The Smiling Skeptic

2011-09-05T17:57:00.000-07:00

The Rainbow Choice

2011-08-18T12:49:00.000-07:00

What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic? Truth be told, little evidence has been shown. And for reasons I shouldn't have to explain to you, to say that homosexuality is a trait passed on from one generation to the next, especially in the animal kingdom, is a little absurd, withstanding genes interacting with one another causing genetic anomalies. Now, what is the evidence that homosexuality is biological? Well, plenty. In fact, all of the evidence points in that direction. 1) A gay man, no matter how hard he tries, cannot make himself straight. He will, in fact, have a better chance of succeeding in suicide than conversion, at a clinic such as Marcus Bachmann's. 2) Homosexuality happens in nature. Naturally in nature. Each year, more species are found to have homosexual minorities, from penguins to meer kats. 3) Homosexual males and females have been shown in tests to have physical differences (not only in their mannerisms, but physical, biophysical differences) from straight members of the same sex, as well as similarities between gay members of one sex, and straight members of the other.

These are just three examples of what I'm going to cover in this blog. Skepticism gives me a pretty wide range of subjects to deal with, and this one is one that I've been itching to do since I first heard that there was one of these camps only tens of miles from me - an embarrassment on an otherwise blue state, to say the least.

Despite, many people choose to remain denialists of biological homosexuality, and choose to remain ignorant of the evidence. This is nothing new, and per usual, it stems from religion/superstition in most cases. They cannot accept that God would create people who are an abomination against Jewish tribal laws written by people who sacrificed cows to the sun, and believed the world to be flat. It is truly a disorder if I've ever seen one, and trust me, I've seen my share. How can these people, putting superstitious nonsense aside, actually think people would make a decision to be a ridiculed and oppressed minority? How can people think one can chose their own sexual orientation? I didn't choose to be straight, nor did any actual straight person (barring those like Marcus Bachmann who are putting on an act because they hate something about themselves). I guess the only answer is this: Willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance is a powerful force in this world, and is leading the crusade against science in our world. You see it with evolution, climate change, the mapping of the human genome itself, and you certainly see it with homosexuality. Naivity is another force because there are those who capitalize on the naivity of others by providing either misleading information, or all-out lies. Among the top of these activists who hasn't been caught with another person of the same sex, or a child of the same sex, is the reverend Fred Phelps.

Phelps is the head of the Westboro Baptist Church - the group that protests military funerals because they feel the deaths of soldiers to be God's retribution against the sinful culture of the United States, Canada, and Europe. Their website is entitled godhatesfags.com, if that gives you any precept of whom we're dealing with here. Phelps has been quoted in saying many things regarding gays, such as this:

"It’s NOT OK to be gay. It will damn the soul, destroy the life, and doom any nation that tolerates such evil. God Hates Fags is a profound theological statement, which America needs more than it needs oxygen or bread."

The first thing I'd like to point out is that nowhere in Moslow's necessities of life is theology, let alone violent, hateful theology. I'm pretty sure I need to put water and food into my body more than I need to "accept" that "God hates fags." Secondly, and with less jest, the entirety of this statement is theologically based, and therefore, meaningless. Phelps does, however, openly claim that homosexuality is a choice, and that any homosexual can choose to be straight, and should do so immediately.

Phelps is not alone in this belief. Among the many crazies in history like Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Bishop Harry Jackson, Michael Marcavage, Madeline Crabb, Pat Buchanann, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others, one of today's leading crusaders against homosexuality is James Hartline.

James Hartline had this to say regarding homosexual behavior:

"I am a man with the greatest of concern for my fellow Christian. In my daily course of life, I see the great burden being thrust upon the American Christian by satanic forces who are determined to wipe out every vestige of Biblical influence in this once godly nation. Everyday, I speak with moms and dads who are brokenhearted that their sons and daughters have had their vulnerable minds hijacked by advocates representing the Spirit of Sodom. Those dark, socialistic engineers of a resurrected Sodom are determined, in their rebellion against the throne of God, to plant a massive crop of what the Bible calls the 'Vine of Sodom'."

I'm seeing a pattern here. Could it be that the world's leading anti-gay activists are all people of deep-rooted religion? That can't be. There must be someone of a scientific origin with a scientific argument against homosexuality, right? I mean, just one? Maybe? Someone who won't say something like, "Gay sympathy in schools will destroy America, the world, and quite possibly the universe." I happened across one who was pretending to take a scientific approach to homosexuality. His name is Luiz Sergio Solimeo, the author of the book Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.

This book explores the scientific arguments that homosexuality is physiological, and contends that science cannot prove the claims that homosexuality is "genetic," or irreversible. He also says the animal homosexuality argument is nothing more than a myth. Would you like to read more? I surely would. Here is how he sums up his reasoning that the animal argument is a false argument:

"The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature? In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,

It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and

Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man."

Let me just run through this step by step, as the author has seemingly taken a religious turn, no matter how much I tried to find an argument that wouldn't. The first problem with this argument is that he's done what so many others have: used the classic reductio ad absurdum to discredit the initial argument. He's claiming that if we justify one behavior because it's natural in the animal kingdom, then we have to justify them all. This is like comparing homosexuality to murder or cannibalism. Oops, no wait, that exactly what he just did. He doesn't seem to understand social construct. We have many instincts as animals that we've slowly honed out of ourselves, or teach against, in modern society, because they don't fit in with what we define as civilized culture. We don't condone murder, cannibalism, infanticide, rape, racism, sexism, or any of these other components that are merely extensions of our animal brains; most of which are summed up with the word xenophobia.

Xenophobia probably helped us a lot in our evolution, as it is a form of false positive reasoning. I don't know if that other tribe is here to kill me or befriend me, but I have nothing to lose if I take the highroad and fear them. Fear leads to hate, and hate leads to murder: yet another activity that we don't condone as humans (at least secular culture doesn't). However, to align homosexuality with any of these natural instincts is inane at best. We have natural instincts to eat, sleep, cry, sweat, drink, fornicate, procreate, consume, and so on, yet we don't compare these things to murder. Why not? It's the exact same thing. The only difference is that the instinct to fornicate and procreate is slightly altered within homosexuals, although, most homosexuals still feel parental instincts and maternal/paternal clocks just like the rest of us.

The reduction of all instincts into one broad spectrum of contempt is an intentionally misleading, dishonest argument and holds absolutely no scientific water. In the same respect, xenophobia seems to be an instinct that this author has absolutely no problem with.

Aside from this point, this argument neglects to dispute homosexuality as a natural behavior, which is the entire point of the animal kingdom argument. I would also like to point out that this man must be either a psychologist (sorry to pick on the field again, but this is one of my largest complaints about the philosophy of psychology itself) or an engineer, as only one of those two groups would make a comment so stupid as to say that it is "poor science to read human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior." There is not a human instinct, action or presupposition that is not an extension of our animal instincts placed on a more complex scale. Any biologist will tell you that; any neurologist will tell you that.

He went on to say:

"To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.

At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal 'filicide,' 'cannibalism' and 'homosexuality.'"

Once again, the reductio ad absurdem argument returns; therefore, I will not explain it again. Once is enough for such an intellectually void and scientifically odious argument. I will, however, mention that the author seems to have a very unclear perception of not only consciousness, but also brain activity in general. It almost appears as if he's using arguments that would be made by a phrenologist. Is animal behavior bound by the physical laws of the governing mineral world? Interesting way of putting it, but yes, to an extent. We do, however, obviously have a great ability to evolve and adapt to our circumstances. Adapting to circumstances and climate is what drives evolution, and hence, is the reason we're here right now to talk about adapting. And of course all animals respond to internal and external stimuli. This is what shapes our lives and most of our decisions. This is granted, but I'm still not seeing the connection with homosexuality.

He says something in his second paragraph that sort of confuses me a bit, though. He states that all animals "lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another." So, how then to animals form packs if they frequently confuse other members of their species? I always thought that sight and smell were two of the primary functions of animals that allowed them to detect those with whom they're familiar, but according to Solimeo, the frequently confuse these senses as well. In other words, he's saying that animals can't really tell a tree trunk from a lion? Because if that were true, I'm not so sure evolution would have brought us this far. This argument could be true of some animals that display homosexuality.

With my background in evolutionary biology, needless to say, I've done my fair share of work with fruit flies. Fruit flies are certainly an evolutionary anomoloy. Some of them have developed a third and fourth wing, which are both entirely dysfunctional, if not completely useless and disruptive to their existing, functional wings. They have an uncanny ability to smell food as well, but seem to have a horrible ability to sense one another with smell. The problem is that this is how fruit flies identify mates. They identify possible mates through smell, which they are actually quite horrible at, hence, this could easily explain homosexuality in fruit flies.

However, other animals don't seem to have any problem at all identifying mates: animals as small as dung flies. In fact, an evolutionary trait of some animals is the ability to disguise themselves as the opposite sex in order to confuse other male contenders. They will mate with a female while other males pursue them, and quite often unsuccessfully (obviously) fornicate with them in between the initial male's copulations. This vastly decreases sexual competition, which is certainly to the advantage of the male fish with this ability. The most noted creature with this capability is the Goodeidae. If the Goodeidae family of fish were incapable of detecting the sex of another fish, then this evolutionary adaptation wouldn't work one bit, or at least, would not work most of the time. But it does, and it continues an amazing success rate among this teleost family of fish.

In another case, there is a species of albatross knows as the Laysan (Phoebastria immutabilis) which are known for their lesbian couples. The species is a monogamous species, but does not always pair up with mates of the opposite sex. In fact, the female's, in over one-third of observed cases, mate with a male, then split with the male to pair up with a fellow female Laysan albatross. They do this for a very good reason: It greatly benefits the species. Female Laysans have learned what many human women have yet to learn, which is that the female sex is much more successful at child-rearing than is the male sex. They also use this technique to avoid divorce, as with a female partner, she is not likely to be lured away to fornicate with another female. This is a case of homosexual coupling, but not homosexual mating. It is a perfectly illustrates a deliberate sociobiological system wherein homosexuality is practiced, and certainly not by mistake. And if this can illustrate a successful mating program wherein homosexual coupling is successful, what does it say for humans who do the same? The success rates are similar, as children raised in homosexual households seem to grow up as better-adjusted individuals and average significantly higher levels of both education and income. But I guess that could just be the gay agenda, right?

I won't spend too much time on this argument, as it's irrelevant, but I've heard it enough to make a slight mention. There are those who claim that our culture is flying deeper and deeper into a fiery pit because the media is forcing a gay agenda upon us with shows like Will and Grace, Modern Family, Queer Eye, and others. Can I just say that I've watched all of these shows and I don't feel any significant homosexual tendencies. In fact, I'm also a fan of Rick and Steve, and my life has yet to spin into a circle of gay orgies and drugs, so I think I'm all right. What isn't mentioned when these people spout this conspiracy thesis is the fact that the gay community needs shows like these to show bigoted, straight, religious people that they're just like everyone else: the same problems, the same confusions, but with one added stress to their lives. The gay community needs good PR just like the atheist community does; just like the Muslim community does; just like the Christian community does; just like the Jewish community does. And all of these sects have their own media PR circles, just as they should. Bigots are everywhere and hate everyone, and nobody is safe from them. And frankly, being an atheist myself, I know what it's like to be a part of a minority who is constantly demonized, and every homosexual on this planet feels the same. We need it.

So, while I'm still looking for a truly scientific argument against homosexuality, I'm starting to wonder if I'll ever actually find one. I know that there probably aren't any, but I'm still looking. It just appears to be the logical conclusion, based on contemporary as well as traditional research, is that homosexuality is a result of many composite factors, including genetics, environment, and hormonal influences, which when commingled, make the proverbial "perfect soup." One cannot isolate purely in a genetic format, as far too many genetic twins differentiate in sexual persuasion, as has been illustrated in the studies performed by the Twin Studies of Bearman and Bruckner (2002). In this light, one cannot base it too far on upbringing either. This does not mean, however, that the genetic option isn't a factor. It could even be a rather large one. Maternal linkage has been a long-studied hypothesis with very significant results. In Hamer et al (1993), Sanders et al (1998), and Hu et al (1995), a link was made on the X chromosome, gene marker Xq28. In rigorous studies, they found that a significant number of gay men tested in their studies had relatively high amounts of gay uncles or cousins on their mother's side. The standout marker was, as I mentioned before, Xq28. This study was later refuted in 1999 by Rice et al, which argued that there was no evidence at all of linkage of microsatellite markers at Xq28. But this was not the end, as later Meta-analysis has showed that additional genes must be present to account for heritability of sexual orientation. A later study performed in 2005 scanned the genomes of the subjects and families who participated in both Hamer and Hu, and added additional subjects, concluding that while Xq28's significance may have been overstated in Hamer, two other genes showed near significance, and one other, 10q26, showed significant maternal loading, thus adding validity to the family studies previously thought to be refuted.

One thing not mentioned in any of these studies was birth order, which I would really love to look at in the Twin Studies performed by Bearman and Bruckner. Later sexual orientation studies included a lot of wild claims, but some of them turned out to be incredibly valid, which was the case in Blanchard and Klassen's Fraternal Birth Order study of sexual orientation (1997). The two concluded the younger a brother is in the family, the greater chance of being a homosexual. In fact, each older brother adds as high as a 48% chance of homosexuality. This conclusion wasn't reached by statistics, however. There is strict, hard science to go along with it. An in-utero environmental causation has been shown that is linked to a maternal immune response linked to HY antigens. HY antigens are involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates. Maternal H-Y antibodies remember and react to specific H-Y antigens. Much like any other antibody, it is going to attack anything it perceives as an invader, which, unfortunately for the younger brother, is going to be his H-Y antigens, and therefore, decrease the antigens' ability to masculinise the brain. Obviously, this effect varies, which has been the origin of much of its criticism, but it still stands today as a prevailing theory, and none of its opponent "external sibling order" hypotheses have come to explain the link between boys of later birth moved into adopted households without adopted brothers who are also prone to this effect.

Certainly, this effect may even grow deeper, as the physiological differences between straight men and gay men, as well as straight women and gay women, as well as the similarities between gay men and straight women, seem to fall right into this theory of the brain not undergoing proper masculinisation. As reported by the BBC in 2008, studies have found that gay men and straight women share have an equal average proportion of brain hemispheres. Straight men and lesbian women also share extraordinarily similar hemisphere proportions, including one anomaly: slightly larger right hemispheres. According to a paper published in Science by Simon Levay (1991), the average size of the INAH 3 (the third interstitial of the anterior hypothalamus) in gay men is approximately the same size as it is in women. It's significantly smaller and the cells are far more densely packed than they are in those of heterosexual males. McFadden (2002) also notes that the functioning of the inner ear and central auditory system in bisexual women and lesbians far resembles the functioning of non-gay men, far more than it does straight women. These are two significant physiological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals of the same gender that primarily relate to the brain. I'm leaving out research that states other differences such as the varying size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus, as well as varying activity in the amygdala, between straight and gay men, simply because these trial results have yet to be duplicated enough times to appease my hungry scientific mind. Whereas in the case of the INAH3 study, it was duplicated with the same results by its largest detractor, which in science, means everything.

While I'll always say that correlation does not mean causation, many rather significant correlations have been made to varying brain activity as well as the relative sizes of certain areas of the brain and sexual preference. What this means is that this is an area of sexual orientation science that needs to be explored further, and if trends predict anything, more significant variations will certainly be found, leading us to conclusive evidence of the cause(s) of homosexuality.

But in the end, I will always say that the best test of all is the Myth Busters form of investigation: Just ask. We all know at least one homosexual. Just ask him or her if he or she chose to be this way. Not only will you get a resounding no, but you'll also receive a question in return: Why the hell would I have chosen to be this way? It's not that, in asking such a question, they're admitting to being ashamed of who they are. They are, however, illustrating how their lives have been, being so different from everyone else, and probably having to keep such a huge part of themselves secret from their friends and family for years upon years upon years. Who in the world would choose such a thing? A better question: Why do we live in a society where people have to hide who they are.

Whether homosexuality is a combination of genetic, biological, and environmental factors, or if one of these factors are dominant, it's obvious that a conscious choice was not made by the individual that determined his or her sexual identity and/or orientation. And let us also keep in mind that even though most scientists would refer to homosexuality as a genetic defect, that doesn't imply negative connotation. My height is a genetic defect, and so is the color of my eyes. Any kind of genetic abnormality is a defect.

In summation, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice, nor is there evidence to suggest one can alter their sexual preference any more than they could alter the shape of their face or the length of their arms through sheer will. There are mountains of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is biological and, to loosely use the term, genetic. Environmental factors are also at play, but only when combined with preexisting biological components. Homosexuality is in no way, shape, or form a choice consciously made by humans or other animals.

Anti-Evolution Argument for the Month of August

2011-08-01T10:00:00.000-07:00

This is a new feature of The Smiling Skeptic. Instead of tackling the counter-points to evolution in one blog, which would be a very long one, I've decided to break the counter-points down to a month-by-month basis.

Since this is a new feature to the blog, I want to get something out of the way before we begin. The most common argument against evolution is that it's "just a theory," and therefore, has no business being taught to children as fact, put before other hypotheses such as special creationism (Intelligent Design), transpermia, or panspermia. There is, however, a fundamental flaw to this argument: The words just and theory don't, under any circumstances, belong in the same sentence with one another. This is purely a misunderstanding and an indictment of the disconnect between the scientific community and the general populace.

The common colloquial definition of the word theory is an opinion, hypothesis, or conjecture. The scientific definition of the word theory is very different. In its scientific context, the word refers to an interpretation or idea that has been proven correct through experimentation or with other types of evidence. The word theory applies to evolution just as it applies to gravity, the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and for that matter, the big bang. The word means, in this context, fact.

That said, I don't blame the general public for making this argument. It has a right to. This is actually our fault. And on behalf of the scientific community, I would like to take responsibility for this misunderstanding. You see, while those of us of scientific disciplines speak amongst one another, we utilize the word theory completely interchangeably with the word hypothesis. Amongst ourselves, we can infer from context which word the other person means. But when we're talking to the general public, we shouldn't do this. It confuses people. When we're on television or radio shows, we should not use the two words interchangeably, because we're making matters worse, and giving those who would capitalize on the disconnect just that much more fodder to try to convince the public that science is one big conspiracy.

When you mean theory, then say, "theory." When you mean hypothesis, then say, "hypothesis." Especially when addressing those outside the community. Every time we say the term string theory when we really mean string hypothesis or superstring hypothesis, or superstring interpretation, we're making things worse. Every time we say many worlds theory, when we really mean to say the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, we're making matters worse. This puts hypotheses on the same level as proven fact. So, in conclusion, let's stop this, heh? After all, we're supposed to be the smart ones.

Now, onto that matter at hand. I've also decided to take one of the easier arguments this month, because it is one of my favorites - whenever I'm approached with it, I get a little fuzzy inside. This, of course, is the second law of thermodynamics.

This is a favorite of mine for a lot of reasons. (1) It is a perfect example of the religious cherry picking certain aspects of one type of science in order to refute another unrelated science. (2) The use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in this context, also refutes the First Law of Thermodynamics, which makes it an even easier argument to refute. Let's begin, shall we?

I'm sure we'll all familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. The zeroth law states that if systems A and B are both in thermal equilibrium with system C, then system B would have to be in thermal equilibrium with system A. The first law is the law of the conservation of energy. The second law is the law of entropy in closed systems. And finally, the third law is the law of absolute zero. That said, lets concentrate on the second law for now: "In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves a system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

A great way to illustrate what this law means would be to stop breathing right now. Stop breathing and see what happens to the inside of your body. You'll feel it as it happens - well, some of it. What you won't feel is your cells not replicating or repairing themselves. You won't feel your body as it stops producing hormones. You won't physically feel your blood as it stops sending oxygen to your brain. Despite not physically feeling any of this, your body is basically shutting down, because it needs to inhale something in the range of four parts nitrogen and one part oxygen, and expel carbon dioxide in order to properly function, just like it needs food and water. You've made the decision to raise your bodies entropy by cutting it off, thus making it a mostly closed system. Your body is in some ways, a closed system all the time, but its entropy is low, because, for the most part, it is an open system with a constant exterior replenishment of its needed fuels. But despite your constant intake of fuel, your body still begins breaking down the second you're born, as even with this energy, your linear chromosomes' protective telomeres become gradually shorter, reducing their repairing effects, as well as their protection against chromosome fusion. Telomerase is an enzyme that allows for this deterioration to be prevented in children, but it gradually decreases in the body, causing the telomeres at the end of chromosomes to start to fray and shorten. There are, of course, options for prolonging this process, but make note that you are currently dying, and will someday complete the process.

One could also use the broken down car analogy, which is very popular: If your car runs out of gas (its external fuel) you will have to utilize the energy stored in your body and turn it into kinetic energy in the direction of the gas station. Only when you replicate this process again (unless you get a ride) and put fuel into your car, will it run again. In other words, it won't somehow start making its own fuel. It's entropy increases with every measurement in which you drive it, because you're burning the fuel of an isolated system.

The Second Law is demonstrably true, yes. But does it work as an argument against life's 3.7 billion-year (at least) evolution from unicellular microorganisms into the complex multicellular life we see today? Not in the slightest. There are many reasons for this, and they can all be summed up in one sentence: Earth is not an isolated system. Every single atom of our being was forged in the furnaces of space (or the freezer of space, depending on the particular atom). Every element on this planet was born in space during stellar collisions and/or explosions. Without greenhouse gases trapping heat from the sun, we would all freeze to death. Almost every bit of the body's essential vitamin D is absorbed from the sun. Every single plant on the planet is provided its life by the sun, in the process known as photosynthesis. Every animal we eat relies on either plants or smaller animals that live off the earth's flora and fauna, which feed off of the sun. And the animals in group A all the way down rely on the sun for many things from essential vitamins, to the development of serotonin. Without the sun, we would not last very long. The sun is our fuel, and since the sun is an external body - well outside the earth's atmosphere - the earth is in no way considered to be an closed system. This is why the earth flourishes.

