feels about it

He has denied any knowledge of the sex abuse cases.

But he admitted in an interview that discipline was strict, and that he himself had sometimes slapped pupils in the face.

Last night, BBC2’s Newsnight reported on the case of former priest Bill Carney, who was named in the Murphy report into clerical abuse in Ireland as a “serial abuser”. One of his rape victims was a boy of 13. But for the last 10 years he has been free to live quietly in Britain.

In its 40 pages on Carney, the Murphy report said that his was one of the worst cases the commission investigated and that the Church’s handling of his case was “nothing short of catastrophic”.

It was inept, self-serving and for the best part of 10 years displayed no obvious concern for the welfare of children.

In 1992, the Church convicted Carney internally, under Canon law, of child sexual abuse.

But this compulsive paedophile refused to leave the parish house. So the Church paid him £30,000 to go away.

My husband and I are both out atheists to our respective families, and some have handled it better than others.  I have a couple relatives that have become distant, others that have gotten fairly good at passive-aggressive evangilisation.  So my husband and I have gotten pretty good at not engaging.

There was a bit of an e-mail kerfuffle that went on between family this week, prompted by invitations to a religious activity.  While it’s (hopefully) been dealt with, I did quite a bit of navel-gazing.  Since I claimed Nick as my mate, I now have a large portion of family that didn’t see me walk away from the Catholic Church.  For all they know, I’ve done it on a lark, to chase after my (very handsome) man.

Part of this ambiguity is my fault.  I choose to let other people engage me on the subject of religion – I even (usually) do a good job of keeping a civil tongue and trying to use words that won’t engage a “fight or flight” response.  No one can hear anything with adrenaline pumping through their system, and I’m uninterested in being a cause of strife amongst family.  (Yes, mother, this statement is not always true regarding my discussions with you.  Feel honored – it means I think you’re safe to talk to about these things).

So family that reads this blog, read on after the break only if you’d like to truly know how I feel about religion.  I’m not pulling any punches, and I’m not avoiding the fight or flight response.  I would also like to make it clear that this has nothing to do with belief in a god, only actions and deeds.

I long ago made the decision that I was done with religion.  It didn’t offer me anything I couldn’t get elsewhere, and just seemed to have a lot of rules that I had reasoned away with secular ethics.  I sort of thought religion and I could co-exist where we met only occasionally.  I have since discovered this is not possible.

My current disdain for religion is rooted in more than a theological difference, or a philosophical difference, or just plan difference.  It is because religion in its variety of forms actively oppresses people and aggressively spreads evil throughout the world.  The vast majority of religious leaders who are in a position of influences actively sow disease and destruction.  They commit both banal and epic atrocities – they are responsible for the death of the gay teen who commits suicide; they are responsible for the HIV/AIDS epidemic that has spread to the poorest portions of the globe.  And the faithful that go to church, tossing an envelope into the collection plate and replenishing themselves at the well of religious community are just as responsible for those atrocities as the religious leaders.  Every Catholic, every person subscribing to a Christian world-view and supporting these Christian institutions has the blood of billions on their hands.

When you speak of the joy and wonderful and fulfillment that you receive from religion, this is what I see.  I see women unable to protect themselves from unfaithful husbands through the use of a condom because the Catholic church has campaigned against their use and distribution.  I see families torn apart by unjust marriage laws that the churches prop up.  I see abuse and terrorism within families, and women told to go back to husbands because divorce is not an option.

I see gay teens who commit suicide because they’re told they are abominations.  I see the millions more who suffer in silence, shamed by their sexuality, their bodies, their desires.   I see well-intentioned people give religious bigotry and hatred a pass because, well… it’s religious so it must be good.  I see children beaten within an inch of their life with plumbing supply line, because obedience is godly.   I see children raped and molested and abused by religious leaders.  I see the families of those children having to choose between protecting their salvation and protecting their children, and not always making the right choice.

By participating in religion*, especially the Catholic institution, you are actively choosing your physical or spiritual well being at the sacrifice of those who are affected by the evils of religion.  I cannot and will not be party to this in a conscious manner.  I oppress enough people without being conscious of it – I cannot live with myself if I choose transient ease now and foist that pain onto another.

