Nicely done. Click the monkeys to see a "Kosher" version of the Religulous trailer.
Monthly Archive for September, 2008
This is simply brilliant. So brilliant I won't even quote it, he deserves the pageviews.
It's about the ADF's Freedom Pulpit (or whatever the crap the stupid scam was called) yesterday, and how it's just a giant stunt for them to get tons of money, whether or not they win.
If it's true, and that's how they actually think, I have to say they're damn clever. Much more so than I would have guessed, given that they're the ADF. But thinking about them in the business of scaring stupid gullible Christians into giving up their money, it's very elucidating. Maybe they don't believe their rhetoric, maybe they know it's a scam...
It would certainly restore some of my faith in humanity. (Restore it because I'd rather people exploit others than actually be idiots.)
It's about the ADF's Freedom Pulpit (or whatever the crap the stupid scam was called) yesterday, and how it's just a giant stunt for them to get tons of money, whether or not they win.
If it's true, and that's how they actually think, I have to say they're damn clever. Much more so than I would have guessed, given that they're the ADF. But thinking about them in the business of scaring stupid gullible Christians into giving up their money, it's very elucidating. Maybe they don't believe their rhetoric, maybe they know it's a scam...
It would certainly restore some of my faith in humanity. (Restore it because I'd rather people exploit others than actually be idiots.)
Here are is a short list of cool and interesting things from exhibition tables:
If you are an atheist and have kids, this is a fascinating new concept. Charlie's Playhouse, http://www.charliesplayhouse.com/, brings the history of evolution to life. All the games and toys are inspired by liberation. They also had a baby outfit with a clever saying, "I was made from Natural Selection". Also, they have a very clever name for the company, see if you can figure out the connection. It stumped me at first, but once I figured it out, thought it was quite genius.
Enlighten the Vote, http://www.enlightenthevote.com, is a strong advocate for the separation of church and state, and seeks to support secularists and constitutionalists alike. They used to be called something else (which escapes my memory at the moment), like Godless Something. But the new name reflects a more alluring and inviting message, that both even believers may support. Not the separation of individuals to God (if you so choose) but the separation of the state imposing religious ideology on a nation.
Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman are coming out with a new book in 2009, How God Changes Your Brain. It's based from a neuroscientist perspective. Interesting note, they were actually conducting a survey of AAI attendees, with various God/Godless questions, and even asked us to draw a PICTURE of God. I drew nothing, but labeled it [This space intentionally left blank], for obvious reasons.
Though not exactly Atheist related, I thought this thing was hilarious. It's a Bill of Rights, made of metal, http://www.securityedition.com. At an airport, when you pass through the metal detectors, it will set them off, resulting in a search. They search you for the metal object, you "Bill of Rights" are taken away, and hopefully your "Bill of Rights" will be given back.
Paul Martin, http://www.aspiringatheist.com, created a folk music atheist inspired album. I was talking to Paul, and we was saying that seeing Greydon Square perform at the last AAI Convention was one of his inspiration to making this album. I really like Track 2, Happy Heathen, here is a sample line:
I wasn't born a Christian,
I wasn't born a Jew,
I wasn't born a Muslim,
I wasn't born Hindu.
I was born free to think,
to question and to reason,
I was born free to think,
I was born a Happy Heathen
This is by no means an all inclusive list, there were tons more cool stuff.
I am going to submit each of these links individually, to see how the atheist spot community votes each up or down.
If you are an atheist and have kids, this is a fascinating new concept. Charlie's Playhouse, http://www.charliesplayhouse.com/, brings the history of evolution to life. All the games and toys are inspired by liberation. They also had a baby outfit with a clever saying, "I was made from Natural Selection". Also, they have a very clever name for the company, see if you can figure out the connection. It stumped me at first, but once I figured it out, thought it was quite genius.
Enlighten the Vote, http://www.enlightenthevote.com, is a strong advocate for the separation of church and state, and seeks to support secularists and constitutionalists alike. They used to be called something else (which escapes my memory at the moment), like Godless Something. But the new name reflects a more alluring and inviting message, that both even believers may support. Not the separation of individuals to God (if you so choose) but the separation of the state imposing religious ideology on a nation.
Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman are coming out with a new book in 2009, How God Changes Your Brain. It's based from a neuroscientist perspective. Interesting note, they were actually conducting a survey of AAI attendees, with various God/Godless questions, and even asked us to draw a PICTURE of God. I drew nothing, but labeled it [This space intentionally left blank], for obvious reasons.
Though not exactly Atheist related, I thought this thing was hilarious. It's a Bill of Rights, made of metal, http://www.securityedition.com. At an airport, when you pass through the metal detectors, it will set them off, resulting in a search. They search you for the metal object, you "Bill of Rights" are taken away, and hopefully your "Bill of Rights" will be given back.Paul Martin, http://www.aspiringatheist.com, created a folk music atheist inspired album. I was talking to Paul, and we was saying that seeing Greydon Square perform at the last AAI Convention was one of his inspiration to making this album. I really like Track 2, Happy Heathen, here is a sample line:
I wasn't born a Christian,
I wasn't born a Jew,
I wasn't born a Muslim,
I wasn't born Hindu.
I was born free to think,
to question and to reason,
I was born free to think,
I was born a Happy Heathen
This is by no means an all inclusive list, there were tons more cool stuff.
I am going to submit each of these links individually, to see how the atheist spot community votes each up or down.
With today's column, E.J. Montini officially surrenders his status as one of the few voices of sanity in that talentless stable of tenth-rate partisan hacks fondly known as the Arizona Repulsive.
Montini writes:
If Montini knew how to use "the Google", it would have taken him less than ten seconds to discover that the Alliance Defense Fund is an extreme-right dominionist group associated with just about all the leading figures of the fundamentalist right, and has been at the forefront of bashing gays and riling up the useful idiots against the nonexistent "War on Christmas" (TM, Faux News). Somehow I don't think too many of its affiliated preachers will be touting Obama today, though of course that's beside the point. The principle is clear: put up (tax payments) or shut up!
Montini looks favorably on the argument that requiring churches to keep out of partisan politics if they want to keep their tax-exempt status is an attack on free speech: "I can't imagine how a pastor could adhere to biblical theology and endorse any political candidate, but they should be allowed to try without fear of losing their tax-exempt status." (Emphasis in original.) I guess Montini is less familiar with another part of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
I can't see why Montini doesn't understand that freedom from tax is not a basic right but a huge special privilege given to religious bodies. Nothing in the Constitution requires it (let alone the many other breaks and exemptions churches routinely get from zoning laws, business licencing requirements, etc. etc.), and it would be perfectly legitimate to tax the churches as long as they are treated equally. But when the churches are freed of the tax burden, everyone else has to take up the slack. Congress may not be establishing a particular religion, but it is supporting religion in general with my tax dollars. This is unacceptable, and doubly so when the churches turn around and violate the minimal and reasonable conditions on this unique privilege granted to them.