If the earth were a closed system, as the creationists seem to think, then why is there still life at all? Why would all life not deteriorated and succumb to entropy, as would a colony of bacteria inside of a tightly sealed glass jar with a limited supply of food would? Because we're not in a sealed glass jar - we're on an open rock, floating through space that is in almost perfect harmony between gravity and centrifugal force (honorable mention for the role dark matter plays in that process as well).

Now that we've established - more than, really - that the earth is not in any way a closed system, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics in no way applies to the life on the planet earth, lets step back a little bit to the First Law. As I mentioned before, this is the greatest cherry-pick in pseudoscience history, because the second law is used to argue one aspect of science, while these same people choose to deny the existence of the first law, which disproves their entire hypothesis. The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy. It clearly states this: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot under any circumstances be created or destroyed. Every time we create kinetic energy, we're able to do so only because our body has stored other types of energy. A neutron may decay, but it will decay into another particle, such as a muon, or it will collide with oxygen to make nitrogen. All energy and matter on the planet and in the universe is the product of a cyclic transformation. When we die, the atoms that make up our face could easily one day be the same atoms that make up another person's legs. The carbon atom (the second most abundant atom in your body, just behind oxygen) that acts as a central composite piece to any amino acid in your body could easily have been nitrogen at one point. Any singular atom of Nitrogen-14 that you breathe today could have been Carbon-14 at one point, and vice versa, as Carbon-14 eventually decays back into Nitrogen-14. But keep in mind the half life of Carbon-14, which is 5730 years, give or take 40 years or so. This only means that in 5730 years, half of the atom would have decayed. In another 5730 years, half of the remaining half would have decayed. And so on, and so on, until you once again have a Nitrogen-14 atom, which could once again interact with cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere, starting the Carbon-14 process all over again, or if it were to bond with oxygen, it would create carbon dioxide. Just like it could easily decay into another atom. Atoms go on to bond with other atoms in order to share electrons, and other atoms bond with them, and others with them, and this is how we have matter. When that matter breaks down, those same atoms will surely bond again, creating something else. We are, if there ever was one, a grand example of the success of recycling.

The point of all of this rambling is that creationists make up the majority of the world's evolution denialists, yet creationists seem to think that energy can be created, yet it cannot be. How did God create all of this energy and matter in violation of his own thermodynamic laws? And since God would have to be energy and matter himself in order to exist, who then created God? The Big Bang Theory (as much as I hate to use that term, as it was originally meant to be derogation) compensates for this quite easily, in that something didn't come from nothing, as the creationist would have you believe. Instead, all of the energy and matter in the universe was compressed into one incredibly dense point, until it exploded, spreading out all of the matter and anti-matter that we know today, and from this chaos, emerged the chaotic system of space that we have today, where there is only order because of chaos. There are other hypotheses as well, but most of them stem from the big bang, because not only have most of the big bang's predictions confirmed, as with the gradual expansion of the universe, but also, we've taken photos of the central point itself. Lets remember, when we look into space, we're looking back into time because photons (light) can only travel so fast, and we only see because of reflections of light. Many of the stars we're seeing in the night sky may have already been destroyed, and we'd never know it with the naked eye. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across, so it can take upwards of 100,000 years for us to see something happen in space in our own galaxy. Our galaxy is one of 10,000 that we've already discovered, many of which could have been completely destroyed millions, if not billions of years ago, and we'd never know it. Light itself stands as the single greatest evidence against the 6,000 year universe hypothesis, as if the universe is only 6,000 years old, then why can I see Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away? According to creationists, we shouldn't be able to see God create Andromeda for another 2,494,000 years. The second piece of evidence against creationism, included in the matter of light, is the photographic evidence of the big bang from NASA. And, of course, The first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Thank you, and thanks for reading. And don't forget to bring up Andromeda next time you're in a heated discussion about the age of the universe and of the age of the earth. It's kind of a debate killer in and of itself, assuming your opponent understands light and human vision. But I guess we can never assume that, can we?

I Have the Power...Bracelet

2011-07-31T22:04:00.000-07:00

Oh, so many absurdities. What is it about our civilization that seems to force at least a marginal percentage of the population into complete ignorance of empirical value? What is it that has us put any level of trust into unsubstantiated claims - admittedly unsubstantiated claims? There's a reason the psychic hotline commercials flash the words For entertainment purposes only at the bottom of your television screen. There is a reason that the overpriced bottles of water you buy at your local homeopathic shops can never make any actual medical claims (and should be forced to read, "Very expensive pee inside."). But what is the reason for the lack of disclaimer in the human brain that should say, "Hey, just because athletes are wearing this, doesn't mean it has any real-life relevance. Maybe, just maybe, they're being paid to promote the product like the incredibly, unusually hot woman at the bar who keeps ordering the same drink and keeps talking to random guys about how good it is.."

In this particular sense, I'm talking about something I noticed back in 2008, and apparently I was a year behind the trend, per usual. The trend is called the Power Balance bracelet, and packs within it some of the most unbelievably unsubstantiated, and at times, impossible, claims I've heard since I was first introduced to Astrology as a teenager. These claims are also admittedly unsubstantiated by the makers of the product, which you can read about here in an article from Yahoo! Sports from January of this year.

The claims in particular is that these bracelets have the ability to interact with the body's natural energy to increase balance, speed, endurance, flexibility, strength (by 500%), and from something I read about a while ago, I heard they're also known to cause Spidey-Sense. Now keep in mind, I'm not talking about the power bracelet worn by Link in The Legend of Zelda, I'm talking about a real life item here, that actually claims to have similar powers of magic and mystery, while interacting with an energy field just as magical and mysterious. Even the great and powerful Shaquille O'Neal swears by them, citing they're the secret to his success. Though, I don't remember him doing anything of note since I was a kid (and by "of note" I don't mean Shaq-Fu) and Power Bracelets have only been out since 2007. Are they retroactive? Do they posses the power of reverse time travel on top of all of their mystical powers?

The Evidence
Just briefly, for the sake of argument, let's examine the evidence in favor of the Power Balance bracelet. The first piece of evidence is that the makers say the bracelets give you powers. The last piece of evidence is that paid spokespersons say they give you powers. Since both of these are merely unproven conjecture, let's move on to the evidence against the bracelets. A study was performed by the Independent Investigations Group (IIG) in 2010 which used actual scientific methods - imagine that - to determine the effects of the bracelets vs that of placebo. Four bracelets were used in the experiment, with only one of them being an authentic Power Balance bracelet. All four were wrapped in tape so that none of the participants, nor the scorekeepers of the event, knew which person was wearing the authentic one. According to the athletic trial results, in each trial, the results of placebo were exactly the same as the results of the bracelet. Zero statistical significance. Conclusion A: Power Balance bracelets are placebo and nothing more.

Next, researchers at RMIT's School of Health and Sciences duplicated the above experiment, finding the same result. Something to note: These researchers were chiropractors. If you have people as low in the field of pseudoscience such as chiropractors saying that your product is bunk and has no empirical truth to it, that really says something. Conclusion B: Power Balance bracelets are placebo and nothing more.

The website's own videos, before being removed earlier this year, showed videos of people stretching without, then with the power bracelet on their wrists. One person would stretch a few times, then apply the bracelet, and stretch again, showing increased flexibility. Problem A: There's no way of actually knowing if the person was stretching to their fullest extent in the first place. Problem B: We have no time scale as reference. Problem C: A person always becomes slightly more flexible from one stretch to another. This is why it's called stretching in the first place. This shows intent to provide misleading experimental results, and to me, in what I refer to as the d factor, counts as negative evidence, as deceptive experimental presentation not only demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the product, but that the producers of the conclusions know the product are completely aware. Conclusion C: Power Balance bracelets are placebo and nothing more; and their product is knowingly deceptive (d=3x10^-4).

A Deeper Concern
What you're looking at in a Power Bracelet is a silicone version of a power crystal. Yet, even after the company was forced to recant any and all claims that power crystals improve your performance in any way, people still buy them. People still sell them in airports. People can still by them on websites for ovarian cancer, which is deeply troubling to me, as it doesn't take a marketing genius to see the implications of that. You can still buy them online for the same price they were before they were forced to admit their product was absolute hokum, and people still buy them. Their projected sales in 2011 aren't that far off from their $30 million in sales the previous year. Now, we all know definitively that the power of this product is entirely a work of fiction, but - I can't stress this enough - people are still buying them!

The company can legally no longer use the term "performance technology" in their ads or their packaging. The company can legally no longer claim that their product increases performance of any kind beyond that of placebo. The company had to, at its own expense, release a series of ads correcting previous claims of the bracelet increasing a person's strength, flexibility, or performance. They can legally no longer say the bracelets are designed to work with the body's natural energy field. Plus, they legally had to offer full refunds, with postage, to each and every person who had ever purchased their product. The makers of the product were forced to publicly denounce their own product in front of the world to drive the point home that their product is for entertainment purposes only. What more do you need?

This is indicative of a much deeper problem than just one product. This is, itself, the entire reason I write this blog: People will continue to believe things, even at their expense, no matter the lack of evidence, or even the contrary evidence to the affects of a product, entity, or practice. I understand that people these days have a level of mistrust toward science, and are therefore always looking for alternatives. This is one of the reasons for the vast disconnect between science and the general populace. Science is hard to follow in many ways for someone who doesn't maintain an interest. "How can those physicists and cosmologists know the age of the universe when they weren't there?" someone may ask; although, if they read a little deeper and followed the fields with a level of interest, they would actually see how simple it is for them to know using very easy step by step processes. They may also say that organizations such as the FDA are unreliable for certain reasons. While I will admit there are conflicts of interest. I don't understand for the life of me why most of it is made up of pharmaceutical executives (those who've only worked on the financial and monetary side of medical science) instead of the scientists who actually produce the medicines in the first place (those who may actually know what they're talking about and have a substantiated authority on matters of medicine). However, this does not make the FDA untrustworthy in the long run. In fact, I would venture to say that if even the FDA won't approve something, that says something about the value of the product itself (I refer you back to the Chiropractor point I made before regarding the magic bracelets).

I understand the distrust toward modern science, but it is entirely unsubstantiated and based on misunderstandings and disconnects. Scientists are here to help people and make the world a better place. If we weren't, we wouldn't have gone into our various fields, which, on average, have very limited earning potential. Therefore, if the entirety of modern science is telling you that you're just throwing money down the drain by purchasing a product, then why would you not listen and at least investigate a little? The claims made by power bracelets are no more absurd than the claims made by astrologers, psychics, homeopathic retailers; and I think most people know that none of those fields are worth the paper their professions' names are written on. Why, then, do people still continue to visit the astrologer, the psychic, the homeopathic doctor, and the chiropractor? Is it a pure lack of critical thinking, or are people really just that lazy that they'll just believe what they're told by any quack with a website (because they won't give just anybody one of those)? I personally believe the latter.

Laziness is not a trait unknown to humans. Let's face it: Many people would rather drive four blocks to the convenience store than walk it, even though it's only a few blocks away, and the walk might actually be beneficial to you and to the environment. But that's not the laziness I'm talking about. I'm referring to intellectual laziness, when combined for a desire for power and an unwillingness to do anything to gain it, this causes people to resort to believing crazy claims in the hopes that they can get that one hour workout in five minutes; they can see into the future to see what they should be doing in the present; they can burn a candle and speak a few archaic words and they'll somehow get rich; and worse than any of it, they'll actually believe a single word written in The Secret. This creates a need for faith in people which is ultimately destructive to them. These people will pump as much money as they can into crazy products, churches, sprititualists, "advisers", and other entities in order to obtain something without having to work for it. Combine this physical laziness with intellectual laziness, and you have someone who would rather go broke than not subscribe faith into every shortcut that is offered to them, no matter how absurd it sounds, and no matter how unsubstantiated it is. Just believing what they're told and having faith is easier than reading a little bit about such claims.

Intellectual laziness is a trait that is so common among people that it sort of hurts to think about - which is coincidental of me to say, because looking at so many people in this country, one would assume that thinking must be painful or at least incredibly straining. Yes, it is easier to just believe what you're told than to compare all of the available evidence and come to your own educated conclusions. Yes, just thinking that everything happens because it happens, is a lot easier than questioning why and how things happen. It's much easier to just walk down the sidewalk without thinking about it at all, instead of thinking of all of the physical principles you're applying when walking, not to mention what's happening under your feet at the subatomic level with every step you take. Many people don't find this interesting, and I think the only reason for this is because it all seems too daunting. The big words; the hard equations; the imagination; the scientific method and process; it's all so much harder. Yet, you'll notice that when you read one book on science, you have to read another, and another, and another, until you're a sponge soaking up information and you're doing your own experiments at home, in time, based after your own original hypotheses. The problem is that most people don't take that first step because of a laziness that is brought about by fear - the fear that they may not be able to understand it. But the more you read, the easier it all becomes, until you're up at 5:00 AM conclusively disproving the young earth creation story using the speed of light with one hand, and eating your Cheerios with the other (read about this here on August 1).

Just that one boost could be the difference between a life of ignorance and a life of scientific inquiry and success. But most never receive that boost. Their parents never encourage it, or they never get over the fear of feeling stupid, or they didn't have the best teachers, or any number of reasons. Maybe they grew up in a cult and never had access to scientific papers. Who am I to judge? What I can do is say that this first step is something that we, as a society, need to start concerning ourselves with. People need to see just how cool the universe is before they can develop an interest. If that scientific interest were to be developed in more people, we would see psychics, astrologers, and Power Bracelets diminished within just a generation or two. And how great of a world would that be?

Thanks for reading. Next week, I'll be posting a few experiments I performed with face-to-face psychics and telepsychics a few years ago that were quite fun to perform, and should be very fun to read. And on the first of the month, I'll be introducing a new feature to the blog called Monthly Arguments Against Evolution, where I'll be choosing one particular argument against the theory of evolution to burn to the ground on a monthly basis. Keep smiling and always be skeptical.

Psychics Never Seem to Know When They're Not Psychic

2011-07-24T16:02:00.000-07:00

"I realize that there is no concrete scientific evidence for psychic abilities (at least no evidence that's available to the public). However, has this stopped the US government and many local police forces around the nation from employing psychics? No, it hasn't. This has been going on for decades. Even China has what they call 'remote viewers'. I realize that our government isn't always good and ethical, but they (collectively) are very intelligent. Would they continue to waste money on psychics if they determined that such powers did not exist? I doubt it.

There is a lot of information that they withhold from the public. I doubt that we'll ever know the full story behind 9/11. Did President Bush play a role in it? We may never know. Did aliens really crash land in Roswell? We may never know. Do true psychic powers (which can only be supernatural) really exist? We don't know that either, but we can make some logical inferences based on the government's activities.

Yes, I know that the psychic phone friends and the tarot card readers on the street corners are almost all phonies, but this does not mean that all psychics are.

Skepticism is a useful tool in distinguishing fact from fiction, but I encourage all of you to avoid the trap of denialism."

I happened across this query on Yahoo! Answers just last week and it got me thinking about a few things. The first was that I was confused as to how this person managed to confuse skepticism with denialism. Denialism is a matter wherein a person denies the validity of an event or an entity despite the amounts of evidence in favor of the phenomena. Good examples of this would be the holocaust, evolution, germ theory, and others. Skepticism on the other hand is the complete opposite. Skepticism is ordering levels of acceptance based on the amount of evidence in favor or in contrary to a particular phenomena, and coming to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support a hypothesis, or none at all, in many cases. Good examples of this would be alien abduction, special creationism, astrology, ghosts, chiropractic medicine, homeopathic medicine, dolphin therapy, and in this case, psychics. So, let us never confuse skepticism with denial, as they are certainly two very different things, opposite one another.

The second thought that came to mind was something I've often wondered in the past: just how much money to state and local governments put into hiring psychics, and to what effectiveness do psychics solve crimes? I haven't been a "believer" in psychics since I reached the age of reason, just like I haven't been a "believer" in vampires since that age, but I wondered if my skepticism could be put to the test by the hard numbers. And can I find hard numbers without having to rely on statistics, of which I'm foremost skeptical? Hard numbers and statistics are two very different things, of course, so how hard can it be? I could utilize the gift that is the Freedom of Information Act to find the dollar amount the federal government, and at least my own state government puts into special crime investigation, and within that, I could find the hard dollar amount that went into psychics. Finding the amount of crimes that were solved with the help of psychics, and how large a role the psychics played in solving said crimes would be a whole different matter, and would involve some personal investigation of my own. Damn it!

Before I get to the topic, however, here are the subjects I will not be discussing in this blog: The "we only use 10% of our brain" argument. I will not bring this up because this is actually a myth - a commonly accepted myth, for whatever reason, which, with the slightest bit of research on something as trivial as Google, can be immediately dispelled and debunked. If we only used 10% of our brains we would be vegetables, if even that. I also will not discuss telekinesis, as that is a subject for another time, and a whole other volume of hokum. I will also not discuss Peter Venkman's research into the paranormal, but I still think Ghostbusters was a pretty awesome movie. This blog will deal with extrasensory perception, precognition, parasense, a sixth sense, and other related subjects.

Stargate Atlantis?
I happened to find one source of a program that I found a little bit disturbing, not because of the nature of the program, but how long it went on without any conclusive results, and how expensive it was. The operation I'm talking about is the federal government's Stargate Project. Don't confuse this with Crazy Ronnie's Star Wars Initiative, mind you, but this was equally as insane. The Stargate Project was started in the early 1970s to experiment on the value of remote viewing. For those out of the loop, remote viewing is a form of ESP, and is the ability to use paranormal means to seek impressions about distant, unseen places or targets. From the 1970's to 1995, the US government spend twenty-million dollars per year funding this research, and in over two decades of applying the phenomena to rigorous scientific research, not one bit of conclusive evidence was reached to add to the validity of remote viewing phenomenon.

The studies that were done were certainly conflicting. Dare I take us back to my argument against statistics, but this is yet another example of how easily manipulated they are, and how they do not under any circumstances function as stand-alone scientific evidence because of their insurmountable amounts of variables. I need bring to your attention no more example than these conflicting conclusions. Just before the operation closed, a report was run buy the American Institutes for Research (AIR) which had a council primarily of two members, Professor Jessica Utts and Dr. Ray Hymen. The reports were performed based on the collected data of the man who took over Stargate in 1985, Dr. Edwin C. May, who was a long-time government employee working in programs dealing with precognition and ESP, and whose education is in Low Energy, Experimental Nuclear Physics.

Professor Jessica Utts' study found that subjects who claimed clairvoyance were correct about certain information at a rate of 5% to 15% above chance, citing statistically significance. In her side of the report to the AIR, she all but claimed these numbers to be proof of the existence of ESP and precognition. On the other hand, the information collected by Dr. Hyman was entirely different. According to the Hyman's data, remote viewers were correct about information only 20% of the time. Being wrong about information 80% of the time is hardly above chance in my opinion, and apparently in his as well. He responded to Professor Utts' results, saying her claim of evidence of precognition is entirely premature, and that "present findings have yet to be independently replicated." He also argued that the subjects' reports included large amounts of irrelevant information, and when the subjects' reports were on target, the information supplied was often vague and completely general in nature, much like ancient prophesies, which can be applied to just about anything. These are two very conflicting results based on the same data. I think what worries me even more is that Professor Utts is a long-time proponent of significant changes in collegiate level statistics education, arguing that the current curricula does a horrible job in teaching students how to properly interpret statistical results. She also argues that classes don't spend enough time on the misconception that correlative studies show causation. Although I most certainly agree with that second part, as anyone who read my last paper knows, I'm not so sure that she actually understands what she's saying. Either that, or she's learned a lesson since 1995, and is blaming her education for the public embarrassment that should have been her side of the AIR report.

Of course, I do not know the exact amount of control that went into these experiments, nor do I know if either of these groups collecting and interpreting the date were following the strict guidelines of the scientific method to begin with. I do know that Dr. Edwin May was, and still is, a proponent of psychic phenomenon, so it would be hard for me to say that the experiments performed, or the data collected and interpreted between 1985 and 1995 were unbiased and approached with skepticism the way they should have been. In other words, statistical evidence for psychic phenomena exists, but it was bias to begin with. According to the report itself, "Information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate in regards to specifics, and required substantial subjective interpretation." As for hard evidence, still, absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the validity of psychic phenomena exists. Total dollar amount for the Stargate Project: based on the information provided, the full cost of the project was $400 million dollars, and surely more, as the total cost of the project after it was transferred to the CIA in 1995 is not provided. For additional information on Stargate and the AIR's conclusions visit here: http://psiland.free.fr/dossiers/parapsy/psi_defense/remote.pdf

Otherwise, private research is done all of the time from private funding, most of these exercises take place at universities, such as Washington University's $5 million grant of recent, which resulted in the same failure as the government's remote viewing project. However, there has been one study that may show evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena.

Is This Your Porn?
Professor Emeritus Daryl Bem (psychology) at Cornell University recently published a paper called "Feeling the Future" in the magazine The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. A former stage magician, Bem has a long interest in the study of psychic phenomenon, having specialized in mentalism. He was apparently a skeptic up until the point when he ran into noted parapsychologist Charles Hornorton at a convention hosted by the Parapsychological Association. Bem soon began work on the empirical side of attempting to prove psychic phenomena, and to provide controlled evidence that can be replicated by independent researchers.

Bem's experiment was as such: He put a computer screens in front of 100 students - fifty male and fifty-female - on either side was a curtain. Behind one curtain would be a blank wall, and behind another would be an image. Many of the images were erotic in nature, but not all of them. The point was, obviously, to get the students to choose the screen on which was the erotic image. Bem hypothesized that the group would be able to identify the correct screen roughly 50% of the time, as would say the laws of chance (1 of 2 options = 50% chance of success), however, that those shown the erotic images would have a higher hit rate. I'm already blown by what Mr. Bem is considering to be a control in this experiment, but I'll digress.