*And those who participate peripherally or culturally don’t get a pass.  To quote Will Rodgers “We can’t all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.”  Religious institutions would not commit their atrocities so easily if the silent majority did not sit by and watch the parade roll through town.

Executive flight is the corporate world’s only effective form of self-regulation: those who are too selfish to pay what they owe to society send themselves into voluntary exile. It’s an act of self-sacrifice for which we should all be grateful. It’s hard on the Swiss, but there’s a kind of mortal justice here too: if you sustain a crooked system of banking secrecy and tax avoidance, you end up with a country full of crooks and tax avoiders.

And for a 2-hit combo:

International attempts to close down tax havens remain half-hearted. But if by some miracle these measures were to succeed, one haven – let’s say St Helena – should be kept open. It should be furnished only with rudimentary homes. All who chose to could live there in peace. Every penny they possessed would remain safe from the taxman, as long as they never set foot in another land. They could sit in their cells and count their money for the rest of their lives. Parties of schoolchildren would be brought to the island to goggle at these hermits, and learn some lessons about the follies of wealth.

On a related note, we need more humor in the anti-capitalist movement.

Insightful? Funny? Informative? Spot On? Helpful?

• If everyone in a group cooperates, everyone is better off than if no one cooperates
• If everyone else cooperates, any individual is always better off if he does not individually cooperate

1. An individual can join any group with the consent of its existing members
   
2. By joining a group, an individual agrees to cooperate for the mutual benefit of the members of the group. By implication, a person will join a group if and only if she believes that cooperation will be more beneficial than independence or membership in any other group
   
3. If an individual does not believe that cooperating within the group is in her best interest, she may leave at any time, taking her share of the physical assets of the group with her.
   
4. If the rest of the members of a group do not believe that a specific member is cooperating, they may expel that member from the group. (Technically, the rest of the members can leave the original group and form a new group without the offending members.)

They allowed their son to die of an inflammation of his urethra because they figured a god would cure him. Instead of taking him to a doctor for real help, they prayed… and sat back idly while he suffered.

A jury found them guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

The other day, they finally received their sentence:

Clackamas County Circuit Court Judge Steven Maurer sentenced Jeffrey and Marci Beagley to 16 months in prison this afternoon, calling the couple’s decision to not seek medical care for their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley, a “crime that was a product of an unwillingness to respect the boundaries of freedom of religious expression.”

… The sentence also includes three years of post-prison supervision.

A little over a year. They killed their own son and that’s all they have to serve for it.

I saw the video of their sentencing and I felt no sympathy for them.

I just hope this sends a lesson to other parents. Pray for your children’s health if you want, but god won’t help them as much as a good doctor will.

(via Religion Clause)

I was a TrueChristian™ for about eight years starting back in 1981. I attended a Pentecostal non-denominational church (Glad Tidings-Boise) back in the first five years of my time as a believer. It was there that I learned to accept the idea that my first duty to God was to tithe to the church. I was absolutely faithful in my giving of tithes and offerings. I was a “happy giver.”

After five years at Glad Tidings I became drawn towards Calvary Chapel of Boise. The vibe at C.C. was way more up my ally. I’m a professional musician and C.C. was just then forming in Boise and I fit perfectly into the youth-oriented fellowship.

Calvary’s Pastor (Bob Caldwell) and I became really good friends. We not only built the C.C. fellowship together, we also did a lot of prison ministry and even had some “leadership retreats” together.

Backsliding

After three years as C.C.’s music minister, I met some other musicians in the church and we decided to start doing some secular gigs just for fun (I even had Pastor Bob’s blessing on it). It wasn’t long before I wanted to get back full time into the professional music club circuit.

Pastor Bob and I parted company at that time … but we parted on the very best of terms. There was no condemnation from him towards me, and, I had no negative feelings for leaving the church. This would turn out to be the key to why he would eventually grant my “request” for a refund of my tithing contributions to Calvary Chapel.

Of course, I soon backslid into partying and wound up getting a divorce. After several years of living the old musician lifestyle, I met my current wife (of twenty years), stopped drinking, settled down and had two daughters. Once I quit drinking (without A.A. or any other “spiritual” assistance) I began to read Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll. Once I discovered the internet (Infidel Guy Show) there was no turning back. I found complete freedom from religion.