The religious-industrial complex is the most profitable one in the US today. Think of the millions of poor saps tithing hard-earned money that they can ill afford to part with, and instead of getting even a word of thanks, they are continually exhorted to tithe harder and even double-tithe. Where does the money go? For gaudy megachurches, lavish mansions, executive jets and other toys for the super-rich religious-right leaders. Read the recent book Falwell Inc. for an example of how these holy-roller parasites live high on the hog by selling snake oil. And they don't pay a penny of tax on this money! But even that isn't enough for them, they want totally untrammelled power and a free rein for their partisan politicking! They want to take from Caesar instead of rendering unto him, and they want to pick their own Caesar in the first place! What jaw-dropping arrogance and hubris.
Montini says: "The restrictions are a farce. Not only because they fly in the face of the Constitution, but also because they don't work." By the same "logic", we shouldn't try to enforce laws against murder because there will always be murders. It's pretty clear who exactly is "flying in the face of the Constitution."
(Comment on this post)
Montini writes:
Would Jesus Christ sport a "Yes We Can" Obama '08 button on his tunic? Or would the Prince of Peace prefer a "Country First" McCain T-shirt?Oh, that's cute. "Christian lawyer" is an oxymoron because everyone knows that lawyers are scumbags while Christians are the very definition of goodness and morality. Gag me...
Your pastor might tell you at church today, shortly before he lets you know which political candidates deserve your vote.
Then, if their prayers are answered, the right politicians will be elected and the reverends will get busted by federal agents.
Today, more than 30 ministers from across the country plan to purposefully violate federal law by endorsing political candidates during their church sermons.
But under a federal law that has existed for more than 50 years, religious organizations cannot engage in political speech while they also accept deductible contributions. If they do, they risk losing their tax-exempt status.
Today's protest is being organized by the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defense Fund, an advocacy group made up of Christian lawyers. (Which sounds like an oxymoron on the scale of "business ethics," "airline food" and "adult male.")
If Montini knew how to use "the Google", it would have taken him less than ten seconds to discover that the Alliance Defense Fund is an extreme-right dominionist group associated with just about all the leading figures of the fundamentalist right, and has been at the forefront of bashing gays and riling up the useful idiots against the nonexistent "War on Christmas" (TM, Faux News). Somehow I don't think too many of its affiliated preachers will be touting Obama today, though of course that's beside the point. The principle is clear: put up (tax payments) or shut up!
Montini looks favorably on the argument that requiring churches to keep out of partisan politics if they want to keep their tax-exempt status is an attack on free speech: "I can't imagine how a pastor could adhere to biblical theology and endorse any political candidate, but they should be allowed to try without fear of losing their tax-exempt status." (Emphasis in original.) I guess Montini is less familiar with another part of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
I can't see why Montini doesn't understand that freedom from tax is not a basic right but a huge special privilege given to religious bodies. Nothing in the Constitution requires it (let alone the many other breaks and exemptions churches routinely get from zoning laws, business licencing requirements, etc. etc.), and it would be perfectly legitimate to tax the churches as long as they are treated equally. But when the churches are freed of the tax burden, everyone else has to take up the slack. Congress may not be establishing a particular religion, but it is supporting religion in general with my tax dollars. This is unacceptable, and doubly so when the churches turn around and violate the minimal and reasonable conditions on this unique privilege granted to them.
The religious-industrial complex is the most profitable one in the US today. Think of the millions of poor saps tithing hard-earned money that they can ill afford to part with, and instead of getting even a word of thanks, they are continually exhorted to tithe harder and even double-tithe. Where does the money go? For gaudy megachurches, lavish mansions, executive jets and other toys for the super-rich religious-right leaders. Read the recent book Falwell Inc. for an example of how these holy-roller parasites live high on the hog by selling snake oil. And they don't pay a penny of tax on this money! But even that isn't enough for them, they want totally untrammelled power and a free rein for their partisan politicking! They want to take from Caesar instead of rendering unto him, and they want to pick their own Caesar in the first place! What jaw-dropping arrogance and hubris.
Montini says: "The restrictions are a farce. Not only because they fly in the face of the Constitution, but also because they don't work." By the same "logic", we shouldn't try to enforce laws against murder because there will always be murders. It's pretty clear who exactly is "flying in the face of the Constitution."
(Comment on this post)
Parents are abandoning teenagers at Nebraska hospitals, in a case of a well intentioned law inspiring unintended results.[Link]
Over the last two weeks, moms or dads have dropped off seven teens at hospitals in the Cornhusker state, indicating they didn't want to care for them any more.
"They were tired of their parenting role," according to Todd Landry of Nebraska's Department of Human and Human Services, quoted in USA Today.
Under a newly implemented law, Nebraska is the only state in the nation to allow parents to leave children of any age at hospitals and request they be taken care of, USA Today notes. So-called "safe haven laws" in other states were designed to protect babies and infants from parental abandonment.
The most eye-popping case in Nebraska occurred Wednesday, when a 34-year-old father deposited nine children ages 1 to 17 at Creighton University Medical Center -- and then walked away.
(Comment on this post)
I haven't had much time to follow the news last week, let alone blog about it. But I did manage to listen to most of the first McCain-Obama debate on my car radio while stuck in a typically horrendous Los Angeles traffic jam. My snap judgment: it was a tie, and therefore Obama won.
What I mean by that is, foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's strong suit and an area where Obama is appallingly weak, naive and inexperienced. Well, McCain did better than I expected, but Obama more than held his own against him. Of course I may have missed some visual clues. I remember hearing that people who listened to the famous Nixon-Kennedy debate on the radio thought that Nixon was the clear winner, but television viewers who saw Nixon sweating and squirming had a very different impression. (Update: It looks like there was indeed a lot of visual subtext that did not work in McCain's favor.)
It certainly seemed to me that McCain sounded like Abe Simpson, his weak, wavering voice suffering from the comparison with Obama's confident tone. And after the hundredth time hearing McCain say "Senator Obama doesn't understand this, Senator Obama doesn't understand that," I wanted to reach through the radio and throttle the condescending old bastard.
Mind you, there were some occasions when Obama should have hit back harder. For example when McCain called him naive for saying that both sides were at fault in the recent Russia-Georgia conflict. Well, both sides were at fault! In particular, Georgia initiated the violence by bombarding the city of Tskhinvali, something you will never learn from the right-wing corporatist media. Nor will you learn that McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, is an agent of the Georgian government and has made almost a million dollars lobbying for them - which turned out to be an excellent investment when they got back a billion dollars from the US taxpayer. The public deserves to know how much McCain's view of the situation has been colored by his advisor's glaring conflict of interest.
Anyway, if you think of the current financial holocaust as a test of the presidential candidates, it's clear that Obama passed with flying colors while McCain flunked abysmally. Obama has been looking presidential, keeping himself informed, talking to all the main players, and calmly but firmly emphasizing the need for principles and accountability in dealing with the crisis.