Of the 100 sessions in Bem's experiment, those shown non-erotic images chose the correct curtain 48.8 percent of the time - well within the bounds of chance. Those shown erotic imagery, however, scored a hit rate of 53.1 percent. According to Bem, this was a substantial difference, but may I remind you that even statistically, this is not a significant difference, and scientifically, 53.1 percent is still well within the bounds of probability and chance - only a marginal percent higher than 50%. If the results would have stated somewhere around 60%, I would be interested. If the results showed somewhere in the area of 70%, I would actually be quite amazed and I would want to replicate the experiment myself. If the results were 80%-90%, I would bow down and tell Mr. Bem that he very well may have stumbled upon evidence of ESP and precognition. However, 53.7% is hardly impressive, and as I said before, well within the boundary of chance. Why was there a difference between the two groups? Also mere chance, as variables would dictate, if you were to show one half of the group two blank computer screens, you would probably see the same, if not a greater difference. However, this would be called a control, and I see no evidence of one here. Another point to ponder: This research carried over the course of eight years, with the experiment being replicated nine times, so I must wonder how many of those experiments differed in percentage, as we seem only to be receiving the average percentages. What were the results of each individual test? Was it conclusive 100% of the time that students overwhelmingly chose the proper computer containing the erotic image against those who were tested without the erotic images? What were the percentage of students who chose the blank screen in each experiment? Were there more women than men who chose any of the above results? Where is this information? You would think it would be important, at least for a scientist, which a psychologist plainly is not. Especially this one, it would appear.

Now, onto a greater problem with this experiment. In his own words, "The remarkable finding is that their psychological responses are observed to occur about 2-3 seconds prior to the appearance of the picture, even before the computer has decided whether to present a non-arousing or an arousing picture."

Yet, a half a year later, the study has yet to be replicated independently, which would indicate little more than a fluke result. I also have not seen the entirety of the results to see if he managed to somehow score a difference between precognition (knowing what is coming) and anticipation (expecting something may come), nor have I seen what the orders of the photos were, which would well explain the anticipation.

With two highly-publicized studies, we see absolutely no evidence at all for precognition, and other studies not worth mentioning, over the past, fifty years, have come to the same results: Excited non-skeptics of precognition being met with a chorus of, "Here's what you did wrong." I suspect that no results in the future will prove anything further from this trend. So, why with such a lack of evidence for precognition, to police departments across the United States, Great Britain and Australia continue to pump worthwhile state money into such a worthless practice? Why are television shows abundant on the topic of psychic investigators?

Roadhouse Blues
Why is it that Patrick Swayze is dead right now? Living in Minneapolis, one of the suburbs of my fair city is called Edina. Edina is the home one of the "real life ghost mediums" who acted as, among many others, an inspiration of The Ghost Whisperer. Her name is is Echo Bodine. Her books have sold substantially well and she currently does live readings with the accompaniment of a keyboardist. The subject at hand is not Echo, however, but her brother, Michael Bodine, who my poor fiancee must deal with every time he saunters into her store to sign his literary nonsense.

Michael was the personal psychic of many stars including Lewis Black (that one surprises me) and Melanie Griffith, but most notably, Patrick Swayze, who died in 2009 of pancreatic cancer. I in no way intend any disrespect to Swayze or his family in this piece, nor do I intend to make light of pancreatic cancer, which is one of the deadliest forms of cancer known to date. However, that being said, why was Patrick Swayze dead at 57? The average lifespan - though at a very embarrassingly tied with Cuba at 36th in the world, underneath islands that most people have never heard of - is 75.6-years-old for men. Fifty-seven seems to be a pretty early age of death, not only for a man who was, admittedly, in pretty impeccable physical shape for most of his life, but more notably, had a psychic by his side to tell him what the future held for him. Swayze could have easily detected his cancer early enough to cure it, had his psychic informed him, or had he known about it. But how could he not? I don't want to hear another psychic explain, "It doesn't work that way," I want to hear just one give me a real answer as to why psychics can detect some things but not others. And if it's in a heirarchy of importance, I would think pancreatic cancer would be up there. And considering what Swayze paid this man, I think most certainly Swayze's family is entitled to a refund.

This may be a bit of a tongue and cheek example, but it's the dominant example. Therefore, why, again, are our state and federal government paying to hire these people? Why are our tax dollars being spent to fund hokum, with a statistical success rate of 1 in 17, though, I'm still skeptical of statistics, even when they work in my favor. You must realize that 1 in 17 is far lower than the rate of chance, and it's far, far lower than the success rates of our best detectives, who rely on investigation and evidence to solve crimes, instead of superstitious nonsense.

In Summation
What are we doing funding this type of investigation and research? How many times do results need to be found inconclusive? How many years is it going to take to develop proof of something that is allegedly so common? Let's go back to chance for a moment, maybe a statistical expert out there can conclude how it could be that after hundreds of years of investigation and experimentation, absolutely no hard evidence has ever been found that precognition, or any sort of psychic ability for that matter? It was only months after Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was released that hard evidence started to turn up. It was only half a century after the standard model was developed that all but one of the particles it predicted have been found. Speaking of...where is that elusive Higgs boson anyway? I guess that's a topic for a later date.

For our federal government or state governments to spend a dime on psychics or psychic research is, in this man's opinion, a violation of the separation of church and state, as to date, psychic activity is nothing more than primitive superstition, and not hard, empirical fact. I suspect that will never change. For those who disagree, by all means, take those millions of dollars that James Randi has had up for years for anyone who can provide proof of psychic ability. Hell, I'll offer a few grand myself.

Thanks for reading,
The Smiling Skeptic
C. Allen Thompson

This Skeptical Heart Goes Out to Norway

2011-07-24T10:46:00.000-07:00

For those of you unfamiliar with the story, only days ago, a government center in Norway was bombed by an alleged lone extremist, who then followed a group of young Labor Party members to an island Summer camp, killing at least 80 in a heinous shooting. I know that my heart, as well as any heart beating in the chest of any reader of this blog, goes out to the friends and families of the victims of this crime. I can personally think of no worse reason for a person, young or old, to die than for political beliefs, or for the religious beliefs of a nut-job conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorist this man was, and then some.

When the story first broke, the mainstream media system of knee-jerk churnalism immediately blamed the bombing and shooting on Muslim extremism, going far enough to say that this was carried out by an off-shoot of Al Qaeda. There was, of course, absolutely no evidence to point to this, but every outlet, including various ones for which I commonly have respect, seemed to forget about journalistic integrity with this mass, mindless response. I guess that as a country, when we think of terrorism, we think of Islam immediately, despite the thousands of years of Christian and Jewish terrorism, which got a massive head start on today's extreme Muslims. And thanks to the shooter, Anders Behring Breivik, a right-wing, radical Christian, those numbers are starting to even out once again.

Breivik was not only a right-wing lunatic, but he was also a member of the famed Order of the Knights Templar, a common reference in his 1,500 page war plan, wherein he set out to kill hundreds in the name of reversing the effects of a global conspiracy to turn all of Europe Marxist first, then secondly, then to force the Islamic colonization of the entirety of the European Union. Something not so common about this incident is that we have the privilege of taking a trek into his mind after the crime with this video, which perfectly outlines what is a dangerous combination of mental illness and belief in conspiracy theories and religion. Take a look:

This video gave me chills, to be honest. The repeated justifications of anti-multi-culturalism were enough, let alone the vastness of the conspiracy theories that reigned within. Now is hardly the time for me to do a blog about conspiracy theories, but trust me when I tell you it's coming. Now isn't even the time for me to do a blog on media skepticism, though, this would be a perfect chance for me to highjack a situation in order to illustrate the necessity for it. Instead, what I'm doing is sharing with you the mind of a killer, and going into the depths of his illness, when aligned with antiquated ideas, conspiracy theories, and fundamentalist religion. These four things proved to be fatal for almost 100 people, and maybe even more. Who knows how many others out there are like him? Who knows how many of the United States' Tea Party will act out like this? There seems to be a strong resemblance in belief structures and political ideology, not to mention their extremism about such topics.

In conclusion, I just want to send my sincere condolences out to the friends and family of those lost, as well as to those who were wounded in the bombing or the shooting that followed. You were the victims of a madman, and nothing less. Stay strong and be with courage. For those of you who would like to donate to the victims or to the families of the victims, visit the here for a list of Norwegian charities, or call your local, preferred charities and inquire.

That's Allstate's Stand. Are you a Virgo?

2011-07-12T02:33:00.001-07:00

There are plenty of reasons to encourage critical thinking among people. There are people who refuse to have their children vaccinated because they have a personal hypothesis - without evidence of any kind - that vaccines cause autism or lower Intelligence Quotients among children. There are grown parents who don't seek medical attention for their children because they feel that faith and prayer will cure the child better than modern medicine. There are even people in this day and age who deny the holocaust ever happened, think the universe is 6,000-years-old, and believe in vampires. What do all of these people have in common? A clear lack of critical thinking and a clear lack of regard toward the eminence and implications of evidence.

The worst part of all is how this translates in our society. We have senators arguing against emissions regulations by quoting from the bible, saying that God won't let the world end until he's good and ready. We have states in the south suggesting prayer to solve their budget crises. And how many people do you know who are undoing the goodness that is human evolution, and also subjecting themselves to illnesses that humans thought they'd done away with a century ago, by subscribing to raw food diets? I'm going to talk about one particular instance in which a clear-cut lack of critical thinking could end up costing you money, and probably already has.

Click here to read a rather disturbing study that was performed by the car insurance company Allstate. The study cited this:

The company said its comparison of 2010 claims data against the revised astrological calendar found Virgos were involved in 211,650 collisions last year, 700 percent more than the 26,833 crashes involving Scorpios, the safest drivers on the zodiac calendar.

Had this just been a mundane study, wherein a reputable insurance company wanted to waste some money to appease the "new age" audience with some unsubstantiated and unproven statistics, that would be one thing. Had this been a "joke" (damage control), because car insurance companies apparently like to waste money on humor, that would be another as well, but according to other sources, that's not the case. In fact, according to Allstate's own current policies, that's not the case. Insurance companies already use matters such as a person's credit, a person's sex, and even a person's personal life to measure the accountability and habits of a person, and the amount they should be paying for insurance.

A person's sex and credit score have as much to do with their driving habits as their astrological sign. Both of these matters were determined by statistics, which mean absolutely nothing in the face of reality. First thing, statistics do not necessarily suggest correlation, and do not ever stand as evidence for causation. One could find a hundred statistics by a hundred firms to suggest women are better drivers than men, just as one could find a hundred statistics by a hundred firms to suggest exactly the contrary. It's all a matter of the methodology, which in matters of the business world, not the scientific one, is determined by the preordained result. In fact, let me show you how easy it is to create a false statistic. I'll use one of my favorite statistics, which is from the infamous Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which concludes that global warming is a direct result of the decline in piracy over the course of the last 400 years.

As anyone could tell you, temperatures - though you should never equate climate with weather as they are different things - in 1600 were a yearly average of about 54 degrees F. In 1998, this number climbed to 58.3 degrees F. Well, on the other hand, let's look at piracy. Though, piracy is on the rise in recent years, it's too early to make any kind of climactic difference, says my research that I will come up with eventually to fit my conclusions. According to generally accepted theory, the amount of pirates that rode the high seas in 1600 was close to 7,000 people. That's quite a hefty number, especially when compared to 1998's depressing number of only 120. Well, let us do some pretty simple math here. From this research, I can easily conclude that there is a correlation, and I will arbitrarily conclude causation. And with that, I will conclude that each pirate in the world is worth exactly 0.000625 of a degree. I would also conclude that, judging by the math there, the world can only actually get 0.075 of a degree warmer, as that would be the increase in temperature caused by the remaining 120 sea-going swashbucklers giving up their day jobs, putting us at an average yearly temperature of 58.375 degrees F. Wow, I guess I just proved that the polar ice caps are safe from heating as well. I wonder why they're still melting then. Well, they must not be, since I just proved with STATISTICS that they're not.

I hope I made my point about statistics. So, now that we've proven that statistics, in the world of science, for the most part mean absolutely nothing, at least without proper and open methodology and proper double-blind scientific method. Now, let's apply that thinking to the study I mentioned above regarding astrology. Given that astrology applies to everyone, at least in the sense that everyone has had a sign applied to them by these hacks, we can conclude, beyond a shadow of a doubt that one of the twelve would come out on top of the others. The chances of a tie happening are pretty small, so someone is going to take home the gold. My question is this: Why only use Western astrology? Why not apply Chinese astrology as well? Is there more evidence for the tenets of Western astrology than Eastern astrology? Well, let me check. The following is a list of the empirical evidence collected over the course of the past 2,000 years, that suggests the tenets and claims made by either Western or Eastern astrology are viable and should be taken seriously:

(Insert cricket noises here)

Well, that's it. Quite a bit, huh? So, I guess to this day nobody has managed to prove that the date you were born and the position of the stars above your head or below your feet (on the other side of the world for you anti-heliocentrics out there) has any affect on your life, personality, love-life, future, family life, or driving habits. In fact, in the long history of astrology, not one person, even those attempting with all of their might to prove this superstition as a legitimate science, has managed to produce anything. Well, in the scientific world, one would have to say that after thousands of years with no evidence, and all of the actual evidence being completely to the contrary of astrology, it really ought to go the same route as Geocentricity, Craniometry, Phrenology, or any other pseudoscience or pseudo-hypothesis that has been practiced in the last few thousand years of recorded human history. Why has it not?

Well, why haven't any of the religious tenets that have since been entirely unproven? Why haven't any of the religious tenets that have been disproved through miles of evidence, such as the flood of Noah, the life-spans of biblical characters, the biblical age of the earth, the six-day creation, the Hindu world/elephant/tortoise hypothesis? Well, because these are all religious factors, and no matter how absurd they are, you just cannot criticize them to the level at which they should be criticized, and thus, without opposition in the PC era, they just slowly absolve themselves of any responsibility to stand on evidence, and become part of the public's perception of reality. Granted, reality exists independently of the observer, but that hardly makes a difference when people can't separate reality from observed reality, because they've not been taught the importance of critical thinking.

How many people wake up in the morning, get the paper, and read their horoscopes? Quite a few, as the field seems to employ a ton of writers. How many people believe them? Far too many. The problem is - let's say a person's horoscope says not the leave the house or they'll be killed - after a person does what their horoscope says and stays in their home, and nothing bad happens to them, you can't go back in time and prove to them that nothing bad would have happened anyway. In fact, this may be a trivial matter, but what if something really good would have happened to them that day? You must think that at least one of the thousands who read the horoscope that morning would have had a much better day had they gone outside. What if one of them were on their last leg at their job and called in because their horoscope told them to? Unlikely, yes, but still a matter to think about. If even one bad thing has ever happened to a person, or one good thing has ever missed a person because of the directions inside of an instructive horoscope, that person has been robbed by pseudo-scientific superstition that has not one leg to stand on in the spectrum of evidence. It is no different from those who succumbed to muscle problems later in life because of years of seeing a whole other field of charlatan, the chiropractor, who I will certainly touch on in a later blog.

My point in the end is that there is no evidence to show that astrology has any merit at all, and to charge extra money based on a religious chart is nothing more than religious discrimination. I am a Scorpio. I share a few of the traits outlined in my vague and common astrological description. I share a few traits with the predictions made in my birth chart as well - yes, I had one made. So do most people. The issue is this: if it were a viable science, then I would share all of the traits described in both my birth chart and my star chart. All Scorpios would be exactly the same, and every single person born on November 6, 1981 at 4:21 AM (my birthday) would have the same exact same life and personality, according to astrology. Well, it just so happens an old friend of mine shared my birthday. An old girlfriend, actually, who was only off by a few hours. Well, you don't have to educate me in matters of astrophysics, I know how fast planets move, and I know how fast the earth spins as well, making it appear that stars are moving. But in the world of astrology, apparently, this doesn't make much of a difference. I wonder, then, why that woman and I had nothing in common, and don't talk today. You'd think we'd make great bedfellows.

This brings me to another point. Astrology claims to be the only algorithm necessary for bringing couples together. Why, then, according to astrologydetails.com am I not only with a woman of an astrological sign that I'm supposed to hate (I'm in an extremely happy relationship, by the way) but according to the same site, the success of your marriage entirely depends of astrology? I found this note quite interesting:

The type and location of the best wedding couples in astrology and reception site, officiate and other service personnel are also influenced by the residence of the daily Astrological Sun. The brides and grooms Natal Sun signs may also be used. Although the sign that the Sun resides in on the wedding day is the most significant, the other signs play their role in assisting with the preparations. Each will have some influence in the areas that they govern. Using the energies of the Astrological Bridal Zodiac can result in the bridal couples quest to plan a unique fairy tale best wedding couples in astrology.

I guess your overall algorithm is based in the position of planets on the date of your birth, but the basis of a successful marriage is not communication, compatibility, happiness, sex, or anything else that we crazy scientists have thought for hundreds of years. Apparently, invisible and undetectable energies must travel through just the right places and just the right times, with the assistance of the sun, you know, the giant burning hydrogen ball in the sky with a mass of about about 2×10³⁰ kilograms that provides us all of our world sustenance by continuing to be a giant burning ball of gas, cares about your wedding, and even dictates your future. Are you getting chills yet? Because I am! What is the evidence to support this? NOTHING! In fact, no link has ever been made between the time of day, nor the time of year, of a wedding ceremony that showed the success of the marriage is contingent on that whatsoever. In fact, considering that marriages fail all the time, from weddings performed at all times of day and times of year, would certainly point to the contrary: There is no correlation at all. I won't even get into the other signs "assisting with the preparations" part. We'll leave that for Silvia Brown to try to explain in one of her monthly, ghost-written books.

In the end, I would have to say that this study was a wash, and the statistics mean nothing. Whether it was a misguided appeasement of the "spiritual" crowd, or a "joke," is completely irrelevant. And as I've shown, the statistics in this astrology exercise have exactly the same amount of merit as the statistics that increase a male's car insurance over a woman's car insurance. They mean nothing. At least no more than would statistics that would figure out a relationship between the time of day a person usually eats dinner, and the likelihood of that person being murdered, raped, raped again, then thrown into a burning pit of fire, ash, and ancient crystals that, together, would form a mythical symbol that would call upon the giant Cthulhu to drive the world into permanent insanity. You know, on the other hand, I'd kind of like to read that study. I'll mail it to Allstate so that they can use it to determine life insurance rates.

Thanks for reading,

C. Allen Thompson

The Smiling Skeptic

I Don't Like Change!

2011-07-11T16:44:00.000-07:00

Nor do most of us. It's just one of those evolutionary traits that we have as humans: Change is bad.

However, in this instance, I feel I should explain why the name and design change to the blog. It has nothing to do with distancing myself from the atheist movement or from the word "atheist" in general. I merely felt that this change would give me a chance to concentrate on a larger range of topics. I've been an atheist for as long as I remember, and I'll be one until I see physical proof of any of man's 2,700 gods do indeed exist. However, while I am an atheist, that word doesn't really define me as well as the word "skeptic" does, as there is far more infuriating quackery out there in the world apart from religion. Now, I'm free to discuss these things, and I'm free to branch out a little bit, and include far more of my personality.

But make no worry, my skepticism still goes all the way to the top. And that will be just as much a part of this blog as anything else.

So, feel free to smile with me into hell with this new venture in my blogging career.

Time to Raise a Stink

2011-07-07T05:17:00.000-07:00

Don't be fooled by the title of this blog. I'm in no way referring to an excess expulsion of methane gas, nor am I referring to a proposed vacation to Washington D.C. I'm going to do what it seems like everyone else is doing: Offer my illegitimate commentary on the Rebecca Watson matter. I refer to it as illigitimate because I was not there to witness the actions that took place in the ol' Emerald Isle, nor does my opinion on the matter really...well...matter, at least, no more than anyone else who has weighed in on this topic, from PZ Myers to Richard Dawkins. Personally, I'd love to live in a world where this type of commentary was unnecessary because it would be second nature to everyone, but we're just not there yet, it would appear. But to separate myself from the rest, I'm going to do something unusual, or at least not unique to the matter at hand. I'm going to apply a little logic to this situation and to the events that followed.

For those who do not know the story:

In the early hours of the morning, after a CFI conference, Rebecca Watson was in an elevator with a "gentleman" who felt it would be appropriate to come on to her in the enclosed and cage-like walls of the modern lifting cart. He came on very strong and merely asked if she'd like to accompany him back to his hotel for...coffee...or something. I'm sure we all know what "or something" meant, though, again, I wasn't there, so I don't know if those exact words came out of his mouth. She turned him down, as from what I've heard, nothing happened after that. She returned to her room, and he returned to his to most likely "or something" himself.

Rebecca posted a video citing the situation, saying this: "Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."

Now, I don't really see anything wrong with what Rebecca said here. It didn't come off as extremely feminist, or radically damning of the man she encountered. It seemed she was being honest and saying it made her feel uncomfortable. He was creepy. I can see that. I would question the use of the word "sexualize," though. First thing, it's not a real word. Secondly, being hit on by a man doesn't mean you're being sexualized, but, again, I wasn't there. I think if he were to walk up to her and start licking her, then she's certainly being reduced to an object, or being objectified, but from what I understand, that's not what happened. He didn't approach her, take off his clothes and start kissing her shoes or anything creepy like that. He expressed an obvious interest in spending some time with her in his room. That is all.

What followed was the disturbing part. The comments on the blog were extremely radical in nature, running the gambit from claims that many women were afraid to even attend skeptics conventions because, apparently, all skeptic men objectified them and were serial date-rapists. The comments from the men that followed were even worse. They ranged from your usual, "Give the guy a break. You're hot!" to, "You're a woman, and I'll fuck you in the laundry room if I damn well want to." Now, I'm obviously paraphrasing, but the comments I read weren't that far off. Since then, if you were to click on any singular Skepchick blog, you'll still see this argument going on between the extremes on both sides. The extremist feminists claiming that no man has the right to talk to a woman or else it's a rape scene, and the extreme chauvinists who don't seem to see anything wrong with pinching a woman's ass whenever he wants to. Some comments have been moderate and intermediate, attempting to bring the two sides together with a little bit of logic. However, others have been anything but.