Giving

After some time, I started to remember an incident that had happened to me way back in my days at Glad Tidings Church. I had been watching the P.T.L. Club on TV and got suckered into believing that the Lord wanted me to send P.T.L. a thousand bucks! I sent the money. When my Pastor’s wife (sister Barnett) found out that I’d sent P.T.L. $1000, she took me aside and scolded me that the Lord wanted his people to give their money to “where they are fed” i.e., Glad Tidings. She suggested that I call P.T.L. and ask for my money back.

So I did. When I asked P.T.L. to return the money they agreed and I allowed them to keep $100.00 for being so understanding. I then gave the remaining $900.00 to Glad Tidings. After all; had I not already given the money to “The Lord”?

Fast forward to 2006. One faith-free day I happened to recall my P.T.L. experience and began to ask myself: “Why not simply ask, not demand or insist, but politely ask for my money back from Calvary Chapel?” All they could say was “no,” right? I had left the church on excellent terms, and Pastor Bob was a very cool, very laid back guy.

Refunding

By that time Calvary Chapel was huge. I knew Bob would remember me, so I wrote him a short email asking if he could help me with some questions that I had involving donations to the fellowship. Bob wrote back almost immediately with a nice letter saying that he had thought about me many times over the years and had meant to contact me and that he was sorry that he had never actually done it. He was very sweet and kind as always.

He then referred me to his Assistant Pastor (Mike Sasso) for help with my questions. I send a courteous response thanking Bob for his kind words and attention. I then connected with Pastor Mike and began writing questions back and forth. I wrote to Mike that my understanding was that when I gave money to the fellowship, I was essentially giving the money to God and that the church was merely “the conduit” between me and Jesus.

At first Mike was very friendly and eager… on his best pastoral behavior. Once my questions began to turn towards a “could the church ever refund money that had been given” type of query, Mike’s language became stiff and defensive. He then referred me to deal directly with Pastor Bob.

In my next email to Pastor Bob I selected my words very carefully.

Dear Bob,

I know that what I am asking is probably a first and highly strange request; even for someone like you who has spent so many years in the ministry. Please always keep in mind that what I am proposing is a request, not a demand. You can deny my request and I give you my promise that there will be absolutely no hard feelings on my part.

Here is my request:

Would you be willing to return to me all or any part of the money that I gave to the ministry at Calvary Chapel during my years in the fellowship?

If you say “no”, I will fully understand. Your choice is final and that will absolutely be the end of my inquiry. I await an answer at your convenience.

Cordially,

Billy….

I did not hear back from Pastor Caldwell. I waited for a couple of weeks, sent another similar letter and included an apology stating that I understood that he (Pastor Bob) must be very busy, but I would really appreciate a response.

Again, there was no response.

I sent a third letter stating (paraphrasing here:) “Thank you for the time and attention that you have already given to this matter. I will assume your silence means ‘no’ to my request.”

Eventually his decision came.

Pastor Bob wrote me back telling me that he was handing the situation over to the church accountant and that he would be authorized to work with me towards a settlement!

I want you to imagine the reaction that Bob’s “concession letter” caused from me and my wife! My jaw dropped and my eyes almost popped out of my head. We were hysterically laughing, jumping and shouting, “It’s a MIRACLE!” We never in a million years seriously expected to see a dime of that money, and now here I was reading a letter from Pastor Bob granting my request for a refund.

After a phone conversation with the accountant at Calvary Chapel, Jim agreed to send me monthly installments of $500 until the agreed amount of $3200 was paid off. The checks came every month and were quickly deposited into my storehouse.

That was the end of my contact with Bob and Calvary Chapel.

Ye Have Not…

I can only speculate what Pastor Bob’s motive was for granting my request for a refund. My circumstances were probably not typical for the way that many people wind up leaving the fold.

Deconversion can be a very difficult and challenging process. I found the action of facing (if only through email contact) my fear of my old authoritative figure (Pastor Bob) very liberating and empowering. Even if things would have turned out differently, I’m proud of myself for standing up to the fear that use to control me.