What has McCain been doing? Running around with his hair on fire, jumping randomly from one stance to its opposite (days after everyone else has reacted), throwing hissy fits and making a lot of noise to grab attention but contributing nothing of substance, foolishly snubbing the media, and pulling desperate gimmicks that were of a kind with his choice (if it really was his, and not Karl Rove's) of Sarah Palin as his running mate. His announcement that he would suspend his campaign and duck out of the first debate was widely seen as fear of facing Obama and an inability to multi-task, rather than the grand statesmanlike gesture he intended it to be. In all, McCain's hysterical and incoherent response to the financial meltdown was a serious blunder which must leave great doubts about his ability to handle similar challenges as president.
Anyway, Obama won the first debate by default, and I confidently predict that the Biden-Palin debate next week will be a train wreck for the rethugs. That woman is so out of her depth, and so blissfully unaware of it, there is no way anyone with the IQ of a sea cucumber would wish her to be in the same time zone as the White House.
After that, it's on to the debates about the economy and domestic policy, and Mr. Keating Five, I've Lost Count Of How Many Houses I Own will have his ass handed to him. Of course, John Kerry wiped the floor with George Bush Junior in the 2004 debates, but the race was still close enough to allow the rethugs to Diebold it and steal a second term for Junior. But it's becoming clearer every day to everyone except the head-up-the-ass true believers that McCain-Palin would be a ghastly choice during the current clusterf*ck of multiple simultaneous crises - crises that were created by the Junior administration's corruption and incompetence, and would only be perpetuated and worsened by McCain.
Knowing the Democratic party's infinite genius for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I get extremely worried and frustrated when I hear people blithely saying that it's going to be a landslide for Obama. Instead of sitting on their asses, they should be out pounding the streets, working night and day, and fighting like hell to make it a landslide. Because anything less, and the 'thugs will steal yet another election! But the good news is that it can be a landslide if we fight hard enough. We can win and we must win!
See you next weekend!
(Comment on this post)
What I mean by that is, foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's strong suit and an area where Obama is appallingly weak, naive and inexperienced. Well, McCain did better than I expected, but Obama more than held his own against him. Of course I may have missed some visual clues. I remember hearing that people who listened to the famous Nixon-Kennedy debate on the radio thought that Nixon was the clear winner, but television viewers who saw Nixon sweating and squirming had a very different impression. (Update: It looks like there was indeed a lot of visual subtext that did not work in McCain's favor.)
It certainly seemed to me that McCain sounded like Abe Simpson, his weak, wavering voice suffering from the comparison with Obama's confident tone. And after the hundredth time hearing McCain say "Senator Obama doesn't understand this, Senator Obama doesn't understand that," I wanted to reach through the radio and throttle the condescending old bastard.
Mind you, there were some occasions when Obama should have hit back harder. For example when McCain called him naive for saying that both sides were at fault in the recent Russia-Georgia conflict. Well, both sides were at fault! In particular, Georgia initiated the violence by bombarding the city of Tskhinvali, something you will never learn from the right-wing corporatist media. Nor will you learn that McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, is an agent of the Georgian government and has made almost a million dollars lobbying for them - which turned out to be an excellent investment when they got back a billion dollars from the US taxpayer. The public deserves to know how much McCain's view of the situation has been colored by his advisor's glaring conflict of interest.
Anyway, if you think of the current financial holocaust as a test of the presidential candidates, it's clear that Obama passed with flying colors while McCain flunked abysmally. Obama has been looking presidential, keeping himself informed, talking to all the main players, and calmly but firmly emphasizing the need for principles and accountability in dealing with the crisis.
What has McCain been doing? Running around with his hair on fire, jumping randomly from one stance to its opposite (days after everyone else has reacted), throwing hissy fits and making a lot of noise to grab attention but contributing nothing of substance, foolishly snubbing the media, and pulling desperate gimmicks that were of a kind with his choice (if it really was his, and not Karl Rove's) of Sarah Palin as his running mate. His announcement that he would suspend his campaign and duck out of the first debate was widely seen as fear of facing Obama and an inability to multi-task, rather than the grand statesmanlike gesture he intended it to be. In all, McCain's hysterical and incoherent response to the financial meltdown was a serious blunder which must leave great doubts about his ability to handle similar challenges as president.
Anyway, Obama won the first debate by default, and I confidently predict that the Biden-Palin debate next week will be a train wreck for the rethugs. That woman is so out of her depth, and so blissfully unaware of it, there is no way anyone with the IQ of a sea cucumber would wish her to be in the same time zone as the White House.
After that, it's on to the debates about the economy and domestic policy, and Mr. Keating Five, I've Lost Count Of How Many Houses I Own will have his ass handed to him. Of course, John Kerry wiped the floor with George Bush Junior in the 2004 debates, but the race was still close enough to allow the rethugs to Diebold it and steal a second term for Junior. But it's becoming clearer every day to everyone except the head-up-the-ass true believers that McCain-Palin would be a ghastly choice during the current clusterf*ck of multiple simultaneous crises - crises that were created by the Junior administration's corruption and incompetence, and would only be perpetuated and worsened by McCain.
Knowing the Democratic party's infinite genius for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I get extremely worried and frustrated when I hear people blithely saying that it's going to be a landslide for Obama. Instead of sitting on their asses, they should be out pounding the streets, working night and day, and fighting like hell to make it a landslide. Because anything less, and the 'thugs will steal yet another election! But the good news is that it can be a landslide if we fight hard enough. We can win and we must win!
See you next weekend!
(Comment on this post)
9:00 p.m.
Jim Lehrer greets the audience and explains the rules of the debate. Basically, he will ask questions and the candidates will then be free to talk about anything they choose in response. They lose points if they actually refer to the question posed. Obama and McCain step to their respective podiums. Jim Lehrer calls out “Hey, Exterminator, where are you?” The Exterminator enters with a mouthful of Good ‘n’ Plenty and says “Mffff mfffnfm mffn.”
9:01 p.m.:
Lehrer asks about the financial recovery plan. Both Obama and McCain are for and against it. The Exterminator pledges to help Main Street through this crisis, and also gives a shout-out to Elm Street, Oak Street, and Chestnut Drive. He reaches into his back pocket, pulls out his wallet, and shows the audience its contents: $5.67 and a snapshot of his cat who died in 1983. When asked to explain, he offers to split his funds with the American people and urges Obama and McCain to show “What’s in your wallet?” When neither of the other candidates take him up on his magnanimous offer, he looks at Lehrer through a piece of Saran Wrap and says “I’m for transparency.”
9:07 p.m.:
Lehrer urges the candidates to talk to one another about the recovery plan. Obama pulls up a chair and begins to chat with McCain, who rudely takes a phone call on his cell. The Exterminator tells a few jokes to himself and laughs uproariously.
9:13 p.m.:
Jim Lehrer asks the candidates if there are any “fundamental” differences between them on their reactions to the bailout plan. McCain points out that Obama is black, and Obama retaliates by stating that McCain is old. Then they trade made-up figures. The Exterminator demonstrates conclusively that he’s the only one on stage who’s wearing a Bugs Bunny tie.