The following blog was much more disturbing. After these two extreme groups were screaming at one another through their keyboards, again, the few in the middle being muddled out by the cognitive noise ensuing, Rebecca posted another blog that, instead of quieting the noise and asking people be respectful of one another and not be moronic extremists on one side or the other, she instead decided to fan the flames. Now, this is just my opinion here, but this blog right here is a great example of how to fan the flames of two opposing sides.

Since then, there has been one more blog from Rebecca herself that seemed to have the same exact aura of flame-fanning - kindling if you will. Others have weighed in as well, from PZ Myers, who seemingly stood up for Rebecca against the chauvenist side of the argument, and he made good points as well. You can read them here. More notably, however, Professor Richard Dawkins included his two cents with this comment:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

Now, was this comment crass? Yes, yes it was. I admit that. He's a hero of mine, but I can certainly admit it. I can also say that PZ Myers has a point that we can worry about the plight of Muslim women and also worry about the plight of women in America. Our brains can handle two things at once (most of us), and the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, in fact, quite to the contrary. However, there is certainly something to be taken from Richard's comment here, and that is a commentary on modern feminism in America. Now, this may seem to contradict what I just said about PZ Myers' comment, but it doesn't. How can something like a woman being hit on in an elevator - not harassed, not objectified as she claims, not sexualized (still not a word), not touched, not groped, not accosted or assaulted, not raped, not murdered, not forced to listen to Justin Bieber albums - when there are women in the third world who are getting stoned for being raped. I mean, don't you think that would be something better to get men and women fired up about? Don't you think that next to a concept such as this, getting talked to in an elevator is just a little bit of a waste of space in the blogosphere - I'm guilty of it too, now, I admit.

Let me make an analogous point: I'm a person who fights endlessly for the rights of homosexuals. Homosexuals certainly do have problems in America, and I write about them. One blog per issue, and I'm certainly not narcissistic enough to make it about my own experiences, as - crazy me - I guess I feel there's a world outside of my living room that deserves at least an honorable mention. There are laws in the third world that make homosexuality punishable by death. There are dictators who will hang you in front of the family you had only to appease your culture, if there were just rumors about you being a homosexual male in their country. Hell, half of these countries still punish people for witchcraft. What kind of a selfish prick would I be if I spent a week, a video and three blogs rambling on about how much a friend of mine was bothered because a possible homophobe (though no evidence to say he is) made a slight gesture at him that he took as homophobic (though no evidence to say it was)?

My last point is my most important. What does this do for anybody? What does it do for anyone to ramble on with this self-entitlement ideology, which is today's feminism - not to be confused with real feminism, which at one time was about equality, fairness, civil liberties and equal rights. Today's feminism is hardly different from the extreme on the other side. They both make wild claims and accusations, both against the opposite sex, and about their own entitlement. One side: A man should be able to rape and accost any woman he wants. Other side: A man shouldn't even have the right to speak to a woman that he finds attractive, or else it's a hostile environment and the man is a would-be rapist. WHERE DOES THIS GET US?

How is this extreme ideology on either side any different from extreme religious ideologies. They both take hold through the human ego, they both stem from a sense of entitlement, and they both hold dire consequences for our species. Should a woman be afraid to leave her home for fear of being raped? Absolutely not. In fact, I don't think rape laws are harsh enough in this country. However, should men be afraid of talking to women for fear of having their name or face plastered all over the internet, with words like "creepy" and "rapist" tagged all over the post? Absolutely not. Look, I totally agree that the guy probably should have had more respect and more tact, and maybe asked her if she'd like a cup of coffee in the lobby so they could talk more. Maybe he should have chosen a better setting than an elevator, which has become a modern day rape haven for people. He could have done a lot of things. He could have also chosen not to speak to any women at all and just gone back to his room. We could have all done that at one time or another. I could have done that 3 years ago when I met my fiancee. But I didn't. Does that make me creepy? Does that make me a potential sex offender or a rapist? Does that make me a molester of space or a or a diligent master of masculine manipulation "lookin' fer a woman to take ma seed and make ma dinner?" I'm sure that by now you're seeing the ridiculousness in all of this.

Let's get over the things that divide us, shall we? Some men are asses - most aren't. Some women are bitches - most aren't. Making generalizations to the contrary is doing nothing for us as a society. Neither is taking extreme positions on one side or the other. Most of us want peace, equality, men and women to be able to do the same jobs for the same pay and the same opportunities for advancement. Most of us don't want men or women to be held up on pedestals as the superior sex, because there's no such thing. For all of the faults that one side has against the other, there is a strength to replace it. It's the positive and negative energy paradigm. And without the right amounts of protons and electrons, we're fucked. Without unity between us, we're fucked. I think it's time we see that. And for those who feel that there shouldn't be equal treatment on both sides of the spectrum, well, then move to the third world where you'll feel at home, or move to Amazonia where you'll feel at home.

Nobody wants you to "be a good girl and shut up," Rebecca, but if you could quit fanning the flames of hatred and self-entitlement ideology, the rest of us, men and women alike, would surely appreciate it. It's not as much your own words as those in the comments on your blog, but you're doing nothing to diminish it, and you're making it worse by carrying this on and being continuously insulting to the other sex. You're doing nothing for the skeptical movement but painting us all to be a bunch of misogynists, and you're only reinforcing many of our views on modern day feminism and how it's become nothing more than another hate movement with entitlement delusions. Just stop, okay? You weren't attacked, so quit acting like you were.

The Long-Awaited Return of Fun with Fundies!

2011-06-01T16:09:00.000-07:00

WHO'S READY FOR SOME CRAZY?

It's been a while since I've done one of these here blogs, but I felt the time was right. Why, you ask? Well, just hold onto your britches and let me 'splain. His name is Bryan Fischer and he's a member of the Minnesota Family Council. If it were up to me, I'd really love to delete the first word of that title...as well as the second and third, but I digress.

Bryan, an outspoken critic of DADT and supporter of DOMA, had this to say:

Get ready for an entire spate of hate crimes in the U.S. military, perpetrated by homosexual activists against servicemembers, especially officers, who have deeply held religious convictions about the acceptability of homosexual behavior. I received a communique from a career United States Air Force officer, a man who has been an officer for 19 years. He understandably wants his identity to be protected so that he can finish his military career without himself becoming the victim of a hate crime perpetrated by homosexuals.

A 19-year Air Force officer wants his identity hidden because he's afraid of the big, bad gays. How interesting. Let us continue:

Says this experienced officer, based on the training he was just recently subjected to:
“Homosexuals are now a protected class of people in the Air Force. Any form of discrimination against them — even an objection to the sexual lifestyle or behavior — is now taboo and will be severely punished.”
Severe punishment for merely expressing reservations about the normalcy of homosexual behavior? Can you say “hate crime?” I certainly can.

Okay, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how one would be perpetrating a hate crime on another by merely objecting to a person's bigoted views. If a person comes up to me and says, "I don't like the fact that you're an atheist." I respond in saying, "Well, it's really none of your damn business." Suddenly, I've perpetrated a hate crime? I think not. And on another note, isn't it interesting how these conservative ass-clowns hate hate crime legislation until they suddenly feel victimized? Oh, but we're not stopping there. There's more, fellow heathens!

The officer who wrote to me went on to explain that there was “absolutely no discussion about the right of personnel to be free from unwanted sexual attraction…the guy who asks me out on a date Monday afternoon will be granted the right to shower with me on Tuesday morning…While there is currently some leeway for heterosexuals to object to intimate quarters with homosexuals…senior leaders in the room made it clear that such objections will not be tolerated for long.”

I'm not going to comment on that last part and just assume that you know why that's stupid. In the end, this is a pretty amazing piece right here. Amazing in the sense that it made me laugh harder than The Invention of Lying and Kick Ass combined. In the end, congratulations, Bryan Fischer and Bryan Fischer's imaginary army friend. You are (both?) indeed

BAT

SHIT

CRAZY!

Another Christian Trying Their Hands at Science: FAIL!

2011-04-27T12:40:00.000-07:00

I want to start this blog out with a disclaimer: This piece may be satire. Most likely, it was intended to be satire, as there is no way anyone could be this stupid, however, it was picked up by a Christian website (non-satire site) and is being used now as if anything on it were accurate or scientifically correct. I’m just going to break this down one by one.

The first part that I want to point out is that I see nothing in this image that has anything to do with atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in deities. That is it. Nothing more. What you’re talking about (14.5 billion-year-old earth; evolution; 3.7 billion years of life on earth) is science. So, in other words, you’re trying to use science to argue science, not atheism. The fact that most atheists accept scientific facts has nothing to do with atheism itself, as most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, and Jews also have no problem accepting reality over Bronze Age myths written by people who sacrificed cattle to appease the sun. That being said, let’s get to the scientific breakdown of this enormously hilarious piece of crap.

Fallacy no.1: This piece claims that the total amount of water on earth is approximately 1.386X10^21 liters when the actual number, not that facts ever seem to matter to these people, is 3.26X10^20 gallons, putting the number at around 1.26X10^21 liters.

Fallacy no. 2: According to the most recent studies, the total estimated population of the Earth is 6.8 billion as of 2010. Therefore, I don’t see how you’re rounding when you’re getting that six-billion number. It might be time to step out of 2000, when that number might have been viable; which, in turn, leads us to Fallacy no. 3.

Fallacy no. 3: I wish I had the writer of this piece in front of me so that I could ask him exactly how he thinks breeding works. He/she apparently thinks we’re asexual. This whole thing relies on the assumption that population never grows. You see, population grows exponentially. For instance, while there are about seven-billion people on (not in) the world right now, in 1980, there were 4.4 billion. In 1950, the world’s population was an estimated 2.4 billion. In 1900, the world’s population was around 1.6 billion. Do you see what I’m getting at? In other words, we are not asexual beings where each person will have one child, and the population totals are what they always were and always will be. I guess Christians don’t understand breeding or exponential growth. In fact, just to drive the point home, the estimated world’s population in 2050 will be 9.85 billion.

Fallacy no. 4: Dysentery! About 97% of the world’s water is undrinkable because it rests in the world’s ocean. Ocean water is salt water and is undrinkable to humans, as salt is a diuretic and would dehydrate us. There are about 326 million cubic miles of fresh water on the planet earth, which would be enough to fill the United States with a lake ranging from about 143-145 kilometers miles deep. Of this, about 70% of the Earth’s fresh water is locked up in the polar icecaps, a number that varies from year to year, as the icecaps are quickly melting. Also, less than 1% of the world’s fresh water is accessible to humans, which is why 1/3 of the world’s population lives in water-stressed countries. There are actually about 5.274X10^15 liters of fresh water on earth.

Simple equation: If the average person needs to drink about two liters of water per day, that would bring the number to about 13.6 billion liters of water per day that is consumed in the world; discounting leaky water faucets, bathing, and the amount of water present in natural and man-made objects such as water towers, vegetables and so on. So, if we’re drinking 13.6 billion liters of water per day and there is 5.27X10^15 liters of water available, then we should be completely without fresh water within 387,500 days or roughly 1,062 years. In other words, according to the equation proposed by the nice gentlemen/woman who made this nice image, mankind should have only been able to last a little over a century on the planet earth. So, even his/her bible is wrong in saying the earth is 6,000 years old, as we would have all died of dehydration after the first thousand years, long before Jebus even had a chance to become a zombie in the first place.

How is this possible, then, that mankind has survived for 250,000 years on the planet earth? Well, refer back to what I spoke about earlier in regards to breeding and timeline. There weren’t always so many of us, in fact, throughout most of the period of our stay on earth, there have been very few of us by comparison to our world’s current population. At the dawn of farming, the agricultural revolution, it is believed that only about five-million humans populated the earth. At this point, there would be enough fresh water to sustain all of the humans on earth for almost 3 million years. Funny how quickly our population’s growth has shortened our feasible fresh water supply, isn’t it?

I would go into how water replenishes itself, but I believe with the fallacies of this piece, it’s completely moot. Especially because, Crazy Christian Person, you’ve actually managed to inadvertently make a point that ecological scientists have been making for generations now: There is not enough fresh water on the earth to sustain our population. We, as mankind, need to start limiting our bathing, fixing our leaky faucets, stop running water needlessly while doing dishes or brushing our teeth, and so on. So, in other words, while trying to prove science wrong with science, you managed to prove science right, though, with pretty bad science that I’ve simply corrected for you. You’ve also proven another point: People with no scientific backgrounds shouldn’t try to discuss science, as you only make an ass out of yourselves. This was actually dumber than the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument, which in itself, completely ignores that said second law only refers to closed/isolated systems, which the earth is not.

Smiling Atheist out, and don’t forget to follow, subscribe, or do whatever it is that you people do. Also, don’t forget that my book, Crusade: The Unchecked and Unbalanced Role of Faith in America is available on Amazon.com for $19.99, and also available on all Nook formats, including free Nook applications for PC, iPhone, iPad, Android, and others, for the low price of $5.99.

Abraham Lincoln: Religion Hunter

2011-04-16T12:04:00.000-07:00

So, the Tea and Republican parties are suddenly up in arms over the recently revealed Lincoln Letters that reveal that Abraham Lincoln was, indeed, an atheist. You know, The Smiling Atheist is just going to come right out and say it: No shit, Sherlock! Do you right-wing nutcases not have access to history books? Or do you merely not have the capabilities to read them? Darwin knows you read enough Ayn Rand. Another atheist, by the way, however, not one I’m thrilled to call one of my own.

The fact of the matter is that Lincoln was well known to have been an atheist. It was actually one of the biggest trump cards pulled out by his opponent during his campaign to become president. He was accused of being an atheist at just about every turn, and never actually denied it either. His responses were usually within the confines of quoting the No Religious Test Clause or the Separation Clause of the Constitution, or rambling on some speech about a person’s relationship with god being a personal matter, not for the public eye. If you’ll notice, actually, during the Civil War, the most often utilized justification for keeping slaves were the biblical verses Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:2-6, both of which condone slavery, while it is not condemned anywhere in the Old or New Testaments. This argument, Lincoln completely ignored in leading his crusade to end slavery and to amass the constitutional power of the centralized federal government. Also, look closely at the presidential history and its religious affiliation section. Lincoln admittedly claims no religious affiliation.

I have to ask at this point, just what is the problem? Why do you suddenly look upon the man who essentially started the civil rights movement in a different light because he didn’t believe in the same invisible man in the sky that you seem to? How is he a different person? As a matter of fact, I would have thought modern day republicans to detest Lincoln in the first place. He started a war (something you would like) over civil liberties (something you clearly don’t like). He limited states’ rights to the articles and amendments within the federal Constitution. He drank and womanized. He wore a top-hat. He enjoyed the theater (possibly a downfall in the end, but I digress).

Is it because you don’t want to admit that a hero of American history could have been a godless heathen? You know, like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and plenty other non-theistic individuals who paved the way for the country you’re now trying to destroy?
Let me run down a list of Lincoln’s quotes regarding organized religion:

“The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.”

“The only person who is a worse liar than a faith healer is his patient.”

“If there is no military need for the building, leave it alone, neither putting anyone in or out of it, except on finding some one preaching or practicing treason, in which case lay hands on him, just as if he were doing the same thing in any other building.”
-- Abraham Lincoln, order relating to a church in Memphis, Tennessee, issued on May 13, 1864, Nicolay and Hay, Works of Abraham Lincoln, chapter on "Lincoln and the Churches," quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 143. In the same chapter Nicolay and Hay state that in order to prevent treasonable preaching, Secretary Stanton appointed Bishop Ames, of the Methodist Church, to be supervisor of all the Churches in a certain southern district. President Lincoln at once countermanded the order.

“It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity.”
-- Abraham Lincoln, Manford's Magazine, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 144

Whatever your justifications, to look upon another in a different light knowing suddenly that he lacked a belief that you personally, in your opinion, feel is important, is nothing more than bigotry. Do I, as a science nerd, look upon Sir Isaac Newton in a different light knowing he was also a theologian? Absolutely not. The man still invented calculus and discovered the principles of gravity (his original thesis was mostly right anyway, though he could hardly realize the gravity of what he had discovered – no pun intended). Abraham Lincoln accomplished within his short presidency, more positive influence and outcome than any president before or after him. He was a hero to whom millions of African Americans owe their freedom, and most likely plenty of peoples of other races and nationalities who entered this country after the time of the Civil War. His words were that of poetry, and those words inspired a majority of our country to realize its foundation and legacy as the world’s first great secular and free nation. A legacy that has since been tarnished, I might add, on both accounts.

In the end, yes, a godless heathen ended slavery in America. In fact, he did so much more. A bill President Lincoln signed into law chartered the first transcontinental railroad. He signed into law the Homestead Act and the National Banking Act. And before he was assassinated, he chartered and supported the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which gave full freedom and liberties to African Americans previously shackled by the chains of slavery. Put that in your smoke and pipe it; na-na na-na boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo. Smiling Atheist out, and don’t forget to follow and subscribe. And remember that Crusade: The Unchecked and Unbalanced Role of Faith in America by yours truly is available on Amazon.com for $19.99 and in eBook format for all nook applications, including the free ones such as nook for PC, on barnesandnoble.com for $5.99.

To Japan from Americans God Damn Christian Population.

2011-03-12T18:22:00.000-08:00

The following note is regarding the types of tweets and posts that I've been seeing all day today and all day yesterday. From any and all atheist, agnostics, irreligious, or just plainly secular people I know, it's been a field of "Sending our good thoughts to Japan," followed by links or text numbers where you can donate to aid in humanitarian efforts. From the other side, however, while I've seen a few of the religious people I know actually posting some positive messages (excluded is the copy/paste status going around telling people to send a WAVE of prayers toward the Japanese - really tasteful, Christians), the vast majority of it has been posts like the following from Twitter:
@DOC914‎: Japan gave us pokemon, God gave them an earthquake/tsunami one-two ... you do the math.

@Evd23rocker:‎ Why this earthquake happened in Japan? I don't think God did it I believe Satan did it.

@Ninja_Beanz‎: Dont ask God for help Japan, ask him to please stop killing ur people. He CREATED the earthquake and the tsunami

@Traceybickle:‎ The earth needs the mercy of God. Cry out all who will and He will relent. #Japan's #earthquake

@EspoOriginals:‎ Maybe the Mayans were right.... #2012 #Earthquakes #Japan #Haiti

@Catcasco‎: All I'm going to say is this: if God gave one tiny dog's scrotum about Japan he wouldn't have hit them with the earthquake/tsunami combo.

@PoetSam17:‎ Man has never been good at reading signs, Just ignoring them. Earthquake in Japan, let's acknowledge God's signs. Turn to HIM and pray.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAGYqrANnAw
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27876648/could-the-japan-earthquake-be-gods-punish-for-them-killing-whales?page=0
@Tinasongbird73‎: Prayers up 4 the people in japan who've experience great loss & heartache frm the earthquakes & Tsunami. God is trying 2tell us something!

Yet to weigh in is the infallible Pat Robertson himself, but it seems like his zombie followers are beating him to the punch these days. Really, people. Anyone I see saying anything about GOD being involved or that God is telling us something or sending us a message, is going to get beaten about the head severely with a book on plate tectonics.

Smiling Atheist OUT!

Why are Atheists so Vocal?

2011-02-09T23:38:00.000-08:00

What are atheists so vocal? This is a question I'm often asked, and it's a legitimate question at that. Quite frankly, the answer is pretty clear cut to us, but for many, I can see why it would need to be put into a more personal perspective. Luckily for you, I'm pretty good at doing that in rather entertaining ways in order to get my point across, so I think it's time to flex my metaphor muscle and DO THIS THING!

First, let's ask a question of ourselves, "What sounds absurd to us?" Well, as an atheist, there are quite a few things that sound absurd to me: ghosts, homeopathy, angels, demons, religion in general, and so on... But what sounds absurd to you? I recently took a poll on a facebook page that I run anonymously; to see what most religious people think is absurd in our world. I asked about things like ghosts, homeopathy, chiropractic medicine (it's amazing how many people think chiropractors are legitimate doctors), UFO abduction, vampires, werewolves, zombies, and so on... Leaving out the fact that many Christians said zombie and vampires sound most absurd to them, even though both of which are in the bible, the most claimed absurd idea in the poll was alien abduction. Therefore, I'm going to use that. How, you ask? Well, keep reading, nitz!

Let's say for a moment that the alien abduction scene started to catch fire. It sort of did back in the 90's with the X-Files and all, but certainly not to the degree needed for this metaphor. Let's say that it really started to catch on, this absurd idea that intelligent alien life forms with the technology to travel twenty billion light years, utilized this technology just to hover over a quiet corn field for an hour, then shoot a beam of light into the farmhouse, pulling yokel farmer X into the ship with the hopes of sticking a large tube into yokel farm X's ass, and then leaving. Not stopping by the White House to have a chat with President Obama, or dropping in the middle of the Super Bowl to let us know they're hear, just sticking a tube up a hillbilly's ass will suffice.

Now, let's say that idea really started catching on. Let's say that the next thing you know, about 50% of the country started to firmly believe this was actually happening despite a clear lack of empirical evidence, and, in fact, plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary. You're probably going to start wondering, "What's going on here?" Though, you're concerned, it's really not any of your business, so you move on with your life.

Next thing you know, 80% of the country firmly believes in these random abductions. It's everywhere. It's starting to show up on billboards and in magazines. You can't look in one direction without being reminded just how stupid the rest of the populace really is. Still, it's a perfectly harmless belief, thus, you move on with your life. It's not affecting you, right?

Next thing you know, these believers start to build giant buildings in dedication to this absurd belief. Not just that, but while you were sleeping, references to random alien abductions became a part of your national motto and is now printed on your money, "In Aliens and Farmer Sugar-Snoogle-Billy-Bob-Joe-Jack we Trust!" Now you're becoming just a little more alarmed, aren't you? Well, not as alarmed as you'll be once you realize that the Pledge of Allegiance has been changed to include references to aliens and Farmer Joe-Jack. That's right. While your children are still half asleep, with their brains hardly functioning (the perfect time for hypnosis), they're being forced to pledge an undying allegiance to a country, as well as to the aliens who show up every night and sodomize the old farmer. Now, you're getting mad.