The moral: “Ye have not, because ye ask not”!

It’s not hard to see that religious belief tends to begin in childhood. Those beliefs are established, influenced and reinforced by three interrelated factors: parental religion, cultural religion, and church rites.

Parental Religion

Belief in a personal god manifests as personal religion, however serious, and it’s virtually impossible not to transmit personal religion to your children—unless you’re trying not to; but as parents are behind the religious indoctrination ceremonies, it’s pretty clear that avoiding influence isn’t the American Christian parent’s objective.

Running the continuum from a stiff prayer at Thanksgiving dinner to teaching children silly rote prayers to be repeated at bedtime to an occasional mention of god or whether a family nativity sanctifies Christmas, church is occasionally attended, or weddings and funerals mark life’s hallmarks, personal religion is propagated parent to child.

That’s why American children are likely to share religion with their parents. When that shared religion is a version Cultic Culture’s mainstream religion, it is culturally reinforced.

Cultural Religion

The same ubiquitous Christianity that surrounds parents surrounds mainstream American children. The power of the cultural religion is in that ubiquity, because the commonplace is esteemed as normal.

A child born in Manhattan will think nothing of the skyscrapers that surround her, while her cousin in Montana will consider the horses he sees every day quite normal. If they trade places both buildings and horses become fascinating, but neither child is likely to be fascinated by grass; it’s ubiquitous. Some people (Montanans) have more, others (New Yorkers) have less, but everybody has grass.

God is the same. God belief is normal from sea to shining sea. Some people have more, othershave less, but everybody has god belief.

In all parts of the country, children see churches, hear church bells, and read propaganda on church signs. They see nativities at Christmas and triplicate crosses at Easter, the middle one invariably draped in a white sheet.

They hear sports stars and celebrities thanking God. They see God on their money and hear of him in the Pledge of Allegiance. They’re exposed to the same insidious Christian bumper stickers, t-shirts, and clichés that their parents are.

From birth, children are immersed in the Cultic American Culture that reinforces and is reinforced by their parents’ religion.

Church Rites

Beginning with simple church attendance and extending to formal childhood initiation ceremonies, church rites reinforce and formalize parental and cultural religion.

Church Attendance When is church attendance highest? Typically during the Christmas and Easter seasons. Attending church during those seasons reinforces cultural religion: These times are important and significant and we commemorate them with religious lawn displays and by attending church.

Apart from holidays, when are people prone to attend church services? In times of crisis; after a personal, familial, or even national calamity, Americans are drawn to god. When taken to church at crisis points, children are taught to rely on god and to believe that he is good and helpful.

And who is normally the impetus for church attendance, whether weekly, sporadically, or seasonally? Parents. Being required to attend church, for whatever reason, gives it the gravity of obligation that comes from parental authority.

Weddings and Funerals. Funerals are an extension of the god-in-crisis mentality; sixty-six percent of Americans expect to be buried in a religious funeral and funerals are family affairs. Affairs where confused children learn about God’s comfort and that dead people aren’t really dead.

Weddings are the flip side of funerals. Where funerals are times of grief, weddings are occasions to celebrate. Seventy-two percent of Americans had a religious wedding and weddings are also family affairs. Affairs where children learn that God is tied to love and happiness and necessary to a successful marriage.

Collectively, weddings and funerals teach children to mark life’s transitions and phases by calling on God for comfort and blessing.

Baptisms and Initiation Ceremonies. As we discussed above, seventy-one percent of Americans were participants in a religious initiation ceremony. I say “were participants in” because it captures the child’s passivity. “Participated in” implies a conscious and rational choice to join the group when, of course, the children are put in the ceremonies by their parents.

Most interesting is that typical mainstream churches practice infant baptism. Catholics do. So do Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and the United Church of Christ.

Of course, those groups don’t agree on what the baptisms mean, but they do agree to officially initiate their children into Christianity virtually from birth. That official connection formalizes the parental and cultural religious lessons and obligates the child to the Cultic American Culture’s rites and religion.

The Christian Machine

Interestingly, twenty-seven percent of the Nones insist on a personal god, despite having no religious ties, compared to only seven percent that are avowed atheists. Even when adults don’t continue in a particular religious belief system, it appears that the Cultic American Culture often retains its influence.

