Caipirinha and new friends

I tried a new drink last night at a party held at the Renaissance hotel in Suzhou, Caipirinha, the national cocktail of Brazil. It's made from Cachaca, sugar and lemon. It's delicious but packs a heavyweight punch. I only had one. My friends drank several... to their peril. The Cachaca was 60% alcohol by volume, which made it impossibly strong, but the sugar hid the alcohol content so it went down easy. I watched as several of my friends slipped into an alcohol induced daze. I decided to stick to my scotch. We were at a social event, it was best to not get fall down drunk.

I met a Brit while watching a cute floor show (Think 6 year old girl doing modern dance). As the night wore on and our tongues loosened, he said the inevitable line, "You don't seem like a typical American." I had to laugh. I hear it all the time. He was referring to my quiet and friendly disposition in a backhanded aren't-all-Americans-assholes kind of way. I let it pass not wanting to stir up trouble in such a nice social setting. He went on to comment on our religiosity. He mentioned that most Brit's were not religious but tend toward atheist or agnostic, or just not interested. He talked about American fundamentalism and the rise of the religious right. He talked at me for a long time before stopping to ask if he had offended me. I told him no, and added that I was a rare American atheist, well not so rare now a days as there seems to be more of us every day. He commented on the American atheist movement and on how vibrant our online blogging community was. He mentioned reading the Friendly Atheist and Atheist Revolution. I bought him a drink at that point and then told him I write an Atheist themed blog called Deep Thoughts. He looked at me strangely for a few seconds and then said, "Are you Mojoey?" When I said "yes" he jumped up and gave me a big man hug. It is such a small world. It turns out he's been a reader for five years. We've corresponded. How weird is that?

His last comment to me… "You're not kidding about being a big friendly guy…" Ha! we are all big and friendly when you have your beer goggles on!

Technorati Tags: ,,

292. Harry Nilsson

Harry Nilsson is sort of a cross between John Lennon and Bob Dylan in my mind, I fell in love with his brilliant song “Don’t Forget Me” through the brilliant  Neko Case’s version—but more on her in the late autumn.  I’m also, embarrassingly enough, a sucker for the film “You’ve Got Mail”, so I opted to include his lovely version of “Over The Rainbow” which ends the film and for which there’s a lovely little tribute video I found .

Your Thoughts?


Filed under: Film, Music, Music Videos, Videos Tagged: "Everybody's Talkin'", "One", "You've Got Mail", Don't Forget Me, Harry Nilsson, Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks

Maybe if I pee on the VLA radio telescope, Jodie Foster will love me!

I just watched the movie Contact for the first time since I saw it in the theater, and, wow, what a turd-burger. I'm sorry, but I'm giving a lecture tomorrow (well, tomorrow by the time you read this) about the novel, but there is nobody in that movie who is not bad. I understand the changes that a fan must suffer through in order to see their favorite books translated to the screen. I went through 12 stages of grief when they put Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide on the big screen and they put Arthur and Trillian in a relationship. But this Palmer Joss and Ellie Arroway made me barf a little. Oh, and all of the acting was nightmarish. Nobody looked good.

But, I did have a moment of nostalgia during the movie. They seem to have filmed at the Very Large Array radio telescope in Socorro, NM. I once peed on that telescope. True story. Well, not on the telescope itself, but one of the things about having a line of radio telescope dishes is that you increase the wavelength that the telescope can detect. (I don't know if they ever went through with the plan to coordinate radio telescopes globally so that we had an earth-sized dish, but you get the idea.) So, if you want to imagine that the dish of the telescope is really whatever is along the diameter of the array of scopes, my peeing on the ground put me well inside that dish.



But I really had to go.

Oh, apparently the Very Long Baseline Array is a real thing. I've peed on that one many times too.


Hey, don't you judge me. I drove a long way to see the VLA, and they put it in the middle of this huge basin with mountains all the way around and not a place to piss for miles. Also, I have a bladder the size of a peanut, as anyone who was at the Atlanta Skeptics Meetup last week can testify to.

At any rate, I must cut this short. I have class in the morning and need to get my 5 hours of sleep. Also, I have to pee.

HJ

Census

I got my census form in the mail today.  And as such, I was required to re-watch this:





Possibly my favorite SNL sketch of recent memory.

"Don't push your politics on me, pal!"