Only weeks later, you notice it's gone farther. In fact, not a single person elected in the last cycle was so without claiming some sort of belief in these aliens and in Farmer Joe-Jacks chosen anus. Not just that, but these politicians are starting to pass legislation based on these beliefs. Legislation about the our possible affects on our planet, no matter how scientifically backed-up they are, are being shot down because senators are reading from the book of the Alien and Farmer Joe-Jack as their counter to the legislation. And it actually worked! More legislation is being passed, and it's becoming more and more harmful, not just to the planet, but also to human rights and civil liberties. Your rights are being stripped away while your president stands in front of the country and says, "Well, no. I don't consider the non-alien people to be patriots. I don't even consider them to be citizens. This is one nation under Aliens and Farmer Butts."

The next week, your child comes home and says that science class has changed. He's no longer being taught facts and evidence, but instead, they've introduced the Alien and Farmer Butt creation story, which has no evidence to back it up whatsoever, into the biology classroom, and booted out the theory of evolution. Your child is no longer being taught science or math or any other hard or soft science, but instead, they're learning from this ridiculous book that's so absurd, you think anyone who believes it should be locked away in a psych ward.

What's worse than that? Well, I'll tell you. Suddenly, you've just found out that your kind, those who don't believe in the absurd alien story, are the least trusted minority in the United States, scoring underneath illegal immigrants, Muslims, Homosexuals, Mexicans and so on... Well, people think you can't possibly have a moral compass without believing in the alien story, so you must be a bad person. You probably want to convert all of their young to your hetaeristic ways.

Next thing you know, two towers fall in New York because the alien people have branched into separate tribes and want to kill one another, as well as you - mostly you! Abortion clinics are being bombed, abortion doctors are being shot right in the middle of alien church, and atheists of the alien stories are being shot, mugged and beheaded just for writing stories that are critical of the alien stories. Women and children are being stoned in town squares for disobeying the rules of the alien doctrine. Innocent people who want nothing more than to believe in something greater than them are being taken advantage of by televangelists of the alien doctrine. They're shelling all of their money out to polyester-clad men just so that they can get into alien heaven. Militias are forming all over the place to counter the alien Armageddon they believe is coming, while governments wage wars on countries and kill innocent people just to make the prophecies come true. Uneducated, misspelled and grammatically incorrect hyperbole is everywhere with new, radical political parties based solely on these ideas. Thousands die everyday based on the alien doctrine. All for one stupid little idea that a dumb redneck had who wanted to be in the newspaper.

Gee, can you imagine why we'd want to be a little vocal from time to time?

This has been your Smiling Atheist, C. Allen Thompson, with another edition of the blog that all but guarantees me a special slot in hell should I be wrong. And don't forget to click the link below. Crusade: The Unchecked and Unbalanced Role of Faith in America makes a great V-Day gift for that special godless someone in your life.

MEMORIAL

2011-01-23T19:17:00.000-08:00

Today, none of the usual snark will occur on the Smiling Atheist blog. Today we remember a great man - possibly one of the greatest men to have ever lived. On January 24, 1965, the world lost a great writer, statesman and politician by the name of Sir Winston Churchill. Aside from his impeccable wit, he is, and forever will be, known as the voice of a generation in the United Kingdom during one of the darkest times in recent history. Winston Churchill was not only a two-time British Prime Minister, but was also a Nobel Prize winner in literature.

During the 1930's, Churchill was one of the first voices with the courage to warn not only his country, but the rest of the world, of the impending doom of Hitler's German regime. And to this date, he is known as the man who was Hitler's worst enemy. Adolf Hitler's regime came to rise primarily because of his gift of communication and manipulation. Churchill, however, was his better, in both matters. Churchill was the orator that the western world needed to combat Hitler's regime and add fodder to the cannons that stood against the Third Reich. And while Hitler himself stated, "The best way to sell a big lie is with a small truth," Churchill himself sold the truth to the world with nothing more than wit and determination.

I am not half the writer that Churchill was, so I feel the best way to remember him is to share some of his words with you. So, in tribute, here is Sir Winston Churchill:

16 October 1938

I avail myself with relief of the opportunity of speaking to the people of the United States. I do not know how long such liberties will be allowed. The stations of uncensored expression are closing down; the lights are going out; but there is still time for those to whom freedom and parliamentary government mean something, to consult together. Let me, then, speak in truth and earnestness while time remains.

The American people have, it seems to me, formed a true judgment upon the disaster which has befallen Europe. They realise, perhaps more clearly than the French and British publics have yet done, the far-reaching consequences of the abandonment and ruin of the Czechoslovak Republic. I hold to the conviction I expressed some months ago, that if in April, May or June, Great Britain, France, and Russia had jointly declared that they would act together upon Nazi Germany if Herr Hitler committed an act of unprovoked aggression against this small State, and if they had told Poland, Yugoslavia, and Rumania what they meant to do in good time, and invited them to join the combination of peace-defending Powers, I hold that the German Dictator would have been confronted with such a formidable array that he would have been deterred from his purpose. This would also have been an opportunity for all the peace-loving and moderate forces in Germany, together with the chiefs of the German Army, to make a great effort to re-establish something like sane and civilised conditions in their own country. If the risks of war which were run by France and Britain at the last moment had been boldly faced in good time, and plain declarations made, and meant, how different would our prospects be today!

But all these backward speculations belong to history. It is no good using hard words among friends about the past, and reproaching one another for what cannot be recalled. It is the future, not the past, that demands our earnest and anxious thought. We must recognize that the Parliamentary democracies and liberal, peaceful forces have everywhere sustained a defeat which leaves them weaker, morally and physically, to cope with dangers which have vastly grown. But the cause of freedom has in it a recuperative power and virtue which can draw from misfortune new hope and new strength. If ever there was a time when men and women who cherish the ideals of the founders of the British and American Constitutions should take earnest counsel with one another, that time is now.

All the world wishes for peace and security. Have we gained it by the sacrifice of the Czechoslovak Republic. Here was the model democratic State of Central Europe, a country where minorities were treated better than anywhere else. It has been deserted, destroyed and devoured. It is now being digested. The question which is of interest to a lot of ordinary people, common people, is whether this destruction of the Czechoslovak Republic will bring upon the world a blessing or a curse.

We must all hope it will bring a blessing; that after we have averted our gaze for a while from the process of subjugation and liquidation, everyone will breathe more freely; that a load will be taken off our chests; we shall be able to say to ourselves: "Well, that's out of the way, anyhow. Now let's get on with our regular daily life." But are these hopes well founded or are we merely making the best of what we had not the force and virtue to stop? That is the question that the English-speaking peoples in all their lands must ask themselves today. Is this the end, or is there more to come?

There is another question which arises out of this. Can peace, goodwill, and confidence be built upon submission to wrong-doing backed by force?

One may put this question in the largest form. Has any benefit or progress ever been achieved by the human race by submission to organised and calculated violence? As we look back over the long story of the nations we must see that, on the contrary, their glory has been founded upon the spirit of resistance to tyranny and injustice, especially when these evils seemed to be backed by heavier force. Since the dawn of the Christian era a certain way of life has slowly been shaping itself among the Western peoples, and certain standards of conduct and government have come to be esteemed. After many miseries and prolonged confusion, there arose into the broad light of day the conception of the right of the individual; his right to be consulted in the government of his country; his right to invoke the law even against the State itself. Independent Courts of Justice were created to affirm and inforce this hard-won custom. Thus was assured throughout the English-speaking world, and in France by the stern lessons of the Revolution, what Kipling called, "Leave to live by no man's leave underneath the law." Now in this resides all that makes existence precious to man, and all that confers honour and health upon the State.

We are confronted with another theme. It is not a new theme; it leaps out upon us from the Dark Ages - racial persecution, religious intolerance, deprivation of free speech, the conception of the citizen as a mere soulless fraction of the State. To this has been added the cult of war. Children are to be taught in their earliest schooling the delights and profits of conquest and aggression. A whole mighty community has been drawn painfully, by severe privations, into a warlike frame. They are held in this condition, which they relish no more than we do, by a party organisation, several millions strong, who derive all kinds of profits, good and bad, from the upkeep of the regime. Like the Communists, the Nazis tolerate no opinion but their own. Like the Communists, they feed on hatred. Like the Communists, they must seek, from time to time, and always at shorter intervals, a new target, a new prize, a new victim. The Dictator, in all his pride, is held in the grip of his Party machine. He can go forward; he cannot go back. He must blood his hounds and show them sport, or else, like Actaeon of old, be devoured by them. All-strong without, he is all-weak within. As Byron wrote a hundred years ago: "These Pagod things of Sabre sway, with fronts of brass and feet of clay."

No one must, however, underrate the power and efficiency of a totalitarian state. Where the whole population of a great country, amiable, good-hearted, peace-loving people are gripped by the neck and by the hair by a Communist or a Nazi tyranny - for they are the same things spelt in different ways - the rulers for the time being can exercise a power for the purposes of war and external domination before which the ordinary free parliamentary societies are at a grievous practical disadvantage. We have to recognise this. And then, on top of all, comes this wonderful mastery of the air which our century has discovered, but of which, alas, mankind has so far shown itself unworthy. Here is this air power with its claim to torture and terrorise the women and children, the civil population of neighbouring countries.

This combination of medieval passion, a party caucus, the weapons of modern science, and the blackmailing power of air-bombing, is the most monstrous menace to peace, order and fertile progress that has appeared in the world since the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century.

The culminating question to which I have been leading is whether the world as we have known it - the great and hopeful world of before the war, the world of increasing hope and enjoyment for the common man, the world of honoured tradition and expanding science - should meet this menace by submission or by resistance. Let us see, then, whether the means of resistance remain to us today. We have sustained an immense disaster; the renown of France is dimmed. In spite of her brave, efficient army, her influence is profoundly diminished. No one has a right to say that Britain, for all her blundering, has broken her word - indeed, when it was too late, she was better than her word. Nevertheless, Europe lies at this moment abashed and distracted before the triumphant assertions of dictatorial power. In the Spanish Peninsula, a purely Spanish quarrel has been carried by the intervention, or shall I say the "non-intervention" (to quote the current Jargon) of Dictators into the region of a world cause.

But it is not only in Europe that these oppressions prevail. China is being torn to pieces by a military clique in Japan; the poor, tormented Chinese people there are making a brave and stubborn defence. The ancient empire of Ethiopia has been overrun. The Ethiopians were taught to look to the sanctity of public law, to the tribunal of many nations gathered in majestic union. But all failed; they were deceived, and now they are winning back their right to live by beginning again from the bottom a struggle on primordial lines. Even in South America, the Nazi regime begins to undermine the fabric of Brazilian society.

Far away, happily protected by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, you, the people of the United States, to whom I now have the chance to speak, are the spectators, and I may add the increasingly involved spectators of these tragedies and crimes. We are left in no doubt where American conviction and sympathies lie; but will you wait until British freedom and independence have succumbed, and then take up the cause when it is three-quarters ruined, yourselves alone? I hear that they are saying in the United States that because England and France have failed to do their duty therefore the American people can wash their hands of the whole business. This may be the passing mood of many people, but there is no sense in it. If things have got much worse, all the more must we try to cope with them.

For, after all, survey the remaining forces of civilisation; they are overwhelming. If only they were united in a common conception of right and duty, there would be no war. On the contrary, the German people, industrious, faithful, valiant, but alas! lacking in the proper spirit of civic independence, liberated from their present nightmare, would take their honoured place in the vanguard of human society. Alexander the Great remarked that the people of Asia were slaves because they had not learned to pronounce the word "No." Let that not be the epitaph of the English-speaking peoples or of Parliamentary democracy, or of France, or of the many surviving liberal States of Europe.

There, in one single word, is the resolve which the forces of freedom and progress, of tolerance and good will, should take. It is not in the power of one nation, however formidably armed, still less is it in the power of a small group of men, violent, ruthless men, who have always to cast their eyes back over their shoulders, to cramp and fetter the forward march of human destiny. The preponderant world forces are upon our side; they have but to be combined to be obeyed. We must arm. Britain must arm. America must arm. If, through an earnest desire for peace, we have placed ourselves at a disadvantage, we must make up for it by redoubled exertions, and, if necessary, by fortitude in suffering.

We shall, no doubt, arm. Britain, casting away the habits of centuries, will decree national service upon her citizens. The British people will stand erect, and will face whatever may be coming.

But arms - instrumentalities, as President Wilson called them - are not sufficient by themselves. We must add to them the power of ideas. People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazidom and democracy; but the antagonism is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas which gives the free countries a great part of their strength. You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. On all sides they are guarded by masses of armed men, cannons, aeroplanes, fortifications, and the like - they boast and vaunt themselves before the world, yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home - all the more powerful because forbidden - terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind. Cannons, airplanes, they can manufacture in large quantities; but how are they to quell the natural promptings of human nature, which after all these centuries of trial and progress has inherited a whole armoury of potent and indestructible knowledge?

Dictatorship - the fetish worship of one man - is a passing phase. A state of society where men may not speak their minds, where children denounce their parents to the police, where a business man or small shopkeeper ruins his competitor by telling tales about his private opinions; such a state of society cannot long endure if brought into contact with the healthy outside world. The light of civilised progress with its tolerances and co-operation, with its dignities and joys, has often in the past been blotted out. But I hold the belief that we have now at last got far enough ahead of barbarism to control it, and to avert it, if only we realise what is afoot and make up our minds in time. We shall do it in the end. But how much harder our toil for every day's delay!

Is this a call to war? Does anyone pretend that preparation for resistance to aggression is unleashing war? I declare it to be the sole guarantee of peace. We need the swift gathering of forces to confront not only military but moral aggression; the resolute and sober acceptance of their duty by the English-speaking peoples and by all the nations, great and small, who wish to walk with them. Their faithful and zealous comradeship would almost between night and morning clear the path of progress and banish from all our lives the fear which already darkens the sunlight to hundreds of millions of men.

February is Sarah Palin-Free Month

2011-01-21T16:58:00.000-08:00

I know that this is going to be pretty hard on all of you out there, but we must make this pact. Here's why:

1.) It's become a little bit like punching a two-year-old crying child; yes, it's extremely satisfying, but it's just way too easy.

2.) You know how fickle people are. If they don't hear from someone in the news for a month, they'll completely forget about him/her. This needs to happen. Sarah Palin was like a mushroom (hiding in the shadows and eating shit) before she was thrust into the spotlight in the 2008 elections. We all know why she was chosen as well, so there's no reason to be redundant here.

This is important, people. Just shut up about her and she'll go away. You know, like the uncle of yours who had cancer and just ignored...okay, that's not the best example, but this will work, I assure you. Ignore her and she'll go back into the obscurity from which she came. So, let's make this pact: no more talking about the prom queen of illiteracy; the sultan of spin; the (sorry for this) semen stain on the proverbial bed sheets of life that is Sarah Palin.

Thank you, and don't forget to follow me into hell. Oh, and why don't you give my book a read while you're at it. Just go to http://www.amazon.com/Crusade-Unchecked-Unbalanced-Faith-America/dp/1456491946/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1 and give it a whirl. You never know - you just might like it.

Please, Governor Bentley, Don't Apologize to Me!

2011-01-20T15:56:00.000-08:00

Oh, no, please, Mr. Alabama governor Bentley, please don't apologize to me. You really don't have to. I'm sure that everyone as of late has heard the recent comments made on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, regarding who he considers to be his brothers and sisters. Let me go ahead and give you a refresh of exactly what was said, "Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

Obviously, many people seem to think that this statement wasn't all that smart. Well, I don't know what you'd expect from an Alabama governor giving his inauguration speech inside of a Baptist church, located inside of a largely Baptist community, inside of a largely Baptist state? The state, actually, that was the birthplace of the KKK as well as the Christian Identity Movement. I'm not saying I defend his words, but seriously, what could you possibly expect?

The reason I'm not offended by his remarks are the following: 1) He's a crazy Baptist and I expect these people to be bigots; 2) I don't consider him my brother anyway.

I don't, honestly. Not one damn bit. Because nobody who wishes to divide our nation by any means, namely one as stupid as which cosmic sky-daddy in whom you believe, is my brother or my sister. The time has come for logic to rule over myth, and the time has come for unity to overthrow division, and this can never happen so long as people like Governor Bentley are alive and kicking, let alone serving in political office.

The good thing about science is that it teaches us that we're all brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, and so on...to one another through a common ancestor. Religion, on the other hand, seems to teach division, and seemingly everything else that is contrary to a mass tribal mentality, which would turn this world around for the better. Knowing that we are all family among one another, and with our extended family in nature, could make this world a much better place. Religion, on the other hand, only tends to lead to destruction at the hands of the religious. What else makes science better than religion? It doesn't require belief.

So, Governor Bentley, whether you like it or not, we are all brothers and sisters, and the irony that it's only the people whose cosmic Jewish sky-daddy told them to love their neighbors, who seem to have a problem doing so. And if you can't love your neighbor and love your brothers and sisters, governor, then you're not my brother or my neighbor - you are everything that is wrong with the world today. So, don't apologize to me because you don't consider me a brother. You're not mine.

Thanks for reading and don't forget to follow. Also, follow the link below to purchase my new book, Crusade: The Unchecked and Unbalanced Role of Faith in America from Amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/Crusade-Unchecked-Unbalanced-Faith-America/dp/1456491946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295567587&sr=1-1

Arizona: Here We Go Again

2011-01-10T15:23:00.000-08:00

Sorry, I've been away for sometime now. I've been getting the book off the ground, and even though it keeps getting pushed back, my final proof is in the mail as we speak, and by February, it should be on the shelves. I'll be providing you all links on Amazon.com as well as my personal eStore, where you can all pick it up for $19.99. Also, I'm working on my first serious fiction piece. The working title is Sex & Therapy, and what it is is sort of a modern day excursion into Scottish Realism, with a sort of Chuck and JD style of writing to it.

I did, however, want to take a moment to discuss the recent actions over this weekend in Arizona. To be blunt, I have to ask now, how much blood is now on the hands of the pundits who feed into the delusional minds of their paranoid viewers? People like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to just name two of the top. You have to understand, when you use terms like "First Amendment remedy," and encourage violence and revolution, this is precisely what happens.

Now, I'm not going to feed into the game by only blaming one side of this. America is divided because both sides are divided - not just one. However, you only really here this type of hate speech and encouragement of war coming from one side of the coin. And much like when Bill O'Reilly openly ordered the death of an abortion doctor on his show - an act that took place only a week later - I have yet to hear any sort of condemning from the side that encouraged it. In fact, I saw that Fox News immediately cut away from its coverage of the vigil when Sarah Palin's name was brought up.

And speaking of Sarah Palin, this is a message that was left on her Facebook page only yesterday regarding the incident: "It's ok. Christina Taylor Green [the 9-year-old girl who was killed] was probably going to end up a left-wing bleeding-heart liberal anyway. Hey, as 'they' say, what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a kid? Exactly."

This is exactly the kind of hate speech I'm talking about. Nobody deserves to die for anything, in my opinion, and I know that many Christians out there feel differently, including this one. But especially a nine-year-old girl who had nothing more than her entire life to look forward to. Did I mention this girl was born on September 11, 2001? How coincidental is that? She was born on the day of America's greatest political and religious attack to date, and she ends up dying not ten years later, in a political attack that came from within our own country - an attack bread by our own radicalism, and not that of another country.

People like this disgust me, but not half as much as those to whom they look up - those who encourage this type of violence. Left or Right, black or white, theist or atheist; NONE of us should plot to kill innocent people, and NONE of us should encourage such actions with either actions of our own, or something as simple as our words. I know that pundits on both sides know that they reach an audience comprised of those who merely listen moderately, to those who take every word as gospel, and would even set out to kill those who would deny their words. This time, it was the latter, as it will be again and again. Divisive hate speech ends today, less we be cursed with a future as war-torn and destroyed as those countries we wage war against, in order to "spread freedom".

Smiling Atheist out, and please remember that anything which divides us can never unite us. Also, remember to follow me into hell with a smile on your face. And please, how about the rest of you start smiling for a while? You may see violence wiped away within a matter of seconds. We can all be good without God, but not God without good. Take from that what you will.

Christine "Did She Really Just Say That" O'Donnell

2010-10-19T10:34:00.000-07:00

This morning in Delaware, Tea Party candidate for senate, Christine O'Donnell, criticized Democratic nominee, Chris Coons, by claiming that the teaching of creationism in public schools is not a violation of the First Amendment. O'Donnell continued her idiocy by asking where in the First Amendment is there any mention of the separation of church and state. Coons' response was that the First Amendment bars congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. O'Donnell's retort was, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

So, apparently O'Donnell is just one of many Tea Party members who have not actually read the constitution they claim to hold so dear. And although you're not alone on this view, Ms. O'Donnell, there's one person who tends to disagree with you and the rest of your bat-shit party. That man is former US president, and author of the First Amendment, Mr. Thomas Jefferson. Let's see what he has to say about the separation of church and state:

“Mr. President,

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, the he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of the conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and the creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.”

Thomas Jefferson

January 1, 1802

Wait, what just happened? Are you telling me that not only did the First Amendment intend for a separation of church ans state, but Mr. Jefferson himself coined the term "Wall of Separation?" Why yes, that is what just happened here. I'll be sitting by my computer awaiting your next idiotic claim about the founding of this country. But until then, let me leave you with my favorite Jefferson quote regarding a theocratic government.

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

Fun With Fundies (Wednesday September 1, 2010)

2010-09-01T17:41:00.001-07:00

Ah yes, you knew it had to come back someday. Well today is the day. In the wake of an Oklahoma senate race this year that is hotly contested, a familiar face has stepped back into the news, and that is Representative Sally Kern (R) Oklahoma. Do you remember who this is? If not, let me remind you that this is a woman who tried, in her own very special way, to explain to us how homosexuality is worse than terrorism! Did you read that properly? Yes, yes you did. Here is the exact quote.

“Here in America we’ve had what maybe three known real big terrorist attacks on our nation,” Kern said. “But every day our young people especially, all of us, but our young people especially are in a sense bombarded with the message that homosexuality is normal and natural.”