Those people remain part of the Cultic Culture, vulnerable to being sucked into the Christian Machine. I told you the story last week about my boyhood friend who is such a person. He became an agnostic as a young teen, but never rejected American Christianity, opting to be married in his boyhood church and having his son baptized there.

He was subjected to this parental and cultural indoctrination. He was also subjected to the more sinister forms of child indoctrination, propaganda and recruitment.

We’ll discuss them tomorrow.

Tomorrow: The Cultic Recruitment of Children – Subscribe now.

International conferences on poverty and the environment come and go. There’s always a big pachyderm in the meeting room. It’s got the words “macroeconomic policy” written on its forehead. Nobody wants to talk about it. ...

Discussing macroeconomic policies raises awareness about the inner workings of the neo-liberal model and its political economy. Suddenly, the relation between cuts in social expenditures and a primary surplus becomes crystal clear. The rapport between controlling inflation and holding back aggregate demand (all too frequently through repressing real wages) turns out to be self-evident. Pretty soon people are talking about how macroeconomic policy is subordinated to the priorities of financial capital.

ADAM “Nergal” Darski, frontman for Poland’s extreme heavy metal band Behemoth, has been formally charged for destroying a copy of the Bible over two years ago.

According to this report, while it is a crime in Poland to destroy any religious iconography, there must be at least two formal complaints before a charge is laid. The first charge was made in 2008 – and recently an undisclosed number of additional complaints were lodged against Darski.

Nergal with the Best Underground Band trophy clinched by Behemoth at the Metal Hammer Gods Awards 2009 in London. (AP Photo/James McCauley)

At the first hearing, under cross -examination, Darski said what he does on stage is part of artistic license and it wasn’t intended to offend religious feelings. This was countered by an expert on religious history and studies from Jagellonian University in Krakow, who stated that every copy of a Bible could be considered a religious icon.

Following this second wave of complaints, the case will now go to court, and if found guilty, Darski could face a full two years in prison.

Last month it was reported that the national conservative Polish political party Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc (PiS), was orchestrating efforts to prosecute Darski for offending people’s religious beliefs.

The alleged offence happened in September 2007, when Darski reportedly called the Catholic Church “the most murderous cult on the planet” during a Behemoth performance in Gdynia, and tore up a copy of a bible onstage.

Behemoth bassist Tomasz “Orion” Wroblewski, said:

The incident was by no means a spontaneous outburst, we’d been doing that for two years on tour before it happened in Poland.

He added:

A Behemoth show is a Behemoth show, so the fans are aware of what to expect.

Hat tip: ZombieHunter

Marx doesn't make any attempt to present an argument that capitalism is unjust, nor any concept of justice which would back up such an argument. Moreover, we have vitriolic criticisms of utopian socialists who did condemn capitalism on the grounds of justice. Marx asserts on the contrary, that capitalism is perfectly fair, perfectly just. Why so? ...

[Marx] thinks of justice as a political and juridical conception which is associated with a particular conception of the state and society; so it belongs to the prehistory of mankind. Given his picture of human society, these political and juridical institutions belong to the superstructure, and reflect the workings of the mode of production. For each mode of production there is a conception of justice appropriate to it, at least in prehistory.

Take a huge oceanic catamaran, stick a hydroelectric turbine underneath it, and hitch it to a 6.5 million-square-foot parafoil flying nearly a mile in the air. That’s a Korean research team’s new proposal for generating gigawatts of clean energy.

As the parafoil pulls the boat, seawater would be forced through the turbine, which generates electricity. The 800 megawatts of electricity produced would separate seawater into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis, and the hydrogen would then be stored on-board the ships.

“The calculation shows that, with a large such ship, a gigawatt order electrical power may be harvested by this system,” wrote Park Chul of the Korea Aerospace Research Institute and Kim Jongchul of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, in the journal Energy in March.

“If such ships are deployed at 20-km (12.4-mile) intervals over two temperate zones, one in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in the Northern Hemisphere and the other everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, the total power produced will be many times that needed by the world,” they wrote.

Continues: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/hydro-paraplant/