Beyond Belief

Science... Look into it... and for God's sake do it right!

2011-09-26T15:34:00.002-05:00

A posting on the RD.NET site today linked me to a study finding that Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling. In it the experimentors conducted a test, which included the following:

Shenhav and his colleagues investigated that question in a series of studies. In the first, 882 American adults answered online surveys about their belief in God. Next, the participants took a three-question math test with questions such as, "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?"
The intuitive answer to that question is 10 cents, since most people's first impulse is to knock $1 off the total. But people who use "reflective" reasoning to question their first impulse are more likely to get the correct answer: 5 cents.

Note that the "intuitive" answer is WRONG.
In fact, calling it an "intuitive" answer doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong. It's a guess, based on faulty logic and an inability to reason. Period. I will grant that different people have different levels of the "ability to reason," or "to read instructions." But it is a category error of epic proportions to call these failings intuition.

So that was all that bothered me, right? (Oh... you haven't been reading me long enough if you thought this was over.) Toward the end of the article the authors of the study opine, "vis a vis some unhippily empirical comment made by me,"**

"It's not that one way is better than the other," study researcher David Rand of Harvard said in a statement. "Intuitions are important and reflection is important, and you want some balance of the two. Where you are on that spectrum affects how you come out in terms of belief in God."

WHAT!! It's not that one way is better than the other? It sure as hell is, unless you enjoy losing 22% on every transaction you engage in! (That's my intuitive sense of how far off the original answer was. hmm, what do you know... it's wrong too!)

When someone starts sneaking intuition into a discussion, it almost surely is as a trump card to reason, the same way "faith" is used. "Oh well, I can feel my back pressed firmly to the wall, time to use my get out of jail free card and claim that "You just don't understand spirituality and intuition."

** Quote by Tim Minchin, in Storm... a 9 minute, relentless takedown of similar "bullshit" argumentative tactics as those on display by this Harvard Professor.

The Scarlet Letter!

2011-08-15T22:55:00.000-05:00

It is becoming increasingly common for damaged companies to rebrand themselves. Nothing particularly new there, but the number of companies moving to the letter "A" is interesting.

Is an "A" brand a way out of negative, or pejorative opinion? Novell has been bought out by "AttachMate." Philip Morris became "Altria", to shed the stench of tobacco. GMAC became "Ally Bank." And Arthur Andersen became "Accenture." Even psychotropic drugs carry names like "Abilify"

Can't atheists do the same thing and adopt an "A" brand?

The Five Mistakes Most Catholics Make -- Simplified to 1

2011-07-22T09:35:00.000-05:00

Driving the the airport, I found my rental car had pre-programmed radio settings for the "Eternal Word Network." A Catholic radio station. The host was interviewing Gary Zimak of "Following The Truth", who was pontificating about his "reversion" to Catholicism, and his new book on the five mistakes Catholics make.

Listening closely, they all amounted to one thing: According to Gary, the biggest mistake a Catholic can make is to think for him/her self. His list of five essential activities to overcome the mistakes are a compendium of synonyms for "abase thyself", bow to authority, and don't think... ask the Church.

The SINGLE mistake Catholics make at this point, is to continue to invest their whole selves (and money) into a political organization that has covered up pedophilia systematically, as a policy... and doing so by abandoning critical thinking.

Go See Tim Minchin

2011-06-21T22:30:00.001-05:00

About 8 months ago a friend introduced me to a few YouTube videos by Tim Minchin. Within the next couple of months I became quite a fan and swore to go see him if he came anywhere within a two state radius of me. Damn the luck, he came to Chicago!!

June 14th I caught his opening show of the "Just For Laughs" festival, and it was so far above and beyond worth the $25 per ticket we spent to see him. What an evening. Minchin is a mix of Elton John, Gilbert and Sullivan, David Bowie, Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, and Tom Lehrer... but better.

I am apparently not alone in my assessment: The woman sitting next to me had flown in from Israel to see all 5 of Tim's Chicago shows.

When he finally breaks HUGE in America (probably with his musical "Matilda") the throngs to see him will be difficult to overcome. Catch him now while he is remotely "unknown" and the tickets are wonderfully cheap!!

And if you live where he is not appearing, soak up every second of his material on YouTube. Great stuff, and too many excellent songs to bother putting a "favorite" list together. Enjoy!

Too many coincidences?

2011-05-31T08:57:00.001-05:00

So, I'm reading the latest posting by Sam Harris, at www.samharris.org. "Morality Without 'Free Will'" is the title, and look at the number of Facebook likes.

It just seems a little TOO lucky. :-)

Great Day in Oregon, for the Visible and the Existent!

2011-05-26T15:13:00.001-05:00

So sanity in a governing body can prevail? The Oregon Senate's passage of a bill making death by faith healing a subject for first degree murder prosecution is a dim spot of hope in a legal landscape increasingly covered in faith. The decision fits in with an earlier post of mine that society can/does/must limit religious practices, all the time. I particularly liked the rationale for extending the law.