9:16 p.m.:
Lehrer reminds the candidates that there’s a fiscal disaster happening and asks them what programs they would be willing to give up if they’re elected. The Exterminator unhesitatingly vows to stop spending the taxpayer’s money on repeats of The King of Queens. Obama says he’s willing to give up some programs, and then proves it by rattling off a string of initiatives that will apparently be paid for only by the richest 5% of Americans. McCain promises to cut wasteful spending, and immediately calls his real estate broker to put Obama’s and the Exterminator’s houses on the market.
9:40 p.m.:
The economic portion of the debate is over. Both Obama and McCain rush to get in touch with their accountants. The Exterminator bends over to pick up a dime he dropped. Lehrer polls the audience to see which candidate should be given the Miss Congeniality award, and McCain loses.
9:41 p.m.:
Lehrer asks the candidates about the “lessons of Iraq.” McCain praises the surge and sings “You Light Up My Life” to David Petreus. Obama wonders why we haven’t yet killed bin Laden, and carefully avoids saying “Osama.” The Exterminator calls for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from the United States.
9:44 p.m.:
McCain raises a number of points and Obama responds by praising Joe Biden and the surge. McCain and Obama get into an argument about the difference between strategy and tactics, and Lehrer suggests that they play a game of chess while millions of Americans watch. The Exterminator counts his money again.
9:48 p.m.:
Lehrer asks about Afghanistan, so the candidates retire briefly to watch a screening of The Man Who Would Be King. Obama talks smack about Pakistan and worries about the exploding flower trade in that part of the world. McCain reviews the entire history of the region, and pronounces “Waziristan” correctly. He also urges Obama to keep his mouth shut about U.S. plans to invade Pakistan. The Exterminator does a pretty good Sean Connery impression, but can’t seem to master Michael Caine.
9:55 p.m.:
McCain points out that he voted against James K. Polk’s war with Mexico. Then both McCain and Obama show off their jewelry. The Exterminator explains why bracelets give him a rash.
9:56 p.m.:
Lehrer tells the candidates that they’ve both wasted exactly the same amount of time, but laughingly chastises them for taking too long not to answer the questions. The Exterminator wonders aloud whether that’s a strategy or a tactic.
9:58 p.m.:
Obama and McCain are both worried about an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, and they both enunciate “nuclear” perfectly to distinguish themselves from George Bush. The Exterminator suggests that we start calling the country “Persia” again, and fuck ‘em if they don’t like it. McCain would not sit down at the table with Ahmadinejad. Obama, on the other hand is willing to send someone to sit down at a different table with a different person, but acknowledges that he doesn’t expect anyone to serve matzo ball soup. The Exterminator reserves judgment until he sees what the meal is, and hints that he might be willing to eat standing up.
10:09 p.m.:
McCain and Obama argue about what Henry Kissinger said when he was drunk the other night. The Exterminator amuses no one by speaking in a thick German accent.
10:16 p.m.:
Lehrer asks the candidates about Russia. All of them know where it is. The Exterminator volunteers that he once read The Brothers Karamazov and has eaten borscht many times. Henry Kissinger calls Lehrer and asks him to come over for some caviar and infused vodka after the debates.
10:22 p.m.:
For the 147th time, Obama says that McCain is absolutely right about everything and then calls him a liar. McCain accuses Obama of not understanding anything, and to be fair, demonstrates his own lack of understanding. The Exterminator tallies his change one more time.
10:27 p.m.:
Obama informs America that his father was from Kenya. McCain reminds viewers of his own history: apparently, he was once a P.O.W. The Exterminator tells a long, pointless anecdote about Nanny.
10:30 p.m.:
Obama and McCain hug their wives. The Exterminator searches the audience in vain for Mrs. Ex, who has fled the premises in embarrassment after noticing that her husband’s fly was open throughout the entire debate. Lehrer calls Kissinger to accept his invitation, but only on condition that Ahmadinejad will not be there.
Jim Lehrer greets the audience and explains the rules of the debate. Basically, he will ask questions and the candidates will then be free to talk about anything they choose in response. They lose points if they actually refer to the question posed. Obama and McCain step to their respective podiums. Jim Lehrer calls out “Hey, Exterminator, where are you?” The Exterminator enters with a mouthful of Good ‘n’ Plenty and says “Mffff mfffnfm mffn.”
9:01 p.m.:
Lehrer asks about the financial recovery plan. Both Obama and McCain are for and against it. The Exterminator pledges to help Main Street through this crisis, and also gives a shout-out to Elm Street, Oak Street, and Chestnut Drive. He reaches into his back pocket, pulls out his wallet, and shows the audience its contents: $5.67 and a snapshot of his cat who died in 1983. When asked to explain, he offers to split his funds with the American people and urges Obama and McCain to show “What’s in your wallet?” When neither of the other candidates take him up on his magnanimous offer, he looks at Lehrer through a piece of Saran Wrap and says “I’m for transparency.”
9:07 p.m.:
Lehrer urges the candidates to talk to one another about the recovery plan. Obama pulls up a chair and begins to chat with McCain, who rudely takes a phone call on his cell. The Exterminator tells a few jokes to himself and laughs uproariously.
9:13 p.m.:
Jim Lehrer asks the candidates if there are any “fundamental” differences between them on their reactions to the bailout plan. McCain points out that Obama is black, and Obama retaliates by stating that McCain is old. Then they trade made-up figures. The Exterminator demonstrates conclusively that he’s the only one on stage who’s wearing a Bugs Bunny tie.
9:16 p.m.:
Lehrer reminds the candidates that there’s a fiscal disaster happening and asks them what programs they would be willing to give up if they’re elected. The Exterminator unhesitatingly vows to stop spending the taxpayer’s money on repeats of The King of Queens. Obama says he’s willing to give up some programs, and then proves it by rattling off a string of initiatives that will apparently be paid for only by the richest 5% of Americans. McCain promises to cut wasteful spending, and immediately calls his real estate broker to put Obama’s and the Exterminator’s houses on the market.
9:40 p.m.:
The economic portion of the debate is over. Both Obama and McCain rush to get in touch with their accountants. The Exterminator bends over to pick up a dime he dropped. Lehrer polls the audience to see which candidate should be given the Miss Congeniality award, and McCain loses.
9:41 p.m.:
Lehrer asks the candidates about the “lessons of Iraq.” McCain praises the surge and sings “You Light Up My Life” to David Petreus. Obama wonders why we haven’t yet killed bin Laden, and carefully avoids saying “Osama.” The Exterminator calls for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from the United States.
9:44 p.m.:
McCain raises a number of points and Obama responds by praising Joe Biden and the surge. McCain and Obama get into an argument about the difference between strategy and tactics, and Lehrer suggests that they play a game of chess while millions of Americans watch. The Exterminator counts his money again.