I know that quote is rather hard to read. Not just because of it's very poor and seemingly misguided structure, but also because she truly is saying that homosexuality is worse than terrorism.

You see, Mrs. Kern, much like many of her Republican counterparts, believes the jury is still out on science. She would put her personal beliefs upon the mount with no regard for actual facts. And as I've said hundreds of times in the past, personal opinions are one thing, but when they clearly contradict facts, you have no right to them, outside of the bounds of willful ignorance.

Mrs. Kern, homosexuality is natural, whether you like to admit it or not. It happens all the time in nature, and it have been happening in humans since as far back as history carries us. And contrary to what you seem to believe (there's that word again), that goes a hell of a lot farther than 6,000 years. And no matter how much you'd like to believe that the Flintstones was a documentary piece, it's not.

And Mrs. Kern, please define normal. Is normalcy what the majority believes? Because if so, you're abnormal. The majority of Americans state the opinion that homosexual marriage is alright. In fact, even the majority of moderate Christians do, which puts you again in the minority. So, with that cleared up, can I point out something else in your statement that really bothers me?

You say our children are "bombarded" with this message. How so, exactly? No, I really want to know how anyone is bombarded with the message of homosexuality, simply because it's accepted by members of society that are sane. And atop of that, I really need to know how this damages children. I mean, your opinion is that gay marriage will turn more people gay, much like tall marriage makes more people tall. But as I just pointed out in that witty remark, it's entirely untrue.

In the end, I think the irony that someone like you is now running against transgender Democratic contender Brittany Novotny is nothing short of grand. You have shown yourself to be the same kind of bigot as the rest of your party, and that you would appreciate a world, even more so than our own, which showed discrimination against people based on their DNA. Tall, black, gay...all are completely natural in people, no matter what your lack of scientific understanding would tell you.

Congratulations, Representative Kern. You are indeed BAT SHIT CRAZY!

Reference

Pat Robertson, Anyone?

2010-08-26T20:52:00.000-07:00

ABC FAMILY CHANNEL AND PAT ROBERTSON
A MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN? OR A MATCH MADE IN HELL?

I wonder how many other Smiling Atheists know that ABC Family Channel is the home to Pat Robertson's 700 Club's syndicated episodes, as well as one episode a week of Pat Robertson's 700 Club Interactive. My question is, "Should we be concerned about this?"

Obviously, any network with the word 'family' in its name really shouldn't be the home to a man like Pat Robertson. After all, we're talking about a man who has continually made doomsday predictions that have cost thousands of people millions of dollars, he's been outspoken about scaring children with threats of Hell to convert them to Christianity, and he's even a convicted criminal. So in all, he hardly sounds like the kind of man with whom I would associate the word family. This makes about as much sense as convicted sex offenders teaching Catholic middle school in Kenya and...oh wait, that's right. I forgot the Church not only doesn't have a problem with that, but has been found to relocate sexual predators to foreign countries and assign them to middle schools. But not to get off topic, I digress.

Let's get a little perspective into the background of ABC Family before we start judging their decision to air The 700 Club. ABC Family was actually started in 1977 as an extension of Pat Robertson's televangelist ministry under the name CBN Satellite Company. It wasn't even known as CBN Family Channel until 1988, which was renamed The Family Channel two years later in 1990. In 1998, The Family Channel was purchased by the Fox company Fox Kids Worldwide Inc. Not long after, parent company was bought out by The Walt Disney Company, along with two other Fox companies, Fox Family and Saban Entertainment. The Walt Disney Company, being the parent company of ABC, thus renamed the network to ABC Family Channel.

So, after a trip down lack of memory lane, knowing that Pat Robertson started the network in the first place puts a little bit of perspective onto why ABC Family would want to carry The 700 Club. Or does it? Well, actually, it's contractual. When the original CBN Family Channel was sold, Pat Robertson stipulated in the sale to the future possible demonic, Satanic, Jewish, Muslim, or just non-Christian, secular owners that they must air his 700 Club twice daily. Obviously, to counteract the evil, libelous, and anti-Christian messages of such shows as Metabots, Power Rangers and Boy Meets World.

However, I wonder why, since the contractual stipulation included by Robertson only demanded two episodes per day, why is it that Disney's ABC Family Channel airs three episodes of The 700 Club per day, one special 700 Club episode per week, and numerous other shows related to Pat Robertson's televangelist ministry? What is the connection?

Well, I'll get to the connection in a second, and then you'll understand the proceeding sentence. I think Pat Robertson belongs on ABC Family Channel. I think it's a better fit than Sarah Jessica Parker on the new TBS series, My Face Looks Like an Ugly Foot.

Pat Robertson's ideology is not as divorced from Walt Disney as people would like to think. And although Walt Disney is long gone, his ideology continues today. The image on the right is not photoshopped. I can't stress that enough. The image is from the 1943 Disney short film Die Fuehrer's Face, in which Donald Duck dreams he is a nazi soldier. He wakes up from the dream frightened as to insinuate it was a nightmare, so this piece of history can be forgiven. After all, it was 1943, it may have been a satire on our enemies, okay. However, there is more.

There was also another Disney cartoon short from 1932 called The Wayward Canary, in which Mickey Mouse is seen utilizing a cigarette lighter with the insignia of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime, the swastika, upon it. Again, the photo to the left as not been altered in anyway. As I said about the Die Feuhrer's Face, it could be seen as satire on the enemy. However, in what sort of context was this lighter? Was Mickey Mouse playing a villain? Was it a parody? The answer to both questions is a big, fat, and more flaming than Liberace, NO! It was completely casual. It was entered casually. Are you starting to get that Mel Gibson vibe yet? Or is that not quite enough to convince you? Well, if you're a scientifically-minded person like myself, you should be saying, "Yeah, call me when you get some real evidence!" Well, let us continue, shall we?

In 1933, an organization called The German American Bund, or German American Federation was founded by Fritz Kuhn. The Bund's mission was to create a positive view of the Nazi Regime in the United States. To be more specific, one of its first and foremost initiatives was to spread the Jewish Boycott in Yorkville, Manhattan, New York, a heavily Jewish area at the time. Well, this is a nice piece of history for you, but how does this relate to Walt Disney?

Art Babbitt, animator of such Disney films as The Three Little Pigs, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Fantasia, and many more, once expressed interest, or concern, in Walt Disney's interest in the Bund. In fact, it wasn't Disney's interest in the Bund that concerned him, it was Disney's all out support of the Bund. According to Mr. Babbitt:

In the immediate years before we entered the War there was a small, but fiercely loyal, I suppose legal, following of the Nazi party . . . There were open meetings, anybody could attend and I wanted to see what was going on myself. On more than one occasion I observed Walt Disney and Gunther Lessing there, along with a lot of prominent Nazi-affiliated Hollywood personalities. Disney was going to meetings all the time.

This is quite the incriminating statement from a man who had no known reason for ill-will against the man who gave him his first break as an animator, and made him a substantial amount of money. But wait, there's more.

In 1938, a German filmmaker, and Nazi Propaganda filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl, came to Hollywood. She went explored every studio in Hollywood at the time looking for work in the United States, and the only man who would actually view the large film canister she carried with her was, wait for it, wait for it; Walt Disney! Walt Disney told the German filmmaker that he would certainly hire her if it weren't for the possibly damage to his reputation. In other words, if it weren't for the possibly PR nightmare, as if it weren't growing by this point anyway, he would have certainly hired a woman who made films glorifying Nazis before and during World War II.

Could this all be just conjecture? Well, the evidence only continues to pile up against Walt Disney. Disney's early films were known for rather racially fueled humor, and this is particularly seen in the original version of The Three Little Pigs. In the film, the Big Bad Wolf comes to the door of the pig's houses dressed as a stereotypical Jewish peddler. This sort of tasteless humor is also seen in the short entitled The Opry House. Look at the clothes Mickey Mouse wears while dancing.

During the Disney strike in the 1940's, Walt Disney referred to it as part of the "Jewish/Communist Conspiracy". In fact, Walt Disney was an adamant anti-communist as well. He was called during the McCarthy era as a "friendly witness" to name suspected communists. You can find the transcript here.

So, now that you know much of what there is to know about Walt Disney, how does Pat Robertson relate to this seemingly scheming little man with a pencil mustache and a cartoon mouse? Pat Robertson is a man with his own background, as many of you know. Here I'll run down a short list of Robertson's past that, to me, appears to make him fit right in with the Walt Disney Company.

Pat Robertson makes no secret about his early life as a faith healer. This, I would guess, has much to do with his repeatedly touted conspiracy theories regarding the pharmaceutical industry as well as his invention of the "New World Order". He's also made many Hitler-like quotes about Protestants. Robertson has claimed that many Protestant dominions, as well as Hindu and Islamic dominions, actually harbor the spirit of the Antichrist. But let us remember this is coming from a man who claims to be able to stop hurricanes with his bare hands.

Robertson has publicly and even violently denounced feminism, liberalism, abortion and homosexuality, which is truly no surprise to any of us. However, many might say Roberson went one step too far when he referred to Ariel Sharon's health problems as acts of God, and he went two steps too far when he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez on his 700 Club program. But again, this is coming from a man who has had ties with Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire and Charles Taylor of Liberia, two world leaders who have repeatedly been condemned by the UN, as well as the rest of the Westernized world, for human rights violations and even war crimes.

Pat Robertson also later obliged a conversation live on his show where he had a discussion with fellow Smiling Atheist Bat Shit award winner, Jerry Falwell, about the attacks of September 11, 2001. Falwell, in this conversation, blamed the ACLU, feminism, paganism, homosexuality and abortion for the attacks, to which, Robertson responded, "I totally concur." So, much like the Westboro Baptist Church, Pat Robertson seems to think the 9/11 attacks were a welcomed act of God. Yeah, yet Bill Maher was fired for telling people to try to understand what happened on that day. But is that anymore ridiculous than when he, on the September 12, 2005 edition of The 700 club, said he felt Hurricane Katrina was an act of God in response to America's views on abortion? And do I really need to repeat an earlier blog about Pat Robertson's insane claim that the Haitian earthquake was the result of a pact made between the Haitians and Satan in order for the Haitian people to gain their freedom from the French?

In the end, it seems that Pat Robertson is a perfect fit for the Disney Corporation. He's an aging bigot with delusions of grandeur and a god-complex, who's theories on life seem to be along the same narcissistic lines of Adolf Hitler himself, both of whom certainly love to quote providence and manifest destiny any chance they can get.

And why not have Pat Robertson on the ABC Family Channel. I mean, as much as I enjoy some of their syndicated programming, I'd be more than willing to sacrifice. Why not also bring in Benny Hinn Ministries? Why not put Pastor Rick Warren on ABC Family? Why not move all programming related to Pat Robertson, Walt Disney and Adolf Hitler onto one channel? Wouldn't it be much easier to avoid these guanopheliacs if they were all on one lockable network? A network that is really easy to block on any cable box, satellite box or DVR system would be the perfect place for all of the country's zealots and criminals. This way, those who for whatever reason enjoy their programming can all be one channel, and the other 85% of the world can be somewhere else. Besides, doesn't keeping them all in a sort of quarantine just make it that much easier to keep an eye on all of them?

So please, ABC Family, in the twilight of your finite existence, I beg of you to round up the herds of sheep and shepherds alike onto your network. Don't worry, you may lose much of your programming because of it, aside from the more soulless and money-grubbing corporate shill shows, but it'll be worth it in the end. Because we all know that televangelists can get a $1,000 donation out of a welfare family, so just imagine how much they could get out of former TX Governor George W. Bush, who will surely watch your network from dusk 'till dawn, and so will all of his supporters, I'm sure.

Thank you for reading, and don't forget to follow me into hell with a smile.

Questions in Genesis

2010-08-20T13:55:00.000-07:00

I recently came across and advertisement of a group called Answers in Genesis. The advertisement was a video of a young, blond haired, blue eyed teenager walking toward the screen, holding a gun and gradually lifting up the gun only to pull the trigger. While he did so, a voice over, and a poor one at that, said, “If God doesn’t care about you, then nobody does.” I was rather shocked at the point of this advertisement, and not to mention disgusted at such a violent message coming from people who claim to be so peaceful.

I looked on to find that this organization was responsible for a billboard in the south which made quite the irrational and demonstrably untrue claims about a country that is known to be the second least religious country on the planet, Sweden.

The billboard read, “Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world. It’s a land of no color where children will kill you for candy.”

Obviously, the first thing I thought was that this had to be a joke. This had to be like my popular Minister Phibes Character, or something like the Landover Baptist Church. There’s no way that someone could say something seriously that I would have had to take a day of comedy writing to think up. Something so absurd I would be comfortable saying in character because there’s no way that anyone could take me seriously. But I’ve come to find out that these people are serious. In fact, it was founded by Creation Museum founder Ken Ham, a famously inaccurate “scientists” who greatly resembles an Amish Pilgrim in crack.

I thought, ‘Well, I know that these people are full of it, but what about people who don’t?’ So, I figured I’d take it upon myself to answer their two claims about the country of Sweden. I’m going to leave out all of the other stuff on their site, because I’ve talked much of it to death. Let’s start with the children killing you for candy.

Sweden is known, by the rational world anyway, as one of the safest countries in the world. Whereas, when there is a gun violence or violent crime problem in Europe, it’s mostly referred to as an American problem. Here’s why. In 2003, there were two homicides per 100,000 residents in the country of Sweden. Since then, in 2009, for example, there was one homicide per almost 200,000 citizens. I’d hardly call that a country where children will kill you for your candy. How about something to compare that number to? How about the second most religious country next to Turkey according to a 2008 Gallup poll? In 2004, the United States had the lowest homicide rate in over thirty years at 4,852 homicides per 100,000 residents. So, tell me again how Sweden is a crime ridden hell hole because it’s a secular, irreligious dump? And did I mention that of all of the homicides in the country of Sweden in 2009, none of which were committed by, or even involved children? That’s sort of a point worth making. In fact, there has not been a homicide involving a child in over five years. In 2005, a child was killed when a couple was held at gunpoint, in case you were wondering where the one five years ago came from. On the other hand, the US has over 1,000 incidents of gun violence involving children every year, including over 500 homicides.

What’s going on here? I thought we were supposed to be the second most religious country in the world? Could it be that more religion maybe isn’t the answer to defeating violent crime? Could it be that there is a direct correlation between the fact that the most irreligious countries have the least amounts of teen pregnancy, violent crime, STDs, murder and suicide than the most religious? Could it be that there’s something to be said for the most irreligious countries being the most prosperous as well? Who knows? Let us continue, eh?

Answers in Genesis claim that Sweden is a “Country without color.” Gee, let me think about this for just a moment. Or rather, let’s compare some numbers, shall we? Although Sweden is the world’s second most irreligious country, it is the home to over 350,000 Muslims of African and Middle Eastern descent, over 50% of which were brought into the country because of Sweden’s generous refugee program. And with Sweden at a small population of 9,219,637 people, this makes the country 3.8% Muslim of African or Middle Eastern descent. Doesn’t sound like much? Well, let’s compare this to the United States. The United States has an overall population of over 310 million people. The US is home to 2.8 million Muslims, which places the percentage at 0.9% Muslim of African or Middle Eastern descent. So, you tell me which country is an all white, racist nation? In fact, to go one step further, the US is home to a population of 80% white people, whereas many of Sweden’s major cities are up to 84% non-white citizens.

So, I guess I don’t get where Answers in Genesis are getting their numbers, or rather, how they’ve managed to skew them so that people actually believe their lies, but the truth is far from what this rampant, radical and violent organization claims to be the truth.

Chicken or the Egg? A: Egg!

2010-07-20T16:54:00.000-07:00

What came first? The chicken or the egg? Well, first thing, this is a non-starter of a question. Did a chicken just magically appear out of nowhere and come from nothing as creationists would suspect? No. Did a Tyrannosaurus just hatch a chicken egg one day as those who don’t quite understand evolution would tell you? No. Neither is true, in fact. The smart ass would say the rooster came first and would be a tad more dead on, but this is not the case either. Let us remember that evolution happens through small, very small gradual changes.

The first eggs appeared long before the first chickens. They didn't contain chickens, of course. But they contained the animals whose descendants would eventually become chickens.

The very first "eggs" were produced by ancient invertebrates that broadcast their gametes into the open ocean where sperm and egg fused to become a zygote (fertilized egg). Later evolution produced species that secreted a protective shell around the zygote, and this little capsule, as simple as it was, could still be considered an egg.

Why do I bring this up? Well, MSNBC has recently published an article claiming they now have scientific proof that the chicken came first. This alleged proof came when “scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg… The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken.”

I wish I could just go on as if we all know why this is stupid, but the high school graduation rates of America state otherwise. So, here’s why this is stupid. This is the equivalent of finding a new mucus cell in the human body that is responsible for tasting less fatty foods and using this as proof that canaries are purple. Or better yet, discovering that unicorns are hollow and using this as proof that leprechauns are made of wood.

Dr. Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University's Department of Engineering Materials said the following, “It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first.”

University of Minnesota Morris professor PZ Myers, author of the science blog Pharyngula pointed it out far more eloquently than I could, “No. What they found was a specific molecule called ovocleidin which is a member of a family of C-type lectin-like proteins. These things are all over the place; they're cell adhesion molecules, some are involved in cell signaling, some function in modulating the immune system and blood clotting pathways. They're even found in snake venoms.”

Basically, we’re looking at a protein that is found in everything from small transparent nematodes all the way to land mammals like humans. The key property of which is to bind calcium. The reason for the miscommunication is that in chickens, this protein has been coopted to regulate the formation of egg shells. The issue is that outside of chickens, this protein isn’t used in egg formation. In fact, even close relatives to chickes utilize completely different proteins to regulate egg shell formation and crystal formation.

And the fact of the matter is that the chickens we see today who use ovocleidin to regulate egg formation are ancestors of a species that used something else. And even that species came from an egg, much like the reptiles before it, and amphibians before that, and the see-going creatures before that who all laid eggs without the use of ovocleidin.

So, in conclusion, MSNBC, you have forfeited your right to call yourself news. And Dr. Colin Freeman, one of two things: 1. If you merely misspoke, then in the future, please try to speak clearly as if talking to a child when talking to the press. 2. If you were serious, you now need to quit your job at Sheffeild University and go work for the Discovery Institute where you belong. Dumb asses!!!

An excerpt from my book, "Unchecked and Unbalanced" that I thought was appropriate today.

2010-07-04T12:59:00.000-07:00

One Nation, Under God, In Whom We Trust

They all claim that they have the truth; they’ll set you free. Just give them money and they’ll set you free—free for a fee.

—Jello Biafra

“One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.”

—Bill Moyers

“As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan notion, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

—John Adams

America was the land of opportunity. It was a country founded by secularists who wished nothing less than liberation from the over taxation of the overtly religious government of England, who persecuted and overtaxed those of other faiths, thus starving, or weeding them out of their system. This liberation was the purpose for the founding of America. This was the reason for the thousands of American and British soldiers who died during the revolutionary war. The objective of the founding of a secular country without religious influence in politics was the delightful inflicted destiny of our founding fathers. But how is it that we, as a country, have become everything from which we fought so hard to be free? How is it that a country of people who wanted to be free to practice or to abstain from religion, became the theocracy in which we live today? Really, does nobody else find it mildly ironic that we’re the only Western country with a clear separation of church and state in our constitution, yet we’re the only Western country ruled by Theocracy?

The founding fathers of this country—all of whom are quoted dissenting against religion on many of occasions—taught insistently against churches, papal government, and the very foundation of organized religion itself. Even Thomas Jefferson wrote a book called The Faith and Moral Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Essentially, this book was a new, more positive biblical text that removed all of the bells and whistles of the original—or in the case of Christianity, the magic and fairytales of the initial text. The book only taught the actual teachings of Jesus, without the lore and other stranger things that have been associated with religion. The point behind the book is to edify the teachings of Christ—love peace and harmony—without the magical stories of the resurrection, immaculate conception, virgin birth, and beliefs that Christianity is the only true way to God.

At the time of the book, there were actually less people attending church than there are today. However, the country had already started to be invaded by religious outsiders who felt that America would be a great home base for their religions, the very ones that the government of England fought against. This would have been fine, except these faiths were just like the ones that America had tried to reject. The Monotheistic and narcissistic beliefs that their faithful understandings were the only proper routes to bliss, and the immoral teachings that killing in the name of God was to be condoned and celebrated.

While these faiths invaded, other types of “cults” were starting to form in the United States. Exclusive and separatist religious cults were spawning everywhere around the eastern sea board, in fact. Cults like the Quakers, Pilgrims, and Amish were conceived on seemingly every corner, passing, or forcing, their religion onto others, “by any means necessary.”

This started to alarm the founding fathers of the country. As the constitution was still relatively new, it was seemingly the best solution to ensure that the religious diversity between the states would be a healthy balance and not turn into a political struggle. James Madison was the first to really see the total solution in front of his eyes, as he constructed the First Amendment to the constitution that would prevent any one of these particular religions from gaining authority over the political realm of their individual governments or over the centralized government as a whole. The concept of the First Amendment would be to ensure that all of these religious institutions would be tolerated to avoid becoming yet another England. They would be tolerated, not because these institutions had individual rights, but because the individuals of the institutions had every right to choose their affiliations, while seeking their secular quest for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The second objective was to make certain that religion not establish power in, or over, government, nor should the government have the ability to establish a national faith. Also, that the people had every right to repudiate any deeds undergone governmentally, and that the right of free speech, necessary to the people’s republic, and the right of the press, necessary to the people’s right to information, should never be impeded upon.

In the beginning, in America, there was no “One nation under god” for the Pledge of Allegiance, there wasn’t even a Pledge of Allegiance to begin with. There was absolutely no bible in the courtroom, nor were there religious commandments on the walls of court houses. There were certainly no religious emblems on US currency, and religion was completely separate form the state after the First Amendment and the Virginia Model, which I’ll elaborate upon later. Many conservatives argue that this isn’t the meaning of the separation of church and state, when in reality, it was. You see, conservatives don’t like to admit that this country was not founded by religious fundamentalist Christians. They like to believe that the current conservative Christian majority in this country is the way it’s always been, because they personally believe that this is the way it ought to be. They would like you to believe that the church and state separation is merely a remnant of soviet propaganda, and that religious plurality, especially with “dirty atheists,” is only a myth concocted by the left. Personal agendas have a way of overriding actual historical evidence, don’t they?