It is designed to apply rules equally to all parents whose children die because they didn’t get medical care. Current law makes it tougher to convict parents who do not provide a child with medical care for religious reasons than those who don’t for reasons such as neglect.

To paraphrase Delos Banning McKown, "Neglect and faith healing look very much alike."

Halloween Horrors

2010-11-01T16:38:00.000-05:00

There's always one wackaloon in my neighborhood handing out Christian tracts. This year's is especially lovely. A $1-Billion bill, with the "Billion Dollar Question" on its reverse side: "Are you going to Hell?" Of course it also tells you the only way to avoid it is to read and obey the Bible.

Brought to you by Ray "BananaMan" Comfort, and Living Waters Ministry.
A great gift for kids! Anyone else suffer this kind of silliness and want to share?

The Power (and abuse ) of Precedent: Inconceivable!

2010-10-22T11:22:00.001-05:00

In an article on the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s work to stop prayer being broadcast over loudspeakers at a Tennessee high school’s football games, a parent responds in defense of the practice:

But parent Jim Rogers, whose son Jason is manager of the football team at East Hamilton School, said he believes public Christian prayer falls under his free speech rights.

“Our country was founded on the principle of religious suffrage and the freedom to express that religion. They incorporated God into our money, the oath of office, our legal system, the Pledge of Allegiance. You cannot find one aspect of our secular government that doesn’t make reference to our creator,” he said.

“Founded on.” In deference to Inigo Montoya, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

The founders did not incorporate god in our money. The first appearance of “In God We Trust” is 1861. It got there by the act of Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, founder of nothing.

The national motto was changed from E Pluribus Unum (From many, One) to “In God We Trust” in the mid 1950’s as a part of the “Red Scare” response to “godless Communism” that also injected “Under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance.

So Help Me God is not an official part of the Presidential Oath of Office.

It is one thing to argue from facts, and another to argue from ignorant beliefs that have been foisted on you by people with an agenda. All you have to do is repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth, and the incremental precedents set in all of these small cases, build up to a group of brainwashed Christians actively seeking to designate America a Christian Nation.

Alternatively, you could do a little fact checking and find truth of another person's assertions, rather than simply repeating falsehoods that support the position you wish were true.

When the supreme court rules that “ceremonial deism” or “God inserted to the pledge” is done primarily for secular reasons and has little or no effect on the establishment of religion, I would argue: Incremental rulings and insertions of God into the secular public square prop up the lunacy and fallacious arguments of people like parent Jim Rogers.

And that’s just inconceivable!

"..no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust"

2010-10-20T10:24:00.008-05:00

Over at Religion Clause there is discussion of a very heated exchange between Kentucky State Attorney General Jack Conway and Libertarian/Republican candidate for Senate Ron Paul, over the nature of Paul's religious belief.

Conway fired the first shot in this campaign commercial (click to view). IMHO, pretty low on the scum scale for reprehensible campaign tactics, especially the closing line, "Why are so many questions being asked about Rand Paul?" Uh... because you just asked them, perhaps??

Paul replied, indignantly faithfully, in his own commercial (click to view). He's got good writers. He pulls on many Christian heart-strings/themes in this ad. Paul "holds Christ in his heart;" has a wife and kids (straight, married); accuses opponent of "bearing false witness" (commandment allusions, always good.)

Then, in a debate on October 17, both sides furthered their positions. In what could be viewed as a rhetorical master-stroke, Paul recalls the Army/McCarthy hearings, asking Conway, "Have you no decency? Have you no shame?"

Both sides are completely wrong, and their responses speak to the desperate need for an alternative approach to these injections of faith in the election process. Each man is attacking the other's faith, but no one is attacking the injection of faith into the process.

There are two critical problems to address here:

1) What is an effective approach to the Conway's of the world who inject "faith" as a legitimate campaign question... a de-facto religious test, designed explicitly to ask people to base their votes on the degree to which a candidate is "one of us?" Certainly a candidate doing this is not the same as the federal government having a "religious test" for office, but it has the same effect. What tactic can successfully rebut this shameless injection of religion into politics?

2) On the other hand, Paul asserts that anyone who ridicules another's faith is completely beyond the pale. This, too, needs to be successfully rebutted. There is no reason whatsoever why, if a person is injecting their faith into the defense of their candidacy, or as a justification for it, that critics should not be able to rail on them about the intermingling of "faith" and politics OR call them to account for specifics of how that faith might influence their legislation.

Two of my key assumptions about what one "should" or "should not" do in a campaign have been violated:
1. Don't bring faith/religion into politics, because as an elected representative you must serve in a secular government, legislating for the faith-neutral rights of ALL citizens.
2. Don't assert that certain topics are off limits for discussion simply because they relate to your faith, ESPECIALLY if you feel it is acceptable to bring your faith into your campaign as a positive support for your candidacy. You must take the good with the bad. Do not call, as Paul did, anyone who questions another man's faith a practitioner of gutter politics.
How can we effectively rebut the religious trump card asserted by paul in this debate excerpt?

Beyond the candidates, how can we STOP idiot moderators from asking, as if it were a legitimate question, "Let's be clear... do you think he's a Good Christian?" See 1:19 mark in this link.