9:48 p.m.:
Lehrer asks about Afghanistan, so the candidates retire briefly to watch a screening of The Man Who Would Be King. Obama talks smack about Pakistan and worries about the exploding flower trade in that part of the world. McCain reviews the entire history of the region, and pronounces “Waziristan” correctly. He also urges Obama to keep his mouth shut about U.S. plans to invade Pakistan. The Exterminator does a pretty good Sean Connery impression, but can’t seem to master Michael Caine.
9:55 p.m.:
McCain points out that he voted against James K. Polk’s war with Mexico. Then both McCain and Obama show off their jewelry. The Exterminator explains why bracelets give him a rash.
9:56 p.m.:
Lehrer tells the candidates that they’ve both wasted exactly the same amount of time, but laughingly chastises them for taking too long not to answer the questions. The Exterminator wonders aloud whether that’s a strategy or a tactic.
9:58 p.m.:
Obama and McCain are both worried about an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, and they both enunciate “nuclear” perfectly to distinguish themselves from George Bush. The Exterminator suggests that we start calling the country “Persia” again, and fuck ‘em if they don’t like it. McCain would not sit down at the table with Ahmadinejad. Obama, on the other hand is willing to send someone to sit down at a different table with a different person, but acknowledges that he doesn’t expect anyone to serve matzo ball soup. The Exterminator reserves judgment until he sees what the meal is, and hints that he might be willing to eat standing up.
10:09 p.m.:
McCain and Obama argue about what Henry Kissinger said when he was drunk the other night. The Exterminator amuses no one by speaking in a thick German accent.
10:16 p.m.:
Lehrer asks the candidates about Russia. All of them know where it is. The Exterminator volunteers that he once read The Brothers Karamazov and has eaten borscht many times. Henry Kissinger calls Lehrer and asks him to come over for some caviar and infused vodka after the debates.
10:22 p.m.:
For the 147th time, Obama says that McCain is absolutely right about everything and then calls him a liar. McCain accuses Obama of not understanding anything, and to be fair, demonstrates his own lack of understanding. The Exterminator tallies his change one more time.
10:27 p.m.:
Obama informs America that his father was from Kenya. McCain reminds viewers of his own history: apparently, he was once a P.O.W. The Exterminator tells a long, pointless anecdote about Nanny.
10:30 p.m.:
Obama and McCain hug their wives. The Exterminator searches the audience in vain for Mrs. Ex, who has fled the premises in embarrassment after noticing that her husband’s fly was open throughout the entire debate. Lehrer calls Kissinger to accept his invitation, but only on condition that Ahmadinejad will not be there.
Preface: Axiom, as explained by Wikipedia: “In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.”
Rhology (and, apparently, Vox Veritatis) expressed concerns about my use of “faith” in laying my evidentialist foundation. The questions they jointly prepared make blindingly obvious their mutual misapprehension of the role “faith” actually played (a temporary one, analogous to scaffolding in building construction).
Below, find my attempt to disabuse them of their wrongheadedness.
Rhology: Keep in mind that the JN has retreated to this admission of the faith-scaffolding b/c it has become clear that his First Principle - that evidence is the best way for humans to approximate truth - cannot justify itself. Any attempt to do so ends up in an infinite regress.
Nihilist: Although it is clear one of your preferred debate strategies is to cheerlead any concession you believe you have won from your opponent, you are here pointing out something that I have never denied. My Philosophical First Principle (hereafter, “PFP”), best stated as “evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth,” is a postulate (axiom, premise, etc.). I have defined a PFP as the lens through which an individual interrogates the world in which he finds himself. Before one can commence said interrogation, one must procure said lens. That is, before one may employ a postulate (noun form), one must…well…postulate (verb form). This postulation could be described as an act of “faith,” if one were inclined toward biased word choice. I utilize the scaffolding analogy because, once one postulates, and thus has a postulate, no further postulation is required; one simply employs one’s postulate “to erect one’s tower.”
Rhology: 1) I know you didn't continue with the scaffolding of faith. Why didn't you keep relying on faith? After all, you consider that faith was sufficient to get you to your big First Principle that you find so attractive, while that FP could never get you there by itself.
Nihilist: This question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the preceding discussion, which, although never laid out quite so explicitly by me, has been implied throughout our recent interactions. In order to obtain a postulate (axiom, premise, etc.), one must postulate; there is no getting around it. In that light, your first query makes little sense. You are essentially asking, “Since, in order to get a postulate, one must postulate, why not make postulation one’s postulate?” In raising such an objection, you effectively attempt to rule out postulates/axioms entirely.
Rhology: 2) Why did you choose this FP? It seems a completely arbitrary standard. Why not the equally-but-no-less-arbitrary "mustard is the best way to discover truth"? Mustard as FP is not self-justifying either, but one could just as easily make evidence-free faith appeals to it, just as you have to your evidentialist FP.
I don't expect the JN to go this route, but rather other commenters - the fact that mustard is a prima facie silly example makes no difference. Unless the argument for the evidentialist FP is successful, it is just as arbitrary as mustard.
Nihilist: I have described a PFP as being the lens through which an individual interrogates the world in which he finds himself. Here, let us focus on the word “lens.” I have worn glasses since third grade and, unfortunately, my vision is quite awful. Without my glasses, I would be completely nonfunctional…unable to work, drive, watch television or do much of anything. When I go to visit my ophthalmologist, he puts a machine in front of my face and proceeds to switch from lens to lens, based upon my guidance of what enhances and/or diminishes my vision. In choosing a PFP, one does essentially the same thing: In terms of interrogating the world of experience, which lens seems to make things most clear? Perhaps several lenses are acceptable…satisfactorily functional. However, it is only sensible to choose what appears to be the clearest, most sharp lens. For me, evidentialism represents 20/20 intellectual vision.
Also, I must say, your “mustard is the best way to discover truth” example seems a bit disingenuous. Remember that, generally speaking, in order to qualify as an axiom (postulate, premise, etc.), a notion must be self-evident. Looking at evidentialism first, “evidence” merely refers to “relevant facts” in the context of any given situation or point of contention. It would be difficult to argue that the usefulness of relevant facts is not self-evident. Conversely, the usefulness of mustard hardly seems self-evident by any conceivable standard. Also, in practical terms, I have no idea how mustard might be used for deducing and inferring truths that are more complex; it hardly seems a foundation upon which to build anything. Thus, your example suffers from definitional and practical problems.
Rhology: 3) The JN said:
I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure you would claim that your life is rife with appeals to evidence. That's the best way to discover truth, after all.
So it goes like this:
(top)
| Answer |
| Question |
| Evidentialist FP |
| Faith scaffolding |
(bottom)
You appeal to something more basic to answer less basic questions. In doing so, how is it an avoidance of appealing to the faith foundation-scaffolding? This question is meant to unmask atheists' widespread allergy to claiming that their position is faith-based. Faith is for wackos and fundies, after all, not for rational people like atheists with rational positions like atheism.
Nihilist: Your “illustration” is wrong because the evidentialist PFP does not rest upon the scaffolding of faith as you imply. Rather, the faith scaffolding permitted the evidentialist PFP to be laid. [That is, the act of postulation allowed one to obtain a postulate.] Think back to physical construction for a moment: A builder does not lay his foundation on top of his scaffolding; if he were to do so, the scaffolding would become an integral part of the building’s structure. And, by definition, scaffolding is not an integral part of a building’s structure. Rather, scaffolding is “a temporary framework used to support people and material in the construction or repair of buildings and other large structures.” Yes - one must postulate before one may employ a postulate; however, it is not the act of postulation that serves as a starting point for world-of-experience interrogation. Postulation merely allows the interrogatory starting point to be established. Once it is established, there is no further need for postulation; this is why, like scaffolding, it is “removed” from the tower.
Rhology: 4) In what way is this evidentialism thing a FIRST Principle since faith precedes it logically?
Nihilist: A foundational postulate allows one to build a rising tower of conclusions. The scaffolding of faith enables one to postulate.
A foundational supposition allows one to build a rising tower of conclusions. The scaffolding of faith enables one to suppose.
A PFP allows one to interrogate the world of experience. The scaffolding of faith enables one to lay a personal metaphysical foundation (from which to interrogate). Only once the foundation is laid can world-of-experience interrogation actually commence.
Today in the Guardian Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary is critical of the multicultural drift that has afflicted
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/27/dominicgrieve.conservatives
He is a practicing Anglican Christian and was a member of the London Diocesan Synod of the Church of England for six years from 1994. It is possible that, in a few years, he will have a roll in government, hence my interest in his remarks. On many matters he does not seem to me to be an unreasonable man although many of his views are somewhat coloured by religious indoctrination and he does support secondary selection which I have good reason to hate. You can read some of his ideas on religion in politics at:
http://www.dominicgrieve.org.uk/record.jsp?type=speech&ID=68
He may be right about multiculturalism but his ulterior aims are clear when he says
He seems to be yet another politician with a religious agenda.
Inspired by suggestions from Hemant Mehta.
For all of the faults in theology, Christians have a lock on charity work. When someone thinks of Christian kindness, I doubt that they imagine brainwashing children to fear a non existent Hell and a deity who watches every move and knows your thoughts. Instead, images of soup kitchens, food shelves, homeless shelters, Habitat for Humanity, even sandbagging ahead of a flood are all things churches are known for. Why aren't the same things associated with atheist kindness?
Atheists do give time and money to charity, but how come no one knows about it? I think that atheists are more concerned with helping others then getting recognition for efforts. The side effect of this unselfishness is that efforts of atheists are ignored. Also, atheists don't tend to organize well. While there are great freethought groups out there, an organization of 300 members can have trouble getting enough volunteers to help with a road side cleanup, but it's members on their own volunteer at homeless shelters, animal shelters, collect food for food shelves, donate blood, and help sick children. While this helps humanity as a whole, it does nothing to rid the stereotype of atheists as a bunch of intellectual nihilists who have turned their back on humanity.
So, where to start? First, you need an idea, then you need to promote, promote, promote. Christians use newsletters, fliers, sermons, posters, calling members, television and radio, and the Internet to get their messages out. Any group can get a few people together to brainstorm volunteer ideas. Choose your events carefully. Decide if you want to have an event which costs money, such as donating new toys to kids, or something which takes time, like stocking a food shelf or raking lawns. Many atheists aren't wealthy, so events which involve time rather then money fit well. One way to get around this, is to go door to door asking for donations for your project.
Most organizations have a newsletter, so start promoting your event early and often. That article on the ontological proof for God can wait until next month. Make up fliers and put them up in public places. Coffee shops, grocery stores, and libraries are great places for nearly free publicity. Atheists don't have sermons, but they usually have regular meetings. Take some time, or a whole hour, talking about different volunteer opportunities in your community that you're going to participate in. A variety of events makes sure more people can participate. Not everyone can donate blood, or make it to a food shelf on a weekday. Start a mail list, or an email list of interested people, so they are always up to date on the latest opportunities. Use social networking tools, like Facebook and MySpace or Meetup.com to post invitations to volunteer events. Oh, and be prepared to offer something to your volunteers for helping out. Food is a strong motivator. Use your website to let members know about upcoming events. You can use a Google calendar that people can subscribe to and keep your events there. It's simple to update, and easy for people to stay up to date.
Not every atheist group has access to television or radio programs, but sending out press releases to news papers, radio and television stations is an easy way to get some publicity. This is especially effective if your story is interesting and unique. You should get to know the reporters at your local news papers. Often times, someone will be more sympathetic then others to print pieces about you, and it's good to know who that is. A press release doesn't have to be elaborate, but should have enough information to entice a writer. If all of your efforts to get the word out have failed so far, the Internet is still a great resource for promotion. Email atheist bloggers, conservative and liberal bloggers, any popular blogger who may be interested in your story. They can have more eyes then a local newspaper, and that type of promotion can lead to news stories. Contact groups that produce podcasts and see if they need a guest. If your story is interesting, most producers will like it.
By using resources you already have, and spending a little bit of time, you can pull people together, make a difference in your community, and promote atheists as positive people.
For all of the faults in theology, Christians have a lock on charity work. When someone thinks of Christian kindness, I doubt that they imagine brainwashing children to fear a non existent Hell and a deity who watches every move and knows your thoughts. Instead, images of soup kitchens, food shelves, homeless shelters, Habitat for Humanity, even sandbagging ahead of a flood are all things churches are known for. Why aren't the same things associated with atheist kindness?
Atheists do give time and money to charity, but how come no one knows about it? I think that atheists are more concerned with helping others then getting recognition for efforts. The side effect of this unselfishness is that efforts of atheists are ignored. Also, atheists don't tend to organize well. While there are great freethought groups out there, an organization of 300 members can have trouble getting enough volunteers to help with a road side cleanup, but it's members on their own volunteer at homeless shelters, animal shelters, collect food for food shelves, donate blood, and help sick children. While this helps humanity as a whole, it does nothing to rid the stereotype of atheists as a bunch of intellectual nihilists who have turned their back on humanity.
So, where to start? First, you need an idea, then you need to promote, promote, promote. Christians use newsletters, fliers, sermons, posters, calling members, television and radio, and the Internet to get their messages out. Any group can get a few people together to brainstorm volunteer ideas. Choose your events carefully. Decide if you want to have an event which costs money, such as donating new toys to kids, or something which takes time, like stocking a food shelf or raking lawns. Many atheists aren't wealthy, so events which involve time rather then money fit well. One way to get around this, is to go door to door asking for donations for your project.
Most organizations have a newsletter, so start promoting your event early and often. That article on the ontological proof for God can wait until next month. Make up fliers and put them up in public places. Coffee shops, grocery stores, and libraries are great places for nearly free publicity. Atheists don't have sermons, but they usually have regular meetings. Take some time, or a whole hour, talking about different volunteer opportunities in your community that you're going to participate in. A variety of events makes sure more people can participate. Not everyone can donate blood, or make it to a food shelf on a weekday. Start a mail list, or an email list of interested people, so they are always up to date on the latest opportunities. Use social networking tools, like Facebook and MySpace or Meetup.com to post invitations to volunteer events. Oh, and be prepared to offer something to your volunteers for helping out. Food is a strong motivator. Use your website to let members know about upcoming events. You can use a Google calendar that people can subscribe to and keep your events there. It's simple to update, and easy for people to stay up to date.