If you were to look at the constitution, you will see no references to God. In fact, all that you’ll see is that religion is mentioned only twice, and those are the reference to religion staying out of politics, and in matters of military affairs and senate meetings. In the declaration of independence, all that you’ll read is that we’re endowed by our “creator” with inherent and inalienable rights. The word creator is used in place of the word God, as a reference that this is a country of freedom of religion and recognition that not everybody believes in God as a Christian concept. The only other reference to God in the declaration is the term “Nature’s God”, in reference to nature itself and the natural laws of the Earth. The exact text reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

If you read this, you’ll not only see the lack of the word God that all of today’s conservative right would like to deny. You’ll also notice the second part of this that most of the Right-wing Christians would like to tell you isn’t there and that is the basic belief that revolution is patriotism. Revolution is the highest form of preservation of one’s country. This is a country that was founded on revolution against religious oppression, and it’s the patriotic duty of all people to stand against religious oppression. And in today’s religious oppressive country, those of us—the majority at 16 percent—who stray away from religion, must constantly deal with the religion of others not just shoved into our face, but even to have it forced upon us.

The New Indoctrination

Children in schools are mandated to recite the pledge of allegiance, which in and of itself is un-American because of the nationalistic properties therein; but within the pledge, children are forced to recite the following:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands, one nation under GOD—indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

As we can see here, America has become yet another theocracy, much like those countries in the middle-east, that the same conservative talk show hosts should revel in. In a country where our highest freedoms are dissent against our national legislation without imprisonment—most of the time—as well as our freedom of religion, this pledge that our children forcibly say on a daily basis, is the highest of abominations against those previously stated freedoms. When one forces a child not only to pledge their allegiance to their country as well as another’s religion, we are violating those very rights that separate America from middle eastern countries. And those separations that distinguish us from openly theocratic countries are those which many of us—outwardly, anyway—would die to protect. So then, why is it that they are tolerated? I’m afraid that I just don’t have an answer. Maybe it’s because there just isn’t justice for all.

Justice is a word that is thrown around as much in politics today, as the word extreme would be in the vernacular of a professional skateboarding competition. And truthfully, it’s become just as meaningless. After all, where is the justice in the fact that there are stone statues of the ten commandments in front of court houses all over in the south? Is it not bad enough that when testifying in a court of law, you are mandated to place your hand on a book of religious faith? A religious faith that only belongs to about 12% of this country is a mandatory and integral part of American court proceedings. “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—so help me, God,” is what is stated in the beginning of a court testimony, while the testifier has his hand placed in the CHRISTIAN bible. What about this says “religious freedom and diversity”? That’s what I’m trying to figure out. And don’t try bringing this up to any sort of right-winger, because if they don’t just flat out tell you to deal with it, they’ll tell you that this is just the way it’s always been, since the right-wing religious pilgrims founded America.

This is what I like to call The New Lie. I call it this because it’s not only new, but it’s completely false. The word The is only there as a preposition. This new lie is what claims that it’s always been like this. That those of us who chose a different route from Christianity have always had to have it shoved in our face, only because this has always been a Christian nation. The lie claims that our churches have always used their tax free money to buy up real state as well as stock and presidents. The lie claims that all other faiths are to be called “new age” because they always have been. The lie claims that courtrooms have always made people swear on the bible and use the word God before testifying. It claims the same for school children, in regards to prayer.

The truth is, as I’ve clearly demonstrated so far, is that this country was not founded on religion, nor was it founded by religious people. And only when it started adopting these overt religious practices, did the violence, turmoil and moral decay of this country begin. Now we’ve become a neo-fascist religious empire, based on the same type of theocracy as Great Britain so many years ago, as well as many middle eastern countries today. If you want to prove this, then why don’t you try something? Why don’t you call your local congressman or congresswoman, and tell him or her that you want to propose removing the term “In God We Trust” from dollar bills and replacing it with “In Allah We Trust”. What would be more fitting, since I’m sure I don’t have to bring up the statistic again, tell your leaders that you want to replace the religious phrase on the dollar with “There Is No God”. I’m sure that will get you laughed right off of the phone. That may actually get you kicked out of the capital building. If you want to have a larger laugh, why don’t you tell your school that you practice the faith of the Flying Spaghetti monster, therefore you must go to school dressed as a pirate every Thursday. Why don’t you ask for a bible other than a Christian one in a Juvenile corrections facility? Why don’t you ask a hotel if they have a free bible of a religion that is child friendly, and has no murder, rape or bloodshed. Why don’t you propose changing the word God to Buddha in the pledge of allegiance. Well, the fact of the matter is that we’re supposed to have freedom of religion as well as a separation of church and state. Therefore, why is it that anything other than a Christian based proposal is so readily laughed off the table. If you look at the actual numbers, the number of Muslims in America is actually higher than Presbyterians, Roman Catholics and Protestants combined. Therefore, this being a democracy, why would it be so ridiculous to propose changing the word God to Allah in those heavily Muslim areas? Do that and you’ll see the Christian Right pull the separation of church and state amendment out of their hands faster than the bible. The same amendment that they would usually claim doesn’t exist.

Proof of this is what I like to call the happening of 2004. A Jr. high school in Ohio experienced great controversy around Christmas time when the teachers of the school decided it would be a good idea to spend a week teaching children about the faiths around the world, and what they practice on Christmas. After all, December twenty-fifth was the birthday of about nine prophets and quite a few gods as well, even a hundred years before the birth of Jesus. And by the way, that date wasn’t even decided upon until about six-hundred years after the bible was written.

The teachers taught the children about the eastern religions and their lore around this time of the year. They taught the children about Islam, Judaism as well as many of the Nordic and Pagan beliefs, and their lore behind their holidays at this time of the year. Over all, it was a good idea and if done properly, could have been an eye opening experience and would have led the children to be more tolerant of other cultures and religions.

The problem started when the kids all drew pictures. They were all given the choice of one of the religions that were discussed during the week long education, and given an assignment to draw a picture with an accompanying story that averaged about one-hundred words a piece. Again, not that bad of an idea. That is, until the parent teacher conferences when a woman by the name of Valerie Sheldon entered the halls of the school and saw something that her eyes just could not believe. She saw not only a picture drawn by a child of a Star of David, but she also saw a picture of a snowy night with a pentacle in the sky, that represented the pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice.

She immediately started to scream and search around for a teacher. When she found the teacher responsible for the course, she interrupted her conference with another child’s parent and immediately started calling the teacher foul names in front of children and threatened to sue her for teaching the children this kind of “blasphemy”. What struck me was when I found out that she headed up a parent organization that had only two years prior, fought to keep a Christian Christmas play in the schools holiday-time proceedings.

The story is that parents of the children who attend this school, were parents of a very progressive part of Ohio. Yeah, there is one. A few of the parents decided that keeping a holiday play in school was just a little too much when the play involved the birth of Jesus and other solely Christian references. They fought to get it out of the school, however Valerie and her heavily religious parent group fought against them, citing that the play was only a holiday play and not only for people of a certain denomination of Christianity. The other group fought back informing her that the problem didn’t lie with the fact that it only appealed to one Christian denomination, but the problem was that it was Christian in the first place and surrounded around Christian mythology, and not historical timeline. Therefore, this play shouldn’t be allowed in school because many of the parents in the school either didn’t want their children exposed to false history and religion, and others practiced other faiths such as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and even a few Wiccan families.

Valerie fired back in outrage claiming that Christianity is hand and hand with history and Jesus is a part of history too, which may or may not be true, more heavily in the maybe not category. Valerie just couldn’t understand that others don’t believe in the same things she does, and attested that they should and that this play would be a good way to educate. The end result came when Valerie threatened to sue the school, and the other parent group did not, and made clear their intention not to bring this into the courtroom. The school sided with the side that threatened to sue, because they knew she would. They left the play in the school, where it remained for a few years, before the music/drama teacher retired and a new one was hired that refused to do a Christian based play.

Now, this same woman who thought it would be wrong to pull Christianity out of school, is throwing a fit because other religions are being discussed in school as well. Now, I’m all for getting religion completely out of school, but this is a woman who fought to keep religion in school in more than one other case. Therefore, purely out of poetic justice, I’m glad that Valerie suddenly knew how it felt. However, the story doesn’t have that happy of an ending. In fact, the three teachers who were involved in the study were fired because the school wanted to avoid another lawsuit, as Valerie had again threatened to sue. Valerie is still a leading fighter of keeping Christianity in school but all other religions out, and even today is involved in a lawsuit against a school in Nevada for teaching the new and radical theory of gravity.

Okay, that last part was a joke, but I could see it being true. After all, I would think she’d be all about going back in time and getting in on some of that sweet Scope’s Trial action. But in truth, this tale illustrates the very core of what the religious right is all about. They’re all for separation of church and state so long as it involves any other religion but Christianity. They just don’t want their children learning about other religions, because then they might have to answer some actual questions about their faith. And if there’s one thing that I’ve learned in the writing of this book, it’s that people don’t like to have their faith questioned, and they will go pretty far out of their way, even to the length of violence, to keep questions away from their faith. I guess that’s because if other people ask them questions about it, they just might have to question it themselves to answer those queries. After all, nothing brings defensiveness to the front lines in a person than to ask them a question to which they don’t know the answer.

As I write this chapter, I’m reading a book called Religious Literacy, by Stephen Prothero, who calls into question the misunderstanding of religion, and blames it on the fact that public schools don’t teach enough about it. I guess what he’s arguing is that public schools should have comparative religion courses, with which I whole heartedly agree. We need remember though, that a comparative religion course is mainly a course on philosophy with small strains of history attached. This should never be taught along side biology or science, as even a Vatican scientist will tell you, “The Bible is not a book of science, it’s a book of faith.” It would make as much sense to teach Mother Goose tales along side anthropology.

However, if the fact that Christianity, as he argues, is only carried out in the manner in which it is because of the lack of education among those who practice it, why is it that parents irrationally flip out whenever the school proposes a comparative religion course? I know that these people are mostly pretty egocentric, but I would think this would solve the problem. Although, they wouldn’t want their children learning that there are many other faiths out there from which to choose, now would they? This might breed a new generation of people who aren’t devout and fanatically obsessed as they are. It brings the defenses up, and nothing can do that like religious discussion.

If you have a problem believing in the defensiveness of religious people whenever a questioning of their beliefs comes to mind, consider the Vatican (outside of their science department, by the way, which has changed much since the time of Galileo). Have you ever tried to interview a person in the Vatican? Or have you ever tried to interview a Catholic, for that matter, about some of the more bizarre beliefs in the religious structure? If you were to ask a Christian why they believe that the world is 6,000 years old, if you were to find a person who even knew what you were talking about, you would not get an answer, you would get, “This interview is over.” This is because none of them really have any kind of scientific data to back this up, they just believe it because they’re told to believe it. And that is the entirety of religion itself. People who are just told to believe something, and after a few years, just believe it because they were told to. And the worse part about this, is that this is how people now perceive politics, because religion has merged into politics. People are told to believe that abortion is bad and that abstinence only education is good, therefore they eventually believe it, instead of looking at the facts and the numbers and deciding for themselves. It seems today that every issue of politics is also an issue of religion. This is the rise of American theocracy.

The Unholy Vote

If the rise of American theocracy isn’t apparent in the previously noted passages, then let this be a literation of the dangerous rise of religion. In 2004, the amount of people who, according to a CNN exit poll, voted for George Bush solely based upon his faith and religious beliefs was an astonishing 24%. What this means is that 24% of the people that voted for the Bush Cheney ticket, did so not because of individual idealism—I’m willing to guess that at least 15 of the 24% would have no idea what Bush’s idealism is, beyond that of his faith—but because of his religious beliefs. This was 10% higher than in 2000, where only 14% of the people who refrained from voting for experienced politicians and went the Bush route, because of his personal faith. In the same election, everyone who said they voted with the lead reason being most of the actual pressing issues in the country at the time—economy, terrorism, war, et cetera—voted for the Kerry Edwards ticket. The fact of the matter is that George Bush won the 2004 elections, and I use the word won very loosely, because of his faith. And boy did his personal faith shine through. After all, George W. Bush was a man who openly claimed that Jesus told him to be president, proclaimed that America was chosen by God to be the greatest land in the world, and turned down seven bills that would have kept us as the scientific and medical innovators of the world, solely based upon his religious beliefs. That percentage would have been enough to avoid the last eight years of economic destruction, as well as religious rule.

Keep in mind that George W. Bush banned stem-cell research because of a promise he had made to the evangelical right during the primaries of 1999 and 2000. He appointed yet another pro-life and heavily right wing conservative to the supreme court due to the same promise. He was the man who attempted to federally banned homosexual marriage, because of his own, and that of the right’s, religious induced homophobia. You must remember that evangelical Christians are people who believe that the violence between Hezbollah and Israel, and for that matter, Palestine and Israel, is a sign of the coming end times foretold by John the Baptist in the book of Revelations. Therefore, why would they want to do anything to stop the violence, they believe that they will all be saved in the end. I made reference earlier to the effect of why people who thought good would come to them at the end of the world would want to do anything to stop it. When you have a president who is a slave to the lobbying arm of the evangelical right, you have a president who feels the same way. It’s no wonder he never let any bills go through to help Americans who were sick and had no health insurance—I would guess him to think, “Why do you wanna be healthy? The sicker you are, the closer you are to being with God in heaven.” And have you ever wondered why it is that it’s always the religious right-wing evangelical groups that are the first to start whispering the endearments of war into the ears of the already war-mongering right wing republican leaders? I wouldn’t think it would be irrational to say that the reason for this is because these people are not only anxiously awaiting Armageddon, but they are trying to rush and hasten the “end times”.

Just after the 2004 election, former 2000 presidential candidate and known Christian activist, Gary Bower wrote this on the fervency of the religious vote this. Probably the most irresponsible piece, and most irreverently written run on sentence in history:

After twenty four years of active political involvement starting with Ronald Reagan in 1980, are America’s political, cultural and media elites really this much in the dark about their fellow Americans who were in church on Sunday, at work on Monday, and at the voting booths on November second? The answer to who we are is, of course, that we are your next-door neighbor, your kid’s teacher and the clerk at the local drug-store.

I decided to do a little research of my own about his statement, and it wasn’t all that pretty. In fact, I found that this was pretty much just hijack journalism from a man who’s trying to sell again, The New Lie. He quoted that the majority of Americans were at church on Sunday, at work on Monday and at the booths on November 2^nd. I’ll pick at this three piece lie just one piece at a time. Were most Americans at church on Sunday? No, in fact the percentage of people who were admitted and avid church goers in 2004 was only slightly less than it is now, at a whopping eleven percent of the country. This does not mean that there aren’t more people who practice religion, it just means that eleven percent claim to be ritual church goers. And of the eleven percent, I have yet to find a statistic that states how many were actually Christians who attend church on Sunday. As we know, members of other faiths attend church or temple or mosque or palace on different days of the week. A general statement, so I won’t pick it apart too much. His second claim was that the majority of Americans were at work on Monday. Well, although the economy was then, what looks like heaven to us now, most Americans had second and sometimes third jobs. As the unemployment rate was still at the time, at an all time high at nine percent nation wide, he was right in saying that most Americans were at work on Monday. Although, a very thin most, and many of them were at work that night too trying to stuff as much overtime in as possible to help pay their mortgage. His third claim was the extraordinary levels of voting that year. Actually, 2004 had the lowest voter turnout in over one-hundred years. And while the stats still show that 24% were there to vote because of George Bush’s religion, of the majority of America who cared about the actual issues more than a person’s belief in dragons, most people actually stayed home, thinking that it was pretty much a lock for their particular candidate.

Evangelists Still Run the Show

However, the problem has not gone away. Many people think that because we have a democratic president again, the religious rule in this country is over. Well, in truth, Barack Obama proved before the primaries even ended that he stood with the religious right, in pandering for the evangelical vote by voting yes on a bill that was a clear violation of the separation of church and state. This bill was one that would fund churches with government money. Well, how exactly can we have a separation of church and state in this country, even so far as the non-taxation of churches, when the government is funding religious institutions? Now, this vote was solely to secure a higher evangelical vote both in the primary and general elections. I guess we’ll see in the future if President Obama continues on the same path as our former president who was nothing more than a slave to the evangelical right. However, that in and of itself is a tribute to the religious influence in this country. That power being the religious vote and the power of religious lobby groups in this country. A country in which almost every religion out there has their own lobby group, even though none of their percentage numbers exceed that of the 16% of the non-religious or atheist population, yet there is no atheist lobbying arm. Why is that? I’ll tell you why. It’s because this is a country in which an open atheist or agnostic has never actually been allowed in an official electoral debate. There has never been an atheist presidential candidate on either leading tickets. There actually have only been two atheist senators in US history, and only one of the two was an open atheist before his election to the senate.

During the Bush administration, we saw the greatest fabricated public outcry of the last millennia. What we saw fabricated was the public outcry against not just gay marriage, but against gays living in civil unions receiving the same tax breaks as straight people who were married legally. This may have just been the most deplorable scene since Lincoln actually convinced a country of people that the Civil War actually had anything to do with slavery, instead of the centralized government’s power over local and state governments. This was probably the biggest example in recent history of how the theocratic government and it’s primitive beliefs caused civil liberties of minorities to be stripped away like said liberties were merely a job title. To the conservative right, they are. And to the conservative right, there is no such thing as circumventing the constitution, because as the religious right illustrated for us during these times, you can’t circumvent something that you can just change.

How is it possible that even the religious backwaters of Alabama were successful in removing the Ten Commandments from their courtroom walls, and stopping a proposed bible-based school curriculum in the same year, when our own federal government seems to be pushing those very things? This is very confusing to me, as the state of Alabama is the most religious state in the union with nine out of every ten people in the state professing to some type of Christian faith. Yet, in the entire country, there are only between eleven and twelve percent of people in the country who profess to practice any type of Christianity. Even less actually attend church, where in Alabama, the entirety of the 90% are fervent church goers.

I think, in truth, it all comes down to power. Even though Alabama is mostly Christian, it seems that the people of the state seem to have more respect for the constitution and for the rights of others than the religious zealots in the federal government. How did we allow this to happen? Stem cell research could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Even Superman’s. But it was shot down because of the religious promises made by George Walker Bush, of which I spoke earlier. But the constitutional banning of gay marriage wasn’t just a matter of improving our own healthcare system, it was a matter of the civil rights of nearly twenty percent of the country.

This plainly happened because the United States federal government managed, with its vast PR campaigning, to convince the American people that allowing homosexuals the same right of straight people, somehow threatened the way of straight, white Christian life. They argued that marriage is only between a man and a woman and should not be allowed to happen between a man and a man because of this. The truth is that marriage may be between a man and a woman in their particular religion, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same way for the rest of us. However, with their Christian leadership and theocratic backing, they managed to legislate a morality that is solely based upon religion. This opens up a pretty nasty can of worms though. In fact, the argument of the United States government at the time was the very Locke-esque version of God’s law. This point was argued in many cases, including the former judge in Alabama who was removed because of his unwillingness to remove the Ten Commandments statue of which I earlier spoke, stated that it would be “frivolous to make a constitutional amendment for a law that god had already passed.” So, I guess the basis of the banning of gay marriage was justified because the bible already spoke against it. The can of worms this opens could be even the question of slavery. The Holy Bible, in many verses and even psalms, condones slavery of one race over another. Does that mean that we should start to take another look at the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, and argue that god’s law condones slavery, therefore the constitution should as well? It seems by this level of thinking, we ought to. Although, being a person of moral fiber, unlike religionists, I would oppose that bill just as fervently.

Amendment the First

Now that we’ve wrapped back around from where we came, let’s look at the other problem with legislating religion-based morality. This problem lies within a certain document that I’ve quoted many of times already in this book, although it seems to be one that the United States federal government seems to have Left Behind faster than the “sinners” in the books of shared name. That document is the constitution. While Bush and Cheney were launching their religious crusade led by homophobia, liberals and civil rights activists everywhere were quoting the first amendment in regards to the fed passing laws respecting establishments of religion. What they didn’t quote was a more important part of this amendment. Let’s take a look back at the first amendment of the constitution and how it actually reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

When we read this passage we see that congress cannot make a law for, OR AGAINST, an establishment of religion. There are over one-hundred federally recognized religions in the US today, and almost 400 unrecognized ones that promote the bond of marriage whether it’s between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman. This seems to be a breech of the contract that we all signed at birth. The contract being that of a United States citizen who is protected by the constitution. As well, the federal government, as well as the supreme court, seems to have breeched that contract the same by passing a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. There was an argument against this that stated in writing:

There are religions in the world that condone murder. Therefore, are we to grant them that right to murder innocent people just because it’s part of the free exercise of religion?[i]

The ironic thing about this is that this is from a letter written to me by a member of the Christian Coalition in 2006, and it seems like he’s talking about his own religion. After all, the only religions that are practiced widely in the US that condone murder for ANY reason at all are Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Even Satanism, which by the way is not an officially accepted religion in the US, does not condone murder for any reason. Therefore, it seems that the representative just incriminated his own faith, probably just a Freudian slip, right? The other issue that I have against this statement is that he was actually comparing the marriage of two homosexual people to murder. That’s right, to murder. How, even in the warped mind of an integrity free, and morally bankrupt Christian, is an act and expression of love between two people, and the act of taking another person’s life, the very same thing? It seems as though the good Christian and the good Coalition has a problem distinguishing between an act of love, devotion and benevolence, from an act of hate and malevolence. In what way are these two things even similar? Until I get an actual response as to why they feel that allowing gays to marry, threatens the way of life the all of straight America, I’m just going to assume the obvious. After all, they can’t answer my questions, they just spin and read the same rhetoric as they would if I were to ask about taxes. The fact of the matter is that banning gay marriage was not only a violation of the first amendment, an act of aggression against the secular and evolved world, an act of religious induced homophobia, and more importantly, an act in violation of the inherent and unalienable rights, of which we are endowed by our “creator”, being life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This act was a violation of liberties and of the pursuit of happiness anyway, although one might argue that life is love and to deny love is to deny life. But that’s just coming from a Beatles fan. After all, all you need is love.

Stripped From the Shelves

The overt religion in the US government today is a clear sign of why we seem to be moving backward as a country. Religion in government is nothing new though, in fact, my first experience of this horrid trend was in 1993. I was at the tender age of 11 for the majority of that year. That was the year that a book called Freedom under Siege: The Impact of Organized Religion on Your Liberty and Your Pocketbook by Madalyn Murray O’Hair was taken off the shelves of my local library. Madalyn’s book, although published in the 1970s was a very innovative new perspective on the Draconian present as well as the decaying future to which we have to look forward, because of the religious influence in politics. Local Christian groups demanded that the library take the books off the shelves as it was abominable and filled with harsh lies about the Christian right. The most ironic part was that just by making this demand, they were proving everything within her book to be completely correct and factual. A vast part of her book was about censorship and the influence of the religious right thereof.

This ordeal scared me to death. As I was at a tender age and was still working on erasing the religious brainwashing damage that my grandfather had perpetrated upon me. I still wasn’t sure how I felt about religion in its organized form. I had been forced to grow up pretty quickly, but I really hadn’t taken a trek into that field of politics. Now I was, however, old enough to know that most of the things the religious right had protested in my life have been things that I had enjoyed for various reasons. So, I knew that I wanted to read this book and find out what all of the chaos was over. That weekend I got my grandmother to take me to a nearby mall close to Minneapolis called North-town Mall. I knew that there was a book store in there and I figured that with all of the controversy over the book, they would have it for certain. It turned out that they didn’t have it. They had stopped carrying it because of the little known controversy around it. The controversy was kept so secure that I later found out that the book’s author didn’t even know it was happening.

This was starting to get scarier. Was this the time of the Roman Inquisitions where the inquisitors were walking around with a copy of the Index Prohibitorum? Was this the times of the Catholic church burning book sellers for carrying copies of books they felt were blasphemous? Was this New York in the time of Anthony Comstock and his great inquisition to remove every book off the shelves that fell in line with his hand written and YMCA doctored obscenity and heresy laws? Was this the time of the freedom hating and liberty stomping NODL and their infamous crusade against “obscene literature and television? Was this the time when our favorite Mississippi reverend couldn’t seem to figure out how to change a station, therefore took a radio station to court causing the supreme court to rule almost unanimously that radio and television were the only areas of United States entertainment that were not protected by the first amendment? Was I there? Had I gone back in time? I mean, it’s not like I didn’t know about censorship. It’s not like I hadn’t done my research on the MPAA and their backwater religious philosophy. However, this was the 90s. How could this type of primitive reasoning and finding bare its ugly face in my time?

The end was not near for censorship. In fact, we see it more and more today. There are more things that you cannot say and do on television today than there were in 1970. Every year, the MPAA along with the FCC—both of which, heavily influenced by religious falsehood—find more and more things that are offensive to a couple of people in the United States, therefore should not be allowed in television and movies. And every year, less and less people watch television and go to the movies. Most people like to blame this on prices, but I really don’t think that’s the case. I firmly believe that more people everyday are watching shows on the internet, not only because of the reduced price and greater variety, but also because of the lack of FCC control. In internet is a paid feature, therefore the FCC cannot, constitutionally, have any authority over the internet. And there are more people not going to movies since in invention of DVD, because DVD gave birth to unrated versions and director’s cuts. Why would you want to go to the movies and pay your hard earned money to see something that barely resembles what the film makers originally intended, because it’s so spliced and torn after the MPAA gets done telling them all of the things that God doesn’t want in movies?

The FCC is almost a more powerful source of anti-freedom sentiment than religion itself. Although, religion and the FCC are basically one in the same in the sense that the decisions made by the FCC always have a moral background that somehow involves religious teachings. Since the Telecommunications act of ’96, the FCC has had all of the power in the world to regulate as they see fit. They have no oversight committee and also have no rules. This means that there are no caps to the dollar values of their fines, and there are also no regulations as to what constitutes a finable offense. The FCC could fine any program on any station for any reason, anytime they want to do it, and that is a “right” that they are not afraid to exercise. For more information on the FCC, see my short entitled “Everybody Fucks ‘An Open Letter to the FCC’”.

The thing that most stands to question here, other than organizations such as the FCC being completely detrimental and antithetic to personal freedom, is why the FCC is allowed to operate in the first place. The FCC in and of itself is a violation of separation of church and state. This was put best in the book I mentioned before having been taken off the shelves of my local library when I was eleven. Freedom under Siege states:

The FCC has even awarded licenses to religious organizations. In 1965 I received from the National Religious Broadcasters their list of stations owned and operated by churches and other religious institutions. There were ninety-four of them, in every state of the union. This raises a vital constitutional question: If the FCC is an instrument for regulating the public airways and one that is set up by an act of congress, can it assign radio wavelengths or television channels—which are public domain—to religious organizations? The first amendment of the constitution states specifically that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Yet a radio or television station owned by a religious organization and using the public airwaves surely represents an “establishment of religion.”

In this passage, the question is raised of just how the federal government could justify the congressionally instituted Federal Communications Commission not just awarding licenses to religious groups, but also having mandated that stations in the 1950s to have a certain amount of religious programs on their stations. There is another concern here as well. This is the concern of the FCC’s rules about broadcast television, not just when it comes to the morality of religion, but also to religion itself. The National Association of Broadcasters’ radio code, section F is as follows:

1. Religious programs shall be presented by responsible individuals, groups and organizations.

2. Radio broadcasting, which reaches men of all creeds simultaneously, shall avoid attacks on religious faiths.

3. Religious programs shall be presented respectfully and without prejudice or ridicule.

4. Religious programs shall place emphasis on religious doctrines of faith and worship.

The FCC, the NAB and individual broadcasting stations, by the way, have held that stations are in no way obligated to give Atheists or other non-religionists any airtime, either free or paid.

This is another clear case of the lack of the separation of church and state in politics. Whereas, the FCC is a federal group with federal power, how exactly can it have the power to institute religious rules over public airwaves without violating the first amendment of this country? How is it that the FCC can mandate that religious programs be offered? At that extent, how is it that one can say that religion must be broadcasted respectfully? This again illustrates that any kind of challenge to a person’s religious belief, even if protected under the first amendment, is completely out of the question. After all, you don’t want to make people think. What’s more is that it seems like any kind of scrutiny of religion is completely out of the question. Some of these rules have changes since they were inducted, but the fight continues any time a person would want to make any reference to religion that is anything but a respectful hailing of God and all of his religious accoutrements. Another order of the FCC is their view on sex.

America has become the most sexually repressive country in the world. It is possible that we would be seconded by some parts of the middle-east. If you were to run down the FCC rules only half a century ago, you would find rules regarding husbands and wives on television that are flabbergasting. These rules ran the gambit between not allowing any sort of alluding to a male and a female even sharing a bed with one another, to any kind of kissing other than just a short peck being completely prohibited. While these rules have calmed as the FCC must have realized that most couples sleep in the same bed and occasionally kiss, the FCC has yet to figure out that men and women do actually fornicate from time to time, and even the most prenatal of lesson, everybody poops. You could find so many rules in the FCC handbook that revolve around a male and a female who are in bed with one another that it’s astonishing. There can be no movement while a couple cuddles, they have to be wearing X amount of clothing articles, et cetera… Well, if you can’t see why this adds to the sexual repression of America, then I don’t think I have a large enough microscope to help you read the writing on the wall. We are decades behind most of the rest of the world, such as Japan, where you can see fornication and full nudity on television at 9:00 in the morning.

The fact of the matter is that the most repressed cultures are always the most violent. Look at the middle-east again for an example. Children are often separated from the opposite sex at birth and not allowed to even interact with them. Can you imagine why the thought of forty virgins in heaven after flying an airplane into a building might sound like an attractive thought? I certainly can. Sexual repression leads to angry people. Bill Maher once said, “If you can show me one suicide bomber, who after death, his friends said, ‘All that man did was fuck, fuck, fuck, and now this,’ then I’ll shut up about sex.”

He’s right. This kind of sexual repression does lead to violence. If you withhold the one thing that all of us share, and that all of us urge for, then you get buildings collapsing and bodies strewn about the streets. And we have that here as well. After all, it’s just now starting to be alright to even have two men or women kiss one another on television. If I were to run down all of the shows that lost most of their sponsors in the “tolerant” nineties, I would account for every show on television that had anything even eluding to a gay couple. Once again, the primitive idealism of one small part of the culture is trying to control the rest of the culture, and force them to swallow their beliefs and morality. Yet I’m being called a hypocrite for writing this book. Well, I do think that you should all keep your opinions to your damn selves. I’m writing a book that you have a choice to read. You can choose to put it down. If I want to choose not to have your beliefs shoved down my throat, I have to apply for citizenship in another county, because America is not a tolerant land for anything except Christians, and the more you repress the more violence you’re going to have.

I quoted Japan earlier—Japan has sex everywhere the eye can see. Forms of legalized prostitution, gambling, porn on their networks and even breasts in their Coke adds, but do you know what the violent crime statistics are in Japan? By populous, about 10% of the crime occurs in Tokyo compared to that of LA or New York. And there are far more people in Tokyo than in either one of those cities. Could that have anything to do with the fact that they’re liberated? Could it have anything to do with the fact that their standards and practices realize that everybody fucks, shits, pisses and even grovels around like a dog at the feet of a gorgeous woman from time to time? Yes, of course these are the reasons. History has shown time and time again, that liberation means more than just being free to express, but it also means freedom from violence. And the culturist, homophobic theocratic US government may never understand that until we fall, along with half of the world, and the only countries left standing are those that run a truly free, liberated and progressive ship. In the end, American Theocracy will surely be the end of “the one last beacon of freedom on this Earth”.

The Motion Picture Ablution of America

One cannot discuss the negative ramifications of the FCC without mentioning its movie counterpart, the MPAA. The Motion Picture Association of America was forged by the religious right as well. This one organization is maybe the worst of the fascist organizations invented by the right, and by those who are seemingly so afraid of their bodies that they don’t want others to enjoy their own or others’. In one year, the MPAA is responsible for the livelihood of thousands of people, and is responsible for much of the sexual repression in this country that has led to much of the violence in our land. Remember, cultures that are the most repressed are most often the most violent. Let’s remember that all of the terrorists in the 9/11 attack were the results of sexual repression. They were all separated from women at birth and told that all women are evil. Then after a life of sexual repression, the promise of 72 virgins in Heaven seems pretty tempting. That’s just one example of how sexual repression ruins our society.

The MPAA does this in a far less direct way. Producers, directors and writers live with the threat throughout the writing and filming process, of their work either not being allowed to be released, thus bankrupting them, or of their work having two letters and two numbers put in front of the title of their movie that will discourage any and all theatres from playing the work—livelihood lost. The organization can also send out the names of theaters that play work they discourage to organize people to protest them—livelihoods lost. More and more people every year, including myself, don’t see movies in theaters because they don’t want to see the MPAA edited version of both the director’s vision, and/or the writer’s initial vision. They want to see the movie unrated and unedited, therefore they wait for the unrated DVD to come out—livelihoods lost. More and more movies are being made every year that are outside the Hollywood system because of the MPAA’s control over the industry—livelihoods lost.

I’m not against the concept of warning people of the content of a product before they pay money to purchase it. What I’m against is an organization that’s just supposed to do that, wielding the power of dictating what people can and cannot place in their movies, how they can advertise them or even what they can call their movies. This is not freedom of speech. The Supreme Court ruled that radio and television were not protected by the First Amendment, which was bad enough, but their exact words were, “Radio and Television are the only things in America that are not protected by the First Amendment.” The word “only” is there for a reason, however, it seems like movies have been somehow included on that. Did you know that if your movie is not sent to the MPAA for a rating, there is under five magazines that can legally advertise your movie, and it cannot be advertised on television, unless the lack of rating is only tentative? It’s true—as the director and creator of Frankenhooker about that one.

The MPAA, like the FCC is attributing to the downfall of the American economy and nobody seems to care. Yes, if there’s sex and gratuitous nudity in a movie, let people know, that way they don’t take their children to see it. However, rating movies and assuming that parents dong’ have the right to raise their children the way they see fit—which is a whole other conversation for another book—is fascism, and so is ordering theaters, indirectly, not to play movies with certain ratings. The organization was put in place to inform people of the content of movies, and that is all it should have legal authority to do. It should not hold a monopoly over the movie industry.

The purification of America is the goal of such organizations, and by purification, I mean sheltering people from “dirty language” and “gratuitous sex.” Guess what, in a free culture, people should have the ability to choose for themselves and distinguish within their own morality, which movies they don’t want to see and which movies they do want to see. Parents want the rest of the world to be forcibly abstained from matters from which they want their own children abstained. Well, the rest of us don’t need to be policed just because parents don’t want the responsibility of raising their own children. If you don’t want that responsibility, then there is an easy way to make sure it’s not weighted onto you—that again is a whole different conversation—although if the Catholics had their way, child birth wouldn’t be a choice. The MPAA is a negative organization and should never have been birthed, but since it has been, we need to find ways to remove it in our own modern day society, lest we fall under the umbrella of complete governmental control and dictatorship.

The Word, Word

There is yet another nuisance out there in the world trying to form a religious history where there was never one. The New Lie can expose many people and their hidden agendas, but what about the people who define the word Agenda? Webster’s seems to fall right in line with both trying to rewrite history in their encyclopedias as well as improperly define words in their own dictionaries. I’ll give you a few examples of this:

PAGAN n. a heathen; a. heathenish idolatrous, -ish a. –ize v.t. to render pagan. –ism n. [L. paganus, a peasant].

We can easily see that Webster’s has taken the word Pagan and changed it to another meaning. A pagan would be a person who practices a pagan religion, whether stemming from the middle-east, Celtic routes or even Nordic. However, Webster’s tries to demonize the meaning of the word and place a negative connotation upon it. Is this any way for a respected and notarized dictionary to behave? Is this in any way, responsible behavior for a trusted source of definition? We can see the New Lie and it’s motivations even more apparent in the Webster’s Encyclopedia. There is a section dedicated to great quotes throughout history, and what is it that you suppose we see when we check the more religious ones. In fact, what we see is flurries of positive quotes regarding religion and not a single negative from any of the famous anti-religious free-thinkers in history. When we check the encyclopedia for quotes regarding atheism, we see even more disturbing quotes. As you may guess, there weren’t a whole lot of quotes in this book from the founding fathers of our country.

RELIGION

Religion is the best armor a man can have but it is the worse cloak.

–Bunyon

I’ve lived long enough to know what I did not at one time believe—that no society can be upheld in happiness and honor without the sentiment of religion.

–La Place

These are just a couple of examples of what lies in the book regarding religion. And what lies in the book regarding atheism. There are only five, and here they are:

Atheism is the result of ignorance and pride; of strong sense and feeble reasoning; of good eating and ill-living. It is the plague of society, the corrupter of manners and the underminer of property.

–Jeremy Collier

There is no being eloquent for atheism. In that exhausted receiver the mind cannot use its wings—the clearest proof that it is out of its element.

–Hare

Atheism is rather in the life than in the heart of man.

–Bacon

No atheist, as such, can be a true friend, an affectionate relation, or a loyal subject.

–Bentley

By night, an atheist half believes in God.

–Young

Now, these are all pretty strong statements, especially the one by Dr. Bentley. Now I wonder why the good people at Webster’s decided not to put any quotes in here regarding atheism that might look positively upon an atheist. You know, from people like H.D. Thoreau, or Isaac Newton, Freud, Neitchzke, Ginsberg, Adams, Jefferson, Rogers, Cummings, Verne, Wilde, Washington, or Blaise Pascal. I’m sure that much of the world would like to see some even ground. Or why wouldn’t they use some of the ways any of the authors I just mentioned have described religion in the past? For the same reason they’ve tended to leave out great quotes form people like Shakespeare in the quote section about God. Much of the quotes are from either the bible or from old Hebrew texts. One wouldn’t want to take a piece of Hamlet and place it into this section, because much of Hamlet was quite anti-religious, mostly to religion in its organized form.

I’m just looking for a little objectiveness here. What is the world to do when we can’t even trust our own dictionaries to be objective and truthful? What are we to do when the New Lie is being perpetrated even by the most trusted name in dictionaries? What are we to do when our history books and encyclopedias start resembling the Holy Bible more and more every year? I would think there would be some public rage or outcry, but nobody seems to care. Again, the effects of the Theo-glitch and the New Lie are prevalent. Here, people are just believing whatever they’re reading, thusly, they seem to think this is normal. They seem to think that Webster’s is still a trusted source of information, when it’s clearly not. In this book, there are many quotes from very prominent people in our history regarding religion and atheism, and wouldn’t you know that the reality again seems to conflict with the reality presented by those involved in the grand scheme to falsify our religious history. This is a blatant attempt to falsify information, as well as provide only one perspective of the truth, thus relieving any sense of objectivity.

Final Summation:

If only the founding fathers of America could see the country now. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Edison, John Adams, George Washington, Mason, Brant, John, Paul, George Ringo, yada, yada, yada. Their hearts, if not their pacemakers, would stop in a heartbeat. They would look upon the country, especially Capitol Hill, in shock, awe and dismay. There would be no rational thought in their head as to how things could have gotten like this. They would all think to themselves that, “this is everything that we spent our lives trying to make sure we didn’t see in America,” and “What about the Virginia Model did you guys not understand? What about the First Amendment did you not understand? What about the Declaration of Independence did you not understand? What about Article VI did you not understand?”

These are legitimate questions. No matter how many outward justifications that are given for the theocratic decisions that have been made over the last forty years or so, the truth remains: just because a decision is covered by a veil of shallow logic, does not mean that there isn’t religion underneath it. Whether or not a fetus has a soul is a matter of theological discussion, and has no place in federal courtrooms or in Congress. Whether or not the bible is clear on marriage only being between a man and a woman, is a matter for late night restaurant discussion, not the House of Representatives. Whether or not And the next time we have media coverage of another Bosnia crisis, or a crisis anywhere near the Balkans, how about we don’t use euphemisms like “Croat” and “Serb” while only mentioning religion when it pertains to Muslims; and actually confess that the violence is being caused by Catholic extremists and Orthodox Christians. What would happen then? What would happen if the veil of media quarantine were to be lifted from the United States, and people actually had to question why people of their own faiths in other countries were committing the same violence that they had been throughout the 2,000 year history of the faiths that they probably have no concept of? Oh no, people might have to question their faith, and namely its place in politics, because there is no greater example in our contemporary times of what happens when religion pokes its head into politics, let alone, becomes open theocracy, than the Middle East. One can argue this by saying that their faith is better than that one and would create a better world. Well, you’re not considering that the West’s three major faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) are all descendent of a common literary ancestor, and that is the old testament, and the only actual differences in the faiths are the stories (or sides of the stories) they tell regarding kings, queens wars and prophets, and the names they use. There is not a one of them that does not condone the kind of radicalism that we see in the Middle East today. To kill in the name of god is to be Holy in these faiths, and don’t forget that Hinduism is right there with them in that effect, no matter how many deluded people want to argue that it’s a peaceful and tranquil faith. If Hinduism is a peaceful and tranquil faith, then Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime was secular and westernized, and George W. Bush was a bipartisan, unilateral reformer with results.

There is no place for religion in politics unless we want to become just like those “evil” Middle Eastern countries that we all allegedly hate. Well, one must really look deep into the history of the Middle East to see where all the violence is coming from, because to say that all the violence in that region of the world is Muslim based, is a statement as radical as the violence itself. I don’t favor one religion over another, and never will, as I see them all as a negative influence and probably the greatest of all inhibitors of human progress, but one must really ask themselves why all of the Muslim extremist groups say that what they’re doing is an act of defense and self-preservation. Sure, I don’t usually associate religionists, especially radical ones, as honest people, but you really have to wonder if they all could be lying. The Muslims in the Bosnia crisis, for the most part, were guilty of nothing more than were the Christians or the Catholics involved in the crisis. And when this type of violence is going on, you need to take a look at the religious leaders who bother to talk about it. One side or the other, the majority of the time, they condone the violence going on. And on the rare occasion that they don’t condone the violence, what they’re doing is protesting the war from a humanist standpoint, not a religious one. What does that tell you? After 9/11, the first statements issued from either side of the argument were religious statements. One side said, “The thousands who died are in heaven,” and the other said, “Those who acted in the name of God are now in heaven.” There could be no logical justification regarding the US and its use of Middle Eastern soldiers in the Cold War, or the CIA-led training of military extremists in the Middle East in the name of the conquering progress of the United States, or the use of Muslims in the Bay of Pigs invasion, or US military bases on Muslim holy land, or the fact that the US was funding horrific Middle Eastern regimes, including the Taliban, for up to four months before 9/11, or the US sold missiles to Saddam Hussein who used them on Sunni countries in acts of horrible terrorism and war. None of this was mentioned after the attacks, if it were, it was only as an afterthought. Those who say that 9/11 was not an attack of religious fundamentalism are deluding themselves, and truthfully, I think the Religious Wrong actually invented half of the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 just so that people wouldn’t actually have to call religion into question—if you question one, you really have to question them all.

No more religion in politics or no more religion at all. I refuse to live under the Taliban, and that’s where we’re headed if the people in Chapter Two have their way. The words of John Lennon must be called upon again, “Imagine…and no religion too.”

[i] From the Christian Coalition of Minnesota, writer unnamed, the document was only signed by a generic printing of the founder, or chairperson’s signature, received on November, 17 2006

Five Steps to Overcoming Creationism!

2010-06-14T13:15:00.000-07:00

I've decided to do a blog in video form this week, because it's just that much more fun. Enjoy!

Don't forget to follow and suggest to your friends if you like the blog. Visit some of my sponsors as well. Thanks for smiling and profiling right into hell with me. I'll enjoy the company!