If we take this specific case as microcosm, and look back at the "Compassion Forum" held during the Obama campaign in 2008 (among other instances), we can see there is a larger pattern in elections across the U.S. to inject a religious test during the campaign process. For our democracy, and for individual candidates, I ask you to come up with the most effective rebuttal you can. Let's help eliminate religious tests from the campaign trail.

How would you reply to someone who questioned your fitness for office because of your non-belief (or belief in a minority God)?
How would you most effectively call an opponent on the carpet who begins to use his faith as support for his candidacy?
How would you reply to the moderator's inappropriate question?

"Heah Comes da Big One, Lizbeth!"

2010-09-28T11:32:00.001-05:00

With all due apologies to Redd Foxx for the title, a case is making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court that will effectively either preserve the Constitution, or kill it.
The case of "Newdow v Roberts" has been blocked in the DC Court on a "standing" issue. To ease the legalese, "standing" questions ask, "Do the people bringing the case have a pot to piss in?" The DC Circuit court said, effectively, "Not if the President is taking the action, because even if you sue the underlings implementing the action and stop THEM, the president is free to choose others willing to do his bidding." That is, the DC Circuit Court has effectively ruled that the President is above the law.

You can read the 90 page writ of Certiorari for full details, but the challenge right now is this: Will the conservative majority admit that 200 years of precedent argue for reversing this DC Circuit ruling? One might ask, "Why in God's name wouldn't they?" You would have answered your own question , because it's "God's name" that the actual case is about... and if they reverse THIS ruling, they will open the door for a re-hearing of other similar cases recently dismissed by the Supreme Court on tortured "standing" rulings. These include cases asking if the government is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment: in using the phrase "In God We Trust" on money, "Under God" in the pledge of Allegiance, "So Help Me God" in the Presidential oath of office? Is the President violating the Establishment clause by creating The Office of Faith Based Initiatives? Is the Presidential declaration of a "National Day of Prayer" a violation (See FFRF v. Obama)?

The Supreme Court is loathe to lick the frozen flag pole that is "separation of Church and State" even when the likes of Newdow and the FFRF repeatedly triple-dog-dare them to do so. Spurned by "standing" issues repeatedly, Newdow is now going directly after this arcane bit of obfuscation and DARING the Supreme Court to ignore itself and uphold the lower court ruling.

So this gets VERY interesting: The particular ruling is about a case (Newdow v. Roberts) that just happens to be challenging the inclusion of God in American government... something the conservative majority seems to want very much, judging by its use of "standing" technicalities in so many religion based cases. However, the ramifications of upholding the DC Circuit Court's decision is that it gives the President carte-blanche to do anything, with no right of review for the same reasons of "redressibility" brought up in Newdow v. Roberts. If not overturned, the president will have no restrictions on his actions, not even constitutional, legal precedent.

Stay tuned...America will live or die by the result... because when the President does not have to answer to anyone for his actions, we no longer have a government with checks and balances. We have a rotating King-ship.

We are Agents of Choice, if Nothing Else

2010-09-26T22:14:00.001-05:00

I saw the story of Mike Celizic on Pharyngula and went on to read the article linked there.

It impressed on me more that we are agents of conscious choice, and that if there is one thing that the religious attempt to strip away, it is the right to choose what we will do with our own lives. Mike's choice to forego treatment is a powerful, affirming decision by the one person with a claim on his life: himself.

A more choice-centered world would not necessarily be any less contentious, but the struggles over morality and law will have shifted for the better. We will be arguing as a society about how to mitigate or avoid the abuses that COULD be made in a world where choice is ceded to each person, rather than fighting over assertions that individuals don't have the right to make such choices as abortion, euthanasia, using birth control, etc.

More thinking and clarification to come, but my recent work on links between belief and action make it very clear that the one thing we do have is the ability to make choices. That ability should be fostered and sharpened, not restricted by superstition.

Molly Norris is Hiding... and so are you.

2010-09-22T10:21:00.003-05:00

Molly Norris of Seattle is in hiding. Why should you care, you ask? Allow me to incite you to concern.
Molly drew a cartoon deeming May 20, 2010 the first annual “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” Her poster offends some Muslims. She is in hiding because she is receiving death threats from some Offended Muslims Supporting Violence As A Response (OMSVAARs). I must set up this clumsy acronym because I hold out hope that a violent, retaliatory ideal is not held by ALL Muslims, and thus only an OMSVAAR will take offense at the acronym. This should also put to lie any cries of “Islamophobe!”… No, I am an open OMSVAARophobe. OMSVAARs feel that violence in “defense” of Islam, or in response to “offense,” is an appropriate reaction to another human’s free expression. OMSVAARs believe Islam must be physically, violently protected from pictures, words, and dissenting opinion.

Molly is in hiding because history has shown us two things: OMSVAARs are serious, and secondly, recent events show that Western societies will not defend the right of Free Speech…either by protesting incursions at the UN, or by prosecuting OMSVAARian incitement to violence or death threats over “offensive” words. She needs our help.

A little history lesson first: Her poster protested Comedy Central’s decision to pull an episode of South Park because…wait for it… some OMSVAARs threatened violence because they claimed the images and ideas portrayed offended them. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone produced their two “Mohammed” episodes (including a censored or disguised “Mohammed”) in reaction to OMSVAARian rage aimed at Kurt Westergaard, who drew a cartoon in 2005 and has been under death threat and police protection since. Segments of the Muslim world rioted over Westergaard’s cartoon. There was violence worldwide, 139 people were killed, and there was a loud and consistent call for violence against Westergaard and the other cartoonists. Virtually every Western media outlet bowed to the OMSVAAR threat, and would not publish the cartoons. Comedy Central’s response to South Park continues this ignoble and cowardly response to OMSVAAR threats. (“OMSVAAR” is growing on me, especially in support of Westergaard… what with the Danish sound and double “A”).

Westergaard drew his cartoon to express the idea that there is, for some Muslims, a direct connection between Islam and violence. Essentially, he pictorially said, “There are OMSVAAR’s” It is an opinion; it is an image. Supporting his opinion, among other events over the years, was the murder of Theo Van Gogh, by a Muslim offended by a short film Van Gogh produced, called “Submission.” The brief movie, released in 2004, expresses the opinions of Van Gogh and (at that time) Dutch Parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that women are treated poorly in Islamic societies as a result of specific Koranic verses. For using his creative voice, Van Gogh was shot in the streets of Amsterdam, his throat slit, and then (for good measure) was stabbed in the chest. The knife used held down a note (note translation here) that effectively said, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you’re next. Either “Wish for DEATH or else keep quiet ...and sit....”

I could continue the recitation of this ancestral list of Molly Norris’ OMSVAARian fatwa, but I hope the point is made: The threats to Molly are not new or isolated.

Meanwhile, in 2009 at the UN, the Organization of the Islamic Conference successfully pushed through a resolution making any “offense” of religion a human rights violation. Who will decide what can be said about any religion? The average OMSVAAR will hold this resolution as justification of his position. “Silence, or else, because your words violate my human rights!”

Where was I?….Oh yes: Molly Norris is in hiding and you should care, because her story is microcosm of a concerted global push by OMSVAAR’s to enshrine…either by law or by fear… their perversely asserted “right” to violently respond to whatever they claim offends them. It is no less than a push to end Free Speech. Our response will make all the difference in the world.

While we wait, and try to educate the entire Muslim world to value Free Speech as we do, OMSVAARs advance against our tepid non-response. I can no longer silently, anonymously, hold my breath waiting for someone else to help Molly. I must stand.

The only way we can truly help Molly and demonstrate how much we value Free Speech is to individually, and as a Society, defend it from threats and violent actions.

• Molly, and our First Amendment rights need the help of people like you and me, refusing to allow “offense” to be justification for violence. I stood with her on May 20 and I stand with her now. Join me!

• Molly needs law enforcement to actively prosecute incitement to violence, and not defer to the OMSVAAR’s assertions that expressing a differing opinion is, in itself, incitement to violence. Placing death threats and bounties on people must not be protected by religious immunity. Take local cases to authorities and visibly show resistance!

• Molly needs people like President Barack Obama, and every other world leader, to stand in defense of Free Speech with as much vigor as OMSVAARs stand in defense of their “right” to threaten to kill you for speaking. Advocate with your representatives, so they will stand and leverage their positions for good!

• Most importantly, Molly and all of us need ordinary, “run-o-the-mill” Muslims to stand up in defense of Free Speech and say, “I am offended at your actions; I disagree with your opinions, but I am even more enraged by my partners in faith who incite violence or threaten you with death. We will not tolerate such abuses of free expression, especially in the name of Islam.” Any takers?

Take what action you have available to you. Stand with me. We must join in solidarity against intolerant people who threaten or commit violence in the name of defending their faith… from ideas, words, dissent, opinions and pictures.

Molly Norris is in hiding. As long as she is, so is Free Speech… and so are you.

Copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved. (Especially Free Speech)
Robert Schneider

Kathleen Parker: You had me at "Dear Muslim world"... but then...

2010-09-14T07:54:00.001-05:00

Kathleen Parker, Washington Post opinion columnist, wrote a nice piece on the 12th of September that ALMOST had me cheering. Unfortunately, she veered onto dangerous turf right at the end. In trying to walk the walk and confront ideas that I think worsen our position vis-a-vis the Muslim world and our freedom, I wrote the following letter to Kathleen. Steal any part of it you want... just share the ideas and let's hopefully make SOME difference
==================
Dear Kathleen,

You were "this" close to a perfect column. If you'll pardon the football analogy, it was like you had taken a kickoff and run back 95 yards... but as you approached the goal line you raised your arms in celebration and fumbled the ball to the other team. Everything... EVERYTHING you wrote, up until your second-to-last paragraph, fully aligns with my position, but when you said this:

"Let's agree to call out and condemn those who would incite riot, whether it's an imam who orders the death of a cartoonist or the preacher who wants to burn another man's holy book."

You have made the fatal flaw of making one man's political speech act (stupid as Jones' proposed act was) equivalent with another person levying a death sentence (or ACTUALLY calling for violence) for expressing an opinion.

As nicely as you expressed the idea that freedom is messy, and sometimes it means being offended, you then back down to the extreme Muslim position that some speech acts are incitement to violence. ("Please, what other recourse do we have? We must kill the blasphemer.")

Surely you see the toxicity of this position? It is the same logic that allowed (perhaps still allows) some men to say, "She wanted to be raped. Look what she was wearing. It's the woman's fault" It is the same logic that justifies the Burqa: Men are so incapable of controlling their lusts that it is the woman's responsibility to save us from our evil desires... by living in a bag... with no freedom."

I can almost hear the Council of Islamic States now (the same ones pushing censorious "religious offense" rules through the UN, in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).. "Sounds like a deal... You give up the right to speak your mind and we won't kill you for it."

I don't know how much hope we have in making progress in this area, but I believe if there is any at all, it is to come out of the Islamic world dropping their insistence that they have a right to violently enforce their beliefs on others who do not share their beliefs. This is territory I won't cede, for I believe that once we give in to terrorist or dictatorial threats over "blasphemy" (as Hitchens would say, "thought crimes") then we have lost the most important tool in our arsenal of freedom.
Sincerely,

An American, Too.

On Burning the Koran: On Blasphemy

2010-09-13T10:34:00.002-05:00

So, September 11th passed without any large-scale idiocy... either from the provocateurs attempting to gain some press coverage by burning Korans, or from reactionary, violent protectors of the Supreme Being's hurt feelings. Ah, but the day was not a total waste. A professor in Australia rolled a couple of joints (grass clippings... no actual drugs) in pages of the Bible and the Koran, to see which smoked better.

You can read the whole story here, but this is my takeaway:

1. An interviewee in the story, one Bishop Putney, says "[Mr Stewart] has caused pain in people and may incite anger in people and I don't think that's ever acceptable...

Re-read that assertion, for herein lies the root of the problem. Putney asserts it is never acceptable to cause anger or pain in people. I disagree. Being offended by others, sometimes to the point of anger, is the price of living in a civilized world where we allow people to express their thoughts and opinions. Further, if the standard of what is acceptable is left to be defined by the listener, there is no end to the absurd claims of attack, abuse, persecution, bigotry, etc. that in actuality are only "someone spoke words, or did acts, that I disagree with."

If you accept the premise that the listener gets to define offense AND that "causing offense" is a punishable action, welcome back to theocracy, blasphemy laws, dictatorship, Inquisition and forced conversions.

2. Putney also says he thinks Stewarts actions will likely give atheism a bad name. Only if you willfully misinterpret his stated intent. The entire point is clearly stated, and it is this: no one has the right to define my response to their holy objects, texts or ideas. Obviously, I do not mean I have a right to destroy other people's property or vandalize temples. That is vandalism, and can/should be punished. You'll note that vandalism is distinct from hurting someone's feelings, however.

In the end, escaping this ever escalating war of religious persecution complexes requires more and more people to stand up and say, "No, you do not have a right to attack or kill someone just because you assert that his/her actions do not live up to your moral code." Allowing this line of excuse for violence is akin to accepting the argument "Of course she deserved to be raped. Look at the clothes she wore that provoked me."

No, No, 1000 times NO!

My campaign? Blasphemy is a victimless crime. Our moral outrage should be directed toward those who believe violent protection of icons, symbols, or holy texts is an appropriate response to criticism of them. I don't really care how much you believe your holy text or prophet is THE ONE TRUTH. I don't have to believe it. I can say I don't believe it. If you attack me over it you should be prosecuted for assault or murder.

PZ Meyers writes a very clear, coherent opinion along the same lines... so if you don't get what I'm saying, try reading his take on this issue.

One for the "Team."

2010-08-12T10:19:00.002-05:00

An article in today's LA Times recounts how the Pope is not accepting the resignation of two bishops implicated in decades of sexual abuse cover up in Ireland. It is infuriating, but not surprising, in light of my "gang" theory of politics and loyalty.

First and foremost, the pope must not cede any sovereignty to a secular government, so the Church continues to fight any prosecution. The Pope will NEVER say, "Here, government, I'm turning over two of my people for you to punish appropriately because I CAN'T do it internally." So the Church continues its external obstruction to civil justice.

Internally, it shows the most loyalty to those who stick by the institution regardless of behavior. The Bishops enter a sham resignation and when the Pope, complicit in this theater of absurd self-protection, denies them. The Bishops can now simply say, "See, we tried to discipline ourselves, but the Pope won't let us." Then the Bishops receive the most ironic "punishment" given the events of the last few decades, as they are shuffled into new ministries with new responsibilities. Oh my, the torture and agony of such brutal punishment!!

The RC Church, via the Pope, is demonstrating remarkable resolve in protecting the political institutions of the Church, in lieu of protecting truth, justice, Christian principle (whatever that means) or the abused members of the institution.

Pathetic!... but par for the course. If you're one of those Catholics staying in the institution to reform it from inside, I invite you to leave this shameful organization and build a life in the company of people actually interested in justice and truth.

Conversational Circuit Breakers

2010-07-29T20:16:00.001-05:00

I'm intrigued by the increase in Republican Islamic fear-mongering, countered by the unwavering and unquestioning opposition of liberal news (yeah, I'm taling to you MSNBC) to ANY critical statements against Islam.

I know... I know... The Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, Gingrich wing doesn't inspire much cooperative dialogue on these issues, but clearly we MUST as a nation be able to discuss the ideas and propositions put forward by various faiths, without having the conversation derailed immediately, before the issue can even be discussed.

It's like shouting "Racism" as soon as someone says anything about an ethnic group. It's like shouting "Anti-semitism" whenever someone critiques Israel's policies in any way. The ideas may or may not be legitimate, but we will never know as long as people are willing to THROW (and be susceptible to) conversational circuit breakers whenever religion is involved in the discussion.

Islam does propagate ideas in the Koran that are antithetical to liberal democracy. Let's debate that.
Christian moderates enable the wackaloons who believe the Bible justifies murdering abortion doctors.
I believe anyone acting to enforce a blasphemy "rule" of their faith should be subject to prosecution in civil courts. Let's hear why you think Blasphemy ought to be enshrined in law, and acts of murder in the name of protecting a deity's reputation are legitimate.
Faith Healing is child abuse.

Let's TALK about the claims. Don't shout "prejudice."

Society CAN restrict religious practices, and it does all the time....

2010-07-27T22:18:00.001-05:00

More and more it is clear that a society CAN and DOES limit religious practices. And it's OK. In fact, in the cases I cite below, the court is acting as a barometer of universal, equal morality, untilted by one's specific indoctrination.

Can a court say that forced sexual intercourse is illegal, even if your "bible" says it's OK? YES, because that's what we as a society have evolved... new rules that trump your Bronze age morality plays.

Religion Clause: New Jersey Appellate Court Says Religious Belief Does Not Excuse Coerced Sex With Wife

Can courts say that it is illegal to kill your daughter in the name of your "faith" when well known medical treatments will resolve the issue?

Wisconsin Couple Kills Daughter while waiting for divine intervention.

This is MAJOR progress in the debate: Courts are regularly overturning absurd claims of "religious immunity," when those claims affect real people in real ways. How about today's other ruling?

You Can't Pray Away a Tumor... no matter what your holy text demands.

We're on our way to a better world.

When Civilizations Collide...Secular law vs. Religious "law"

2010-07-21T10:42:00.001-05:00

As reported on "Religion Clause" today, the leading Sharia law "trustee" in Nigeria is claiming that the religious rights of a man are being violated when the State prosecuted him for marrying a 13 year old.

Now, according to AFP and ThisDay, the Registered Trustees of Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria has filed suit in the Federal High Court seeking a declaration that Yerima's right to privacy and his right to practice his religion have been violated... The suit alleges that the Child Rights Act is unconstitutional because Muslim religious law permits Yerima to marry up to four wives with no restriction on age. The Sharia group's lawyer says that a Muslim may "even marry a child in the womb of her mother."

Polygamist Prisoners

So, a Government has laws that say marrying children is illegal, and a religion has "laws" saying child marriage (and polygamy, and fetal marriage (Fetogamy??)) are just fine. How can such a situation play out? Looking to Utah is instructive, in that its history shows a possible compromise. At the same time, Islam is no 1860's Mormonism.

When the Mormons asserted their religious freedom as a defense for polygamy, the national government fought back with threats serious enough to convince the isolated and localized Mormon community that it was in their long term best interests to have a "revelation" about polygamy. According to this timeline, it took about 44 years (1852-1896) of legislation, arrests and dangling the carrot of Statehood in front of Utah to get them to forever renounce and outlaw polygamy.

So can any "State" bring such pressure to bear on Islam? Dispersed worldwide, numbering over a billion, operating from a "cell" model rather than hierarchical church, and demanding that Sharia be elevated above secular law in every place they emigrate to, I don't see how Islam can be reigned in with the tactics that wiped out polygamy (sort of ) in Utah. Islam operates from a position of strength that the Mormons of the 19th century would have killed for.

Afghani Child Bride

Do we have the strength to stand up and defend our well earned civil rights and legal system? What is the best tactic? I certainly believe that nations must demand that their laws are pre-eminent over specific religious practices. An emigree may not enter a country and insist that his religious practices be accepted, when those very practices have been outlawed in the country he is moving to. (Note: I'm willing to be a little softer on polygamy than on child marriage before the age of consent.)

The case of child brides is identical to the question of blasphemy death-sentence fatwas, or reduced rights of women in court or inheritance, or slavery. If we do not stand and say, "NO! These practices are not allowed here... we've already dealt with and settled those questions." we will be willingly giving up what the crucible of 600 years of religious wars, enlightenment philosophy, revolution, and civilization building has earned us: civil rights, equal justice, secular systems of law, separation of Church and State, and respect for women as equal humans.

Tired of screaming obscenities at my computer.

2010-07-20T13:47:00.001-05:00

Warning: Delayed Posting... This goes back to March.

An article in today's New York Times, about anti-evolutionists trying to gain traction by marrying their crusade in an unholy union with global warming denial (a marriage significantly more disgusting than those these groups normally OPPOSE) shares this bit of Kentucky wisdom with us:

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."

Full Article here.

It's bad enough they keep trying to rehash the "teach the controversy" argument, when the only thing "controversial" about evolution is that they refuse to consider evidence that contradicts their biblical literalism. But now they are basically stooping to argue "teach my faith on ALL subjects I disagree with." Wait, that's too narrow, if you include global warming. It is "teach my faith and politics on all subjects I disagree with."

Beyond that, "human cloning" isn't a theory. (Must not gouge out eyes!!)

From "Inception" to "Inoculation." Looking for ideas.

2010-07-20T11:38:00.001-05:00

Early in Leonardo DiCaprio's new blockbuster, "Inception," he lays down the film's guiding premise: The most infectious pathogen in the world... the one that can do the most damage... is the "idea." Once an idea is planted in a person's head it can take them over. And they WILL spread the idea to others. A powerful enough idea can infect the entire world. It's pretty neat to see the basic concept of Richard Dawkin's "memes" being used in popular culture... it, too, is an "idea" that has caught hold and spread. The concept that ideas are replicating, evolving entities, and only the strong or most infectious survive.

Despite being "Beyond Belief," I believe in the concept of ideas as infectious replicants. Some infect us and are uplifting or empowering. Some become debilitating depressants, dragging us down in circular patterns of self-defeating thought. Some are like white blood cells that defend us from invading counter-memes, and I'll return to this last category in a moment.

In the movie, the main characters are charged with planting an idea in a person's mind in such a way that they believe it is their own, and then act upon it. While making that attempt, they are attacked by "subconscious projections" of the mind of the person in whom they are implanting the idea.

I believe I have the concept for a sequel. "Inoculation" DiCaprio is called out of blissful retirement (thus we learn the end of the original movie, no?) and tasked with designing and implanting an idea in popular consciousness that can defeat the "white-blood" cell defense memes of religious indoctrination.

Inception was easy. DiCaprio only had to overcome subconscious projections (i.e. sneaking suspicions that someone was messing about in the dreamer's mind)... this time DiCaprio faces some of the strongest memes that have evolved over centuries, and which are implanted from birth.

You have to take it on faith... reason is insufficient.
The fool says there is no god.
You gotta have faith! (Damn you George Michael!! A meme AND an ear worm!!)
The Bible (Koran) is the only source of morality, and so is our ultimate moral "Gold Standard" or foundation for making all decisions.
You were created specially by God for some purpose, and if you can't see it, that's a deficiency in you.
Knowledge is sin.
"The Bahble sez don't look outside the Bahble for guidance."

These are only a few of the obvious, circular-reasoning defense mechanisms that protect religious belief from critical thought. Surround them with tribalism and Leo is going to get the snot kicked out of him. I think he will not only have to come up with a "meme" that defeats these rationalizations (and is thus "infectious" across older, indoctrinated people), but he will have to find a way to implant the meme in all minds at a very young age, so that it will co-opt and defeat familial religious indoctrination before it can take a deep, strangler-fig-like grip on the mind. This idea will have to be invisible to the wary home-schooling parents doing everything in their power to mold believing offspring.

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame tried to concoct an anti-religion meme in his book "The Religion War." He came up with, "If God is so smart, why do we fart." I think Leo's character (or perhaps Ellen Page will take the lead in "Inoculation") is going to have to do better. Surely we can do better? I somehow stumbled upon something like an inoculation idea in my life. Apparently I was predisposed to think outside the God-Box, even though heavily indoctrinated into Catholicism, and whatever I caught is not nearly infectious enough. (And let's not forget that, throughout history, people like me who carry the "critical thinking gene" have repeatedly been purged in witch hunts, inquisitions, pogroms, and killing fields. Killing the carriers is a powerful way of inoculating one's beliefs from encroachment. It works for Bird Flu, right? I wonder if any Chinese Chickens were critical thinkers? But I digress...)

Contribute your ideas. What idea could we plant in the public sphere that will worm its way into the minds of the most hardened religious believer and undo the damage of our evolutionary careening toward superstition and God delusions, when we just can't explain or tolerate the life we lead? Should the "Inoculation" meme be a pandemic that immediately wipes out the ability to have superstitious belief, or will it need to be a slow growing, evolutionary thought process?

How about, "If it's too good to be true, it probably is... and that means you, too, God!!" No, not subtle enough. :-) Where is the Inoculation Meme?

Individual Legislators: Nothing more, nothing less.

2010-07-08T16:11:00.000-05:00

I have long followed the growing debate over a pharmacist's right to refuse to fill a prescription on religious/conscientious objection grounds. Washington state has taken the biggest leap yet toward the reality that we are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of individual law-makers.
According to this article, the move by Washington,

"give the plaintiffs in the lawsuit--the owners of Ralph's Thriftway pharmacy and two pharmacists--what they've wanted all along: the right to refuse to stock or dispense Plan B (the so-called "morning after pill") based on their conscientious objection."

Granted, the rule making process isn't complete, so I can't rail FULLY at Washington...yet. But here in a nutshell are the reasons why this is a very, very bad decision that cuts at the root of our ideals of being "a nation of laws, not of people."
1. an individual will now have the right to deny virtually any service or product and merely have to assert conscientious objections.
2. In the case of pharmacists, they are adopting a role not legally theirs. A pharmacist is a gateway... a check and balance against unethical physician actions or perhaps erroneous prescriptions or dosages. It is not the role of the pharmacist to act as anything other than a gateway. Washington is bestowing on pharmacists the power to (effectively) legislate against any medical treatment they individually deem to be wrong.
3. Perhaps the worst part of this decision is that they seem to also be extending "conscientious objection" rights to the owners of the store.

To me, the bottom line is very simple. If you do not stock a drug for reasons that do not have to do with supply and demand, then you should not be allowed to claim (under state license) that you are a pharmacy. We expect certain things from our government entities, and as a license holder, pharmacists are an extension of a state regulation.

The article linked above positions the question as one of Washington "restricting" religious rights. It is clearly not so... the religious person who believes he should not use contraceptives doesn't have to use them. The religious person who believes he shouldn't propagate the spread of Plan B contraceptives doesn't have to maintain his/her pharmacists license.

But the person who wants to be a pharmacist ought to be bound by law to distribute legitimately prescribed, legal pharmaceuticals. The religious right wants the right to act as legislator at every level of society by invoking religious tenets that do not pertain to all citizens. The real harm here is to our society, not to any religious person's "right" to conscientiously object.

On Richard Dawkin's Mind...

2010-07-07T17:33:00.001-05:00

Atheist fame; fleeting, nearly invisible, but perhaps as close to immortalization in the atheist world as this reporter shall come. Richard's "The Blind Watchmaker" contributed to my slow shift away from faith, so he's a part of me. It's about time I was a part of HIM. :-)

This amazing photomosaic is a part of a tribute to Richard Dawkins, and the artist involved used all the avatars of users on the discussion board at RD.net. Pretty slick stuff. Check out the other nice images of Richard, or better yet, read some of his books!

When Life Gives you Lemon Tests...

2010-07-06T10:35:00.000-05:00

Great news, as relayed from the judicial blog "Religion Clause, blasphemy laws in Pennsylvania violate ALL 3 PRONGS of the Lemon Test. (Read more at the link by clicking on "blasphemy")

Now, it is rare that we see such laws enforced in the U.S., but many states still have similar rules on the books. What is important is the strong precedent for explaining why blasphemy laws cannot stand in a democracy that affirms the human right of "free speech," and by extension freedom of/from religion and freedom of thought/conscience.

I can only hope that more such cases will be added to the list of legal buttresses for our most important freedom!

Liberal or Conservative??

2010-04-13T09:57:00.000-05:00

George Will wrote, in a recent column, that the reason conservatism is valid is that "by definition, most new ideas are simply wrong." Statistically, he's correct. But he neglects a corollary... or should I say he adopts an assumption... that puts lie to the "certainty" that conservatism is viable or better: he (and many conservatives) assume that the status quo that has been implemented in any given situation is good or best.

If this were true, we would never evolve. We would not have new models of cars. Granted, the conservative impulse (to drag one's heels to avoid being pulled over a cliff by excited liberals pursuing a far out claim) has its uses. But I think it is essential to be conservative about what one knows works best.

Examples? When I was 8 or 9 years old I saw a TV chef (Chef Tell... "Very eezy, very zimple!!") demonstrate a method for dicing onions. 35 years later I still dice onions using his technique because I haven't found a better one. My grandmother taught me, at age 4, how to wash a counter with a dishrag while ensuring no crumbs hit the floor in the process. I still use that method, because I have not found a better alternative that achieves both goals (washing, and keeping crumbs off the floor) so elegantly.

But at age 43 I read an article in Runner's World magazine that led me to this site. http://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/knots.htm
I now tie my shoes exclusively using "Ian's Knot." There was no good reason to continue using the method I had been taught in kindergarten, and many good reason's to change.

So I guess the summary of this post is that I am a Liberal Conservative... I will preserve that which works well and is justified, and I will seek out improvement and make changes when the existing methods aren't working. NOTHING stands on its tenure only, or on the authority by which it is promoted.

Ten Fidy Stout... Killer beer.

2010-04-01T13:09:00.000-05:00

If you haven't tried this Colorado, canned stout, you are missing out on an amazing experience. Thick, rich, velvet mouth-feel. 9.5 ABV. Good stuff to get schnockered on, and if you remember the 9.5% ABV, you will be able to more easily stomach the price. EAch can packs the wallop of 3 regular beers, so the triple price is "somewhat" justified.

Tasty, tasty!!Look at that COLOR!!