Humanist Symposium # 51

Head over to wongablog and check out the latest edition of the Humanist Symposium.

– the chaplain


Filed under: announcements/news

Banging in the Nails for Jesus

The Lemon Test and the Pledge. First or Second Prong?

In reading through the opinion on Newdow vs. Rio Linda, I note that I have a significantly different tact on the issue of 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance than that which is commonly taken. This difference can be understood in the application of the Lemon Test - a commonly used (but controversial) way of evaluating the constitutionality of a statute involving religion.

Under the Lemon test, to be constitutional (1) the challenged governmental action must have a secular purpose; (2) 'its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion'; and (3) it 'must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The Court quickly goes through two of these prongs. It quickly asserts that the relevant statutes do not create an excessive government entanglement with religion. It then, in one quick paragraph, asserts that the principle or primary effect of the Pledge is neither to advance nor inhibit religion. Thus, it passes quickly over the second and third prongs of the Lemon test.

Finally, it settles down to address what it considers the core issue:

Next, we turn to the hotly contested issue in this case, whether Congress' purpose of enacting the Pledge of Allegiance was predominantly patriotic or religious.

First, my objections have nothing to do with whether Congress' purpose for enacting the Pledge was predominantly patriotic or religious. My interest and my arguments concern the issue that the court glosses over with scarcely a comment - that the effect of the pledge is to advance theism and inhibit atheism.

Specifically, I argue that the effect of adding 'under God' to the pledge is substantially the same as the effect we could expect to find if congress added the word 'white' to the Pledge of Allegiance to create a pledge to 'one white nation'. In just the same way that we can expect the latter amendment to have the effect of expressing and promoting racial bigotry, we can expect the amendment actually made to have the effect of expressing and promoting religious bigotry.

I have pointed out that we see this effect in the fact that the Pledge and the Motto contribute to a social filter that is 99.9% effective at keeping open and honest atheists out of public office. We see it in polls where substantial majority express the attitude that atheists do not share American values and are the types of people they would least want their child to marry. We see it in polls whereby a majority of Americans declare that they would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist candidate and where politicians state that we need common-sense judges who realize that our rights come from God and who will appoint no other type of candidate.

While I hold that it is absolutely absurd to try to argue that a congress passed a law to have children pledge allegiance to 'one white nation' without having any racist intent or purpose to that law, ultimately the question of the intent or purpose of the legislators is of little interest.

If a legislator intends a racist result but proposes methods that are not effect, they are as much concern to me as the person who intends to rob a ban by teleporting by thought the money out of the vault and onto his kitchen table. Such a person is pathetic, not dangerous.

At the same time, even if the intent of a particular piece of legislation were not to promote racism and bigotry, but that was a dominant effect, I would argue that this alone provides good reason to challenge and, ultimately, to remove that law.

Don't get me wrong - the person who intends but fails to rob a bank, like the person who intends but fails to promote racism and bigotry, are not morally neutral people. They are evil, and deserve our moral condemnation. However, in deciding which of the many things that deserve condemnation we should focus on this week, those that cause genuine harm deserve more attention than those who are foolish and ineffective.

And if legislation is shown to unintentionally promote racism and bigotry, it is still the case that all people of good intention would turn their attention against this law as soon as these effects are made known.

Well, it is or should be known that effect of adding 'under God' to the Pledge would have on those who do not believe in God are likely the same as the effect of adding 'white' to the pledge would have on those who are not white. Furthermore, since these effects are prejudicial and discriminatory and of a type that the constitution, the law, and good moral conscience would condemn, it is something that any good person would seek to change.

Except, as I said, it is as laughable to believe that those who added 'under God' and who defend it are as ignorant of its bigoted content and effects as it would be to suggest that 'white' could be added to the Pledge by people who were not already strongly racist. So the question of how such a discover would play out on the conscience of a person of good moral character is rendered moot at the outset.

My brain would melt

I have a prior engagement so I'll be missing this one, fortunately: it's a rally in Minnesota on 7 April featuring Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin. In the same place and the same time. It will be like an intellectual black hole.

Read the comments on this post...

My remaining plans to conquer Australia

I'm holed up in a hotel room, writing, writing, and writing some more, only emerging sporadically to see a little Australian sun and get a little exercise, and also to exercise my brain a bit. A few things are going on here in Melbourne.

I wish I could attend this panel discussion on the "Science and God: Incompatible?", just because it's stacked with Christian apologists who will no doubt be annoyingly superficial, and because it was the topic of my lecture at the GAC (my answer: yes. Incompatible, irreconcilable, and dear sweet baby Jebus, keep your superstitions away from the grownups). It's at the St James Conference Centre, 12 Batman St, West Melbourne, tonight at 8.

I'm skipping it, though, because I'd rather attend a lecture by Craig Venter tonight, at 6 in the Melbourne Convention Center. Evidence-based reasoning always wins over old farts exercising in wishful thinking in a church.

And tomorrow afternoon, Thursday, I'm going to try and drop in on the University of Melbourne Secular Society's dissection of creationism and specifically of Ray Comfort's bad introduction to the Origin. That's at 1:00 in Theatre 4, the Alan Gilbert Building.

I'm spending my weekend in Canberra, and I will be giving a talk to Skeptics in the Pub at 12:00 on Saturday, in King O'Malley's Irish Pub, 131 City Walk. I haven't quite decided what I'll be talking about yet, though — I'll probably sort that out on the plane on Friday.

Read the comments on this post...

Is the US Tea Party movement Libertarian?

It's a good question. They seem to want to limit the size and scope of government but, and its a huge BUT, they resemble too much the kind of Republicans that were just booted out of Washington last year. The Tea Party is a hodge-podge of disenchanted voters without a clear direction or director. Check out this libertarian point of view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbjyqKUZBFk


Comment: What Is Religion?

For Australians like most in developed Western countries the traditional symbols come to mind: special places like churches; crucifixes, alters, and other special objects; groups praying and singing; biblical texts and hymn books; special rituals; and priests and ministers preaching. These represent the practices and beliefs we associate with religions or, at least, the ones we see or participate. On further reflection or after overseas travel we realise the narrowness of these conceptions. I am reminded on Mencken’s warning about seeking a simple answer to a complex issue as quoted on this page.

Theologians, sociologists, philosophers, anthropologists, biologists, and psychologists have studied religions to identify the illusive essence. Each have, not surprisingly, approached from the perspectives of their disciplines – the theological, social, philosophical, biological, and psychological. 

Here are a few definitions to broaden the thinking:
 
 

“Belief in spiritual beings” Edward Tylor, 1871
 
A propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which is believed to direct and control the course of Nature and of human life.” James Frazer of The Golden Bough fame late nineteenth century.
 

 
a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say apart and forbidden, beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community, called a church, all those who adhere to them.” Émile Durkheim, 1912
 

 
religion is a system of beliefs and behaviours that formulates and answers questions that are important, recurrent, and must be answered.” Susan A. Johnston, The George Washington University, 2009, adapted from Arjun Appadurai. This definition appears in an recommended audio course on the anthropology of religion from the Modern Scholar series at http://audible.com.

 

 From the last definition a religion consists of beliefs and behaviours to varying degrees. We easily forget that Christianity is a very ‘bookish’ religion with an emphasis on correct belief, even from the early days of Christian history. Other religions often emphasise rituals ahead of doctrine. Religion is also a system embedded in culture often with a strong interdependence. For example Christian churches reflected and influenced their surrounding hierarchical political structures during development.
 
Religions not only answer the fundamental questions of life – our purpose, origin, and destination -, but also formulate the questions to be answered, a surprising, though not unreasonable, aspect of this definition.

Finally how does science compare with this definition of religion? Interesting!

Alex McCullie

An Atheist Perspective: The Lesbians and The Catholic Preschool

As an atheist, it’s an interesting challenge to talk about LGBT issues that relate to religion. Often, I feel like I have to wear two different hats when discussing these issues, even though the antagonist never changes. I wrote last month about the invisibility of nonbelievers at Creating Change and throughout the queer movement; the tendency is to try to use religious privilege rather than dismantle it. When discussing LGBT issues, it’s still proper etiquette to respect pander to people’s religious beliefs, acknowledging that even queer people can be religious delusional. It doesn’t matter how absurd the beliefs are nor how anti-gay the religious organization in question is, the movement supports people in their faith is afraid to confront religious organizations with the cold and hard truth of our identities.

So, believe it or not, I actually find myself trying to be tame when these issues come up. I want to be respected as an LGBT activist; in fact, I want to make a living as an advocate, so I walk that fine line. Potential employers and colleagues surely read this site from time to time; how many might think me “unprofessional” because I take the “controversial” perspective that spirituality needs to be challenged instead of reinforced? I wouldn’t say I’ve ever censored myself, but I have definitely bitten my tongue at times (or whatever the comparable blogging metaphor would be).  Today, I thought I would offer a peek at how I really think about these issues when they come up.

You might recall the recent story about a Catholic preschool that kicked out a student for having lesbian parents. It caught my attention, especially when Bill O’Reilly was willing to defend the student and challenged the Church. It was easy to reprimand the Church for this decision, and I went out of my way to make it clear my problem is with the Church, not necessarily all Catholics. This is what I said:

Do I hate all people who identify as Catholic? No. In fact, I really try hard not to hate any people.

Do I think all people who identify as Catholic are accountable for the actions of the Church that they support with their membership and tithing? Yes.

You can distinguish yourself and your beliefs from the Church all you want folks, but if you still leave a dollar in the basket at Mass, you are part of the problem. You are responsible for these actions and attitudes.

The question in the back of my mind this whole time though has been: What’s up with those lesbians sending their kid to a Catholic school? Is it the only nearby option or something? Sure, the Church’s actions are reprehensible, but no one’s surprised by that. The scorpion always stings the turtle; it’s its nature. So why did the couple get themselves into this mess? But, like a “good” activist, I didn’t go there; it’s all about respecting people’s own faith, remember?

Well, today the couple has spoken out about the incident, and I’m ready to call them out on their nonsense. You can read the full press release on Towleroad, but I will just be citing some excerpts. They start by telling us a little bit about their rosy little Colorado life.

We are not activists by nature. You have never seen us at protests or marching in parades. Up until this point, we have taken the typical passive approach of voting for candidates that represent our viewpoints and directing our charitable donations to organizations whose missions we support. We live in a liberal community, where we have always felt safe, comfortable, and accepted.

You know what? Not every gay person needs to be a gay activist. In fact, the ideal is a society in which no one has to be a gay activist. But, the people who currently don’t speak out or take action stand on the shoulders of those who do. It’s nice to see a same-sex couple leading a normal comfortable life, but that is not the reality for many people in this country. I don’t pity this family for their “ignorance is bliss” lifestyle. Much as they might like to pretend, they are not immune to all the bigotry in our society, and the crap they’re dealing with should be a wake-up call that they can’t just ignore the troubles of the world. (Spend too long at the Cabaret and you won’t realize the Nazis are taking over.)  As we’ll see from the rest of the statement, all they care about is getting pity for their own self-destructive decisions.

We went to enroll our oldest child in kindergarten at Sacred Heart of Jesus School, and were told that our children would not be welcome to continue their education there long term because of our sexual orientation. This came as a shock to us because our children had been attending preschool at Sacred Heart for three years.

You read that right. This couple has already been subjecting their children to Catholic doctrine for years and are eager to continue doing so.

We were told that families and students need to uphold church doctrine in order for children to be admitted. We were also told that our children would feel uncomfortable when taught about the “family unit”, and teachers might feel too intimidated by their presence to teach church beliefs.

Ummm… are you surprised? The Catholic Church only has one answer to the question, and they stick to it and dismiss any challenge to it. It’s clearly narrow-minded, and your family clearly doesn’t abide by it. What did you expect?

Regarding the school’s teaching about the ‘family unit’, we are unconcerned. Our children know that their family is different than most. They are well aware that many families have a mom and a dad, and we discuss different family models openly.

Seriously, how blinded by faith do you have to be to condone your kids being taught that their own family is wrong? That’s not the same as being taught about different kinds of families of equal value; that’s being taught values that conflict with the children’s own family structure.

Perhaps our biggest objection to the School’s decision is that we think that it is wrong to punish a child for who the child’s parents are. We do not think that this reflects what Jesus would have done. Jesus said, “bring the children to me.”

Of course he said that. You gotta brainwash the kids before those darn concrete reasoning skills develop! But honestly, I think the parents are just as accountable for this “punishment.” They are the ones forcing their kids to buy into a set of unfounded beliefs that condemn their own moms. That doesn’t confuse a kid: “Hey, hun, you have to fear this God and buy into everything the Church teaches and then he will shower you with love. Oh, but when we die, we’re going to Hell, so even though Catholicism will help you get into Heaven, you’ll never see us again… unless, of course, you turn out to be gay too, because then we can all spend an eternity in Hell together!”

It’s cruelty as far as I’m concerned. That scares a kid.

And it gets worse.

Some have suggested that we enrolled our children at Sacred Heart to make a political point. This could not be further from the truth. We were both born and raised in the Catholic faith. One of us went to Catholic school from preschool through high school, and the other attended a prestigious Catholic University. Our children’s grandmother and aunt were catholic school teachers for many years.

My mom used to say something about if everyone else jumped off a cliff, but here’s the kicker:

Furthermore, our children are Catholics. They have both been baptized, and we take them to church regularly at Sacred Heart. When we were allowed to have our children baptized (as recommended by the 2006 document ‘Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care’), we made a promise to raise our children in the Catholic faith.

No, ladies, they are not. Your children are not Catholics. They are children of Catholic parents. They were baptized without consent, they have been indoctrinated without consent, and they have been labeled without any opportunity to think for themselves or identify themselves. That, as far as I am concerned, is child abuse. Parental rights, my ass. It’s brainwashing and it’s despicable.

Although we do not see eye to eye with the Catholic Church on the issue of gay and lesbian relationships, we value what a Catholic education can offer our children from an academic, religious, and moral standpoint. As parents, our number one priority is and always has been the well-being of our children. We would never intentionally seek to further our own political beliefs at their expense.

I’ve got news for you, ladies. That is exactly what you are doing by forcing Catholicism upon them! You are giving money to an organization that regularly campaigns against your own rights to encourage your children to buy into the same load of homophobic bollocks just because it’s your personal prerogative to have their brainwashing match your own. You’d prefer they contribute to condemning gays and spend their lives fearing Hell. I can’t think of anything more selfish and less considerate for the well-being of your children.

Clearly this is an issue that strikes a nerve for many people. If any good can come out of all of this, perhaps it is getting people thinking and discussing issues of faith and sexual orientation. Our case is not unique. There are many other gay couples who have families and are struggling to reconcile their sexual orientation with their religious beliefs. We do not believe that homosexuality and organized religion need to be mutually exclusive. We have been touched by the outpouring of support from the Sacred Heart community and the community at large. Many of the people who stood up for us publicly did so at some risk to themselves and their families. We are humbled by their courage. We hope that in the future when we witness an injustice, we are brave enough to stand up to it like so many people did for us.

This is exactly what I was talking about at the top of this post. No one in the movement will speak out about this issue by condemning the Church outright, nor will they join me in calling out the lesbian couple at the heart of it. Too much hope is invested in changing the Church from within, regardless of how much damage it does in the meantime. But nooooo, we can’t call the Church out on their absolute bullshit, we just have to recognize that people struggle and support them in their faith. It’s pathetic, and I think it shows just how weak and scared the gay movement continues to be in the face of condemnation by religion. When psychologists condemned us, people lashed out, but religion gets a free ride. It’s wrong.

We never intended consciously for our family to be active gay rights advocates, but by living happy, successful lives it appears that is what we have become. We will continue to raise our children with strong Catholic values and hold faith that through our actions, we are doing our part to create a more loving, inclusive world.

As far as I’m concerned, you ladies are not gay rights advocates. You are spoiled by the comforts you have in your lives and you continue to support an organization both in words and financial contributions that inhibits many of the rest of us from accessing the same privileges. If anything, you are hurting our movement and your own family with your actions. You brought this all upon yourselves by buying into the nonsense of Catholicism and forcing it upon your children.

If anybody else wants to step in and defend this family, go ahead, but they will get no pity or respect from me. They’ve done nothing to deserve it.


A Christian Solution to the Health Care Crisis

Don’t like your current insurance or the proposed government solution to the health care crisis?

NPR’s Jeff Brady has a story on what a group of Evangelical Christians are doing about it: pooling their health costs and paying for each other’s health care.

James Lansberry, the vice president of Samaritan Ministries, says the concept is simple. First there’s a $170 annual fee to cover Samaritan’s administrative costs. His nonprofit group then compiles members’ health care bills and tells its 14,000 households where to send their monthly checks.

“The money doesn’t get received at our central office — it goes directly from one family to another,” Lansberry says. “So each month I send my monthly share of $285 directly to another family.”

There are some rules, of course:

You have to be Christian. And your Pastor has to sign off on that.

No money will be used to pay for an abortion. (What about in the case of ectopic pregnancies? I can’t find that information.)

If you got a sexually transmitted disease from outside your marriage, you’re out of luck.

And, in exchange, there’s no guarantee you’ll get paid.

Here’s a visual guide to how it works:

Just to be clear, this is not an insurance plan. If you’re on this, you’re foregoing insurance and relying on the gifts of others to cover your needs. And those gifts may not be there when you need them the most.

The guidelines also seem sketchy (PDF). They won’t cover a variety of special needs:

11. Mental Illness — Expenses from treating mental illness are not publishable, including bills for mental, emotional, spiritual, psychological or psychiatric tests, or treatment.

12. ADD, ADHD and SPD — Psychotropic medication, to treat chemical imbalances not demonstrable by lab tests, for Attention Deficit Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Sensory Processing Disorder and similar disorders are not publishable.

Meanwhile, if there’s any problem you have with them, you waive your right to ever take them to court.

I don’t get why anyone would want to buy into this system. It just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

As many problems as the insurance industry has, Samaritan doesn’t seem to provide the fixes. It just isolates these Christians even more from other people — just like Jesus would have wanted? — and only offers hope that your needs will be met. (Isn’t it precisely the kind of “socialized medicine” conservative Christians have been railing against?)

I’m sure those of you with more knowledge about health care can weigh in more on the benefits/problems with this sort of system.

(Thanks to Tina for the link)

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

periodic table of science fiction


click pic to source
print purchase-able at topatco
via io9

the white mountain



on vimeo
via cosmic variance

EDIT: i replaced the video with its extended version.

A Facebook Challenge to the Christian Faithful

A challenge has been issued to Christians worldwide via Facebook. Posters hope Christians will see the inconsistency in their beliefs. This challenge is a failure, and here’s why.

78% of Americans claim to be Christian…Then why are you supporting wars (Matthew 5:38-42, Luke 6:27-31)? Why are you not fighting day in and day out to turn America into a socialist or communist society (Matthew 19:21-24, Luke 14:33, Acts 2:44-45)? Which is it; Are you Christians, or are you capitalists? You cannot be both according to Jesus (Matthew 6:24).

What the heck is he talking about?

Then why are you supporting wars (Matthew 5:38-42, Luke 6:27-31)?

Matthew 5:38-42

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

The person who believes this has anything to do with wars isn’t very familiar with the Bible.

“Turning the other cheek” does not mean accepting violence. It is a demand to be treated as an equal:

Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek Of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but. in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days’ penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and, if one did, the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.

Giving not only your coat but your cloak is intended to degrade one’s creditors.

Why then does Jesus counsel them to give over their inner garment as well? This would mean stripping off all their clothing and marching out of court stark naked! Put yourself in the debtor’s place; imagine the chuckles this saying must have evoked. There stands the creditor, beet-red with embarrassment, your outer garment in one hand, your underwear in the other. You have suddenly turned the tables on him.

Likewise, being compelled to go a mile and going two has specific relevance to the time. Roman soldiers were legally permitted to compel non-citizens (like Jews) to carry their belongings for one mile, but no longer. Going a second mile would put the soldier in danger of punishment.

Sorry, these verses are not relevant to the challenge, and have nothing to do with war. ((Luke 6:27-31 repeats the same content.)

Why are you not fighting day in and day out to turn America into a socialist or communist society (Matthew 19:21-24, Luke 14:33, Acts 2:44-45)?

Matthew 19:21-24:

21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Our challenger forgets the next two verses:

25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Many of us have heard that “the eye of the needle” was a narrow gate near Jerusalem. However, there’s no evidence that it existed. The point of this passage is that the love of material possessions interferes with one’s proper focus, eternal servitude to God.

It has nothing to do with “a communist or socialist nation”, forcing people to give up their possessions against their will.

Luke 14:33:

33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Again, this is about forsaking (being willing to give up) material possessions, not about redistributing them in the name of “equality”.

Acts 2:44-45:

44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

The fact that apostles formed a commune does not relate to a commandment to form a communist nation.

Which is it; Are you Christians, or are you capitalists? You cannot be both according to Jesus (Matthew 6:24).

Matthew 6:24

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Again, this is about the relationship of man to material possessions and God. Does the challenger think that socialists don’t love money? That communists don’t love their material possessions?

There is no commandment here to support a particular economic system.

This challenge to Christians fails. The author does not understand the Bible verses he quotes, and does not present a single real challenge.

Let’s collaborate. Let’s establish a series of challenges based in accurate use of Scripture, to demonstrate to Christians how their views are inconsistent with the Bible.

Leave your ideas in the comments, or discuss in the discussion forum!

Related posts:

  1. Coloradan Follows God’s Law, Executes Nonbeliever Co-Workers Derik Bonestroo, a lift operator at Eldora Mountain Resort (a...
  2. Finally! A “Keep the Christ in . . .” Facebook Group Worth Joining Imagine my surprise checking things out on Facebook and discovering...
  3. Join us on Facebook! Come join the Paliban discussion group on Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=44072369183 Also,...


Atheists Deface City Buses In Detroit

Whoops. That should read “Theists Deface City Buses In Detroit.”

Atheist Bus Ad in Detroit

Atheist Bus Ad in Detroit

http://goo.gl/EcIm

Theists love to argue that you can’t be good with out god. Apparently that doesn’t extend to private property and city buses.

Person or persons unknown tore off a portion of a bus ad sponsored by the Detroit Area Coalition of Reason, which read in its entirety: “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” The part that was removed was the “Don’t.”

Far from being outraged by this, I’m absolutely loving it!

How better to demonstrate a point than by letting your opponent do it for you? Most people who travel the bus line are probably already aware of what it should say, so they’re not likely to peg atheists for the vandalism. The “millions are good without god” message should be next.

And the free advertisement and attention that atheism and the Detroit CoR gets in return couldn’t have been purchased at a cheaper rate!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Quote of the Day: Natural Hierarchies

opposable thumbs
Image by lucianvenutian via Flickr

Hold on guys and gals. This is a big’un.

A Redditor asks:

I just think back to my earliest times of hanging out with friends, organizing baseball games, and working on group projects, and the utility and convenience of creating hierarchies seems like a part of the “natural order”

And another responds:

The hierarchies you speak of are, in many ways biological. Packing orders of other primates (baboons for example) also have hierarchical social systems. This doesn’t mean that they are desirable or unavoidable.

There are many natural symbiotic systems (bees and flowers for example) which are purely cooperative, with no top-down, pyramid hierarchies. They are complex systems and each entity needs to maximize it’s own natural abilities to take advantage of the others’ but in taking advantage of one another, neither entity is put at a disadvantage.

Even in primate packs there are no artificial governing rules that the individuals follow, they evolve naturally based on genetic predispositions of strength and intellect as well as factors like age and sex.

But one of the major evolutionary stepping stones on the way to becoming homo sapiens sapiens was the evolved ability of homo erectus so-called beta pack members to band together and form units that were, through strength in numbers, able to overpower individual alpha male “rulers” to form egalitarian hunter-gatherer communities that could successfully fend of warring packs and hunt large mammals without aid of alpha males or single centralized leadership.

This particular trait percipitated many evolutionary milestones in communication and technology. Coordinated hunts, for instance, require linguistic ability which in turn breeds technological advances.

That is not to say they didn’t have leadership or complex social structures it’s just that the responsibilities of leadership were divided amongst many and the social structures naturally evolved from that. This made homo erectus one of the most successful and long-lived species of hominid of all time, as well as, gave rise to the most successful branch of the homo genus and the entire Animalia kingdom – modern day humans.

And while modern day humans retain the tendency for hierarchical packing orders inherited from primate orders that are still visible today, that tendency is, in fact, a primitive feature, like the opposable thumb.

Cooperation and egalitarianism are derived, advanced features, like the opposable pinky.

This a very succint explanation of what people like Engels was writing about in the Origins of the Family. This is a very good explanation on why humans have a far greater attunement with cooperation and egalitarianism than we have with hierarchies and competition, even though for some (not all) of our closest cousins, this is not the case.

Note: I’m confused about the use of the opposable thumb and pinky and I’ve left a comment for clarification.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Insightful? Funny? Informative? Spot On? Helpful?


Other similar posts you might also enjoy: This Human Nature | Free Markets are libertarian but libertarianism is not the Free Markets | Unwillingness to understand the Anarchist “opposition to authority”