Not every atheist group has access to television or radio programs, but sending out press releases to news papers, radio and television stations is an easy way to get some publicity. This is especially effective if your story is interesting and unique. You should get to know the reporters at your local news papers. Often times, someone will be more sympathetic then others to print pieces about you, and it's good to know who that is. A press release doesn't have to be elaborate, but should have enough information to entice a writer. If all of your efforts to get the word out have failed so far, the Internet is still a great resource for promotion. Email atheist bloggers, conservative and liberal bloggers, any popular blogger who may be interested in your story. They can have more eyes then a local newspaper, and that type of promotion can lead to news stories. Contact groups that produce podcasts and see if they need a guest. If your story is interesting, most producers will like it.
By using resources you already have, and spending a little bit of time, you can pull people together, make a difference in your community, and promote atheists as positive people.
I've mentioned previously that I receive regular email updates from the Village Church here in the North Texas area. For as long as I've known about it, that church has been an amazing success story... their lead pastor, Matt Chandler, came in to an old church and injected lots of life into it, bringing people by the thousands every week, and even expanding their campus from Highland Village up into Denton, and now expanding into Flower Mound.
...except that now there's a problem. The money that they need to start construction in the new location (about $10 million) isn't there yet. When they decided to move forward, they wanted $3 million in hand, and the rest in "faith promises" from their congregation- they have slightly less than half that amount. Needless to say, this presents something of a theological (and, by extension, existential) crises for Matt- if he's doing God's work, and if people are coming in droves to be saved and baptized, surely there should be money to spare! God takes care of his own, does He not?
Matt confesses some of his own questions:
I know they're superficially rhetorical and subconsciously directed to God (a la Job), but maybe I can take a crack at them below:
No, Matt, there isn't enough of "you" in "this thing." You're a charismatic leader, and without question this church has grown by leaps and bounds because everyone there loves you. When I visited your church, I asked person after person why they loved the Village Church, and although nobody could give me any specific theological answer, they all gushed about how great you are and how wonderful the church made them feel. The problem is, you can't have it both ways. You can build a new facility, you can hire more pastors, you can spruce up your website, but you can't replicate yourself. The only way for you to keep the church growing is to televise your services; and that represents everything about Christianity that I know you hate.
Yes, Matt, people are aware of the correlation between having more space and being able to impact more lives. They're not stupid. But not everyone is necessarily in agreement, not everybody thinks that God is asking them (even though you ask on behalf of Him) to donate, and quite frankly, not everyone has the resources to donate. Attracting people is one thing; attracting people who agree wholeheartedly with your vision, and who have wallets big enough to contribute significantly is a completely different thing. Trust me, in my short experience with the North Texas Church of Freethought, I've had to learn this lesson quickly, and we don't even have to deal with people who think God talks to them.
Yes, Matt, this may very well be where the Village Church matures. Believe it or not, churches grow, mature, and die. They also evolve, which is what you prompted when you arrived. I realize that you think God is motivating and supporting you, and I'm sure that feels wonderful, but riding the waves of ecstasy in the good times means that it'll seem like God abandons you in the bad times. And I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize or accept (a la Job) this failure of theology, but at the same time I hope that you don't view God's abandoning of the Village Church as a commandment for you to abandon it to seek that same thrill in a new church that you take over and grow. Try not to lose sight of the fact that for whatever reason, you brighten the lives of the people in your church, and I'd hate to see you forsake that because you manage to convince yourself that God wants you to grow another church somewhere else.
In a final plea, Matt turns to the only thing he trusts: Prayer.
And therein lies the psychological splinter at the root of this festering problem. Matt desperately wants to know God's will, but he can't possibly. Yes, he's praying for dollars, but much more deeply, he's praying for validation. My only concern is that since God is mute (or, at best, no more helpful than a magic 8-ball), Matt will inevitably superimpose the only will he has access to (his own) for God's. And that rarely works out well for anyone.
...except that now there's a problem. The money that they need to start construction in the new location (about $10 million) isn't there yet. When they decided to move forward, they wanted $3 million in hand, and the rest in "faith promises" from their congregation- they have slightly less than half that amount. Needless to say, this presents something of a theological (and, by extension, existential) crises for Matt- if he's doing God's work, and if people are coming in droves to be saved and baptized, surely there should be money to spare! God takes care of his own, does He not?
Matt confesses some of his own questions:
Is there too much "me" in this thing? Do we not see the correlation between the lives that are being changed and having room for those lives to come in? How is it possible that only a few of the thousands of people at The Village are willing to give monthly to the project that they (covenant members) voted to do? Is this where we are in our maturation? How is it possible with all of the life- changes, salvations and baptisms that we are seeing that more of you are not buying into this? Have we not communicated well? I'm not sure I know the answers to these questions but they have been keeping me up at night.
I know they're superficially rhetorical and subconsciously directed to God (a la Job), but maybe I can take a crack at them below:
No, Matt, there isn't enough of "you" in "this thing." You're a charismatic leader, and without question this church has grown by leaps and bounds because everyone there loves you. When I visited your church, I asked person after person why they loved the Village Church, and although nobody could give me any specific theological answer, they all gushed about how great you are and how wonderful the church made them feel. The problem is, you can't have it both ways. You can build a new facility, you can hire more pastors, you can spruce up your website, but you can't replicate yourself. The only way for you to keep the church growing is to televise your services; and that represents everything about Christianity that I know you hate.
Yes, Matt, people are aware of the correlation between having more space and being able to impact more lives. They're not stupid. But not everyone is necessarily in agreement, not everybody thinks that God is asking them (even though you ask on behalf of Him) to donate, and quite frankly, not everyone has the resources to donate. Attracting people is one thing; attracting people who agree wholeheartedly with your vision, and who have wallets big enough to contribute significantly is a completely different thing. Trust me, in my short experience with the North Texas Church of Freethought, I've had to learn this lesson quickly, and we don't even have to deal with people who think God talks to them.
Yes, Matt, this may very well be where the Village Church matures. Believe it or not, churches grow, mature, and die. They also evolve, which is what you prompted when you arrived. I realize that you think God is motivating and supporting you, and I'm sure that feels wonderful, but riding the waves of ecstasy in the good times means that it'll seem like God abandons you in the bad times. And I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize or accept (a la Job) this failure of theology, but at the same time I hope that you don't view God's abandoning of the Village Church as a commandment for you to abandon it to seek that same thrill in a new church that you take over and grow. Try not to lose sight of the fact that for whatever reason, you brighten the lives of the people in your church, and I'd hate to see you forsake that because you manage to convince yourself that God wants you to grow another church somewhere else.
In a final plea, Matt turns to the only thing he trusts: Prayer.
We truly are at a crossroads. Will you pray with me? Will you fast with me? Can we seek God's face on this thing together? Not for money. The money will be there or it won't. God has never lacked resources for what He wants to do.
And therein lies the psychological splinter at the root of this festering problem. Matt desperately wants to know God's will, but he can't possibly. Yes, he's praying for dollars, but much more deeply, he's praying for validation. My only concern is that since God is mute (or, at best, no more helpful than a magic 8-ball), Matt will inevitably superimpose the only will he has access to (his own) for God's. And that rarely works out well for anyone.
I was sitting on the edge of the kiddie pool watching my daughters (2 and 4.5) splash around when the arm of a father setting his 1 yr. old boy in the water caught my eye. A bright red tattoo covered his upper arm as a band. In the middle, a swastika. Then I noticed the face of Adolf Hitler tattooed on his chest and across his back “Nation of Aryan Brotherhood”. Several people asked the teen lifeguards to kick him out. The kids refused, claiming it was freedom of speech and he wasn’t behaving in any other way that was disruptive. He was just sporting his “white pride”.
While public display of the swastika is not illegal in the U.S., it is a crime in other parts of the world. The Aryan Brotherhood is a prison gang, but the public display of gang symbols also does not seem to be a crime, at least at the national level. Consider, however, that to join the AB, you pretty much have to murder someone. Perhaps the broadcasting of the intimidating messages “I’ve killed someone.” “I’m a racist.” and “I belong to a gang of murderers.” is illegal at the kiddie pool, I don’t know.
And that’s the thing -- none of us knew how to react. Should these kid lifeguards have asked him to leave? Should one of us parents? Should we have called the cops? Would doing any of that just incited unnecessary problems or violence for us and our children there at the pool, or via gang retaliation later? What were we teaching our kids through non-confrontation -- that it’s okay to let hate groups sport their placards without a fuss? That we condone subtle terror as long as it’s proposed harm is undetermined? That we should act cowardly when frustrated or fearful? Or is it that we demonstrate a deeper restraint by admitting that we don’t understand this man’s history -- that maybe he was strongly coerced to join the gang. Maybe he’s trying to get out. Maybe we should just give him the benefit of the doubt, and for the sake of his 1 yr. old son, let them enjoy the afternoon together like us “normal” folks. For better or worse, our response was to simply watch him out of the corner of a raised eyebrow and to try to distance ourselves inconspicuously.
I want to explore the roots, psychology, culture, and memetic evolution of gangs in future posts. What I want to discuss here is subtle terror. How just a little bit of fear and suspicion put us on guard and made us attentive, but also left us confused. In not knowing how to react, we didn’t. It is striking to see how fear, even at this not-so-uncomfortable level to do anything about, implicitly makes it an acceptable level to live with.
Terror is the use of unfathomable as well as realistic fear. I say “unfathomable” in the sense that it is so far from our norm or understanding, that we don’t know how to accurately interpret the message to quantify the danger and how to respond to it appropriately. In this afternoon, I was struck that “unfathomable” fear was not only grandiose displays of things like bombs, but also included the subtle presence of cryptic signs.
-----------
Fear is a common message in religion. Christianity’s easiest target is Hell and its prospect of eternal, painful suffering. There are also the messages that life without God is empty, loveless, and unfulfilling. A Christian ponders his relationship with God not only by judging how happy he is in the religion and in that relationship, but he also measures this contentment against how he envisions his life would be without God. He uses the relationship to protect himself from what he assumes is threatening.
When admirable traits are given to a God, it is easy to play into the fears of a life without God. Christianity not only introduces the fear, which can leave us stressed and confused, but then offers a solution -- Jesus is the answer (and thereby maintaining it’s corollary: Without Jesus, there is no answer). Perhaps what is important to consider before accepting Jesus as a solution is to ask, “Is the fear real?”
Ask yourself these questions.
Does morality come from God? Does love come from God?
Does law come from God?
Does happiness come from God?
Does pain and hate come from the devil, or God?
What good is God?
At the core of Christianity is the belief that we have all sinned, and that without God’s grace, we will be doomed to keep sinning. The immediate threat of sin is that we will not know true love and fulfillment. The long term threat is Hell or at least a life of doom.
But what is sin? Sinning is not the same as acting immorally. Sinning is simply refusing God. The reason sinning and immorality are often confused is that when it is assumed that moral commands come from God and not men, then immorality is the same as refusing God. It is in this way that Christianity promotes the idea that the only way you can act morally is to believe in God, and that immorality shows that you are not part of the redeemed.
To cast love, morals, law, and happiness to God is at a minimum an unknowable proposition. That assumption also means that law, morality, love, and happiness are ultimately not natural. If societal demands for collective cooperation are gifts from God, then Christians are equally comparable to those who demonstrate “white pride”. The assumption of the racist is that they are better than other races because they have been endowed with physical traits and/or culture that is superior. The assumption that love, morals, law, and happiness can only come from God does nothing but lead to bigotry.
-----------
Evolution is often cast as predator/prey, dog eat dog. Indeed, like capitalism, independent greed and selfishness can work to promote the common good of a population. And also like capitalism, there is an ironic recognition that cooperation is also mandatory for our (or a population’s) overall fulfillment and success. Cooperation is often overlooked in considerations of evolution, but individuals of a species work together. It is not unreasonable to believe that if ants can work together building colonies, then we humans, with our superior intellect, opposable thumbs, and gift of gab can also work together to construct colonies where we find fulfillment.
-----------
From the atheist’s point of view, God, religion, and laws and behavior attributed to God, are man-made constructs. As such, when Christianity presents “Jesus is the answer”, it is important to ask, “To what?” Can it be shown that the questions for which Jesus is the answer are not man-made constructs, which many times are created and play into human fears? No. As such, Christianity apparently offers up its own strawman arguments leaving Jesus, paradoxically, hanging on a cross like a scarecrow.
While public display of the swastika is not illegal in the U.S., it is a crime in other parts of the world. The Aryan Brotherhood is a prison gang, but the public display of gang symbols also does not seem to be a crime, at least at the national level. Consider, however, that to join the AB, you pretty much have to murder someone. Perhaps the broadcasting of the intimidating messages “I’ve killed someone.” “I’m a racist.” and “I belong to a gang of murderers.” is illegal at the kiddie pool, I don’t know.
And that’s the thing -- none of us knew how to react. Should these kid lifeguards have asked him to leave? Should one of us parents? Should we have called the cops? Would doing any of that just incited unnecessary problems or violence for us and our children there at the pool, or via gang retaliation later? What were we teaching our kids through non-confrontation -- that it’s okay to let hate groups sport their placards without a fuss? That we condone subtle terror as long as it’s proposed harm is undetermined? That we should act cowardly when frustrated or fearful? Or is it that we demonstrate a deeper restraint by admitting that we don’t understand this man’s history -- that maybe he was strongly coerced to join the gang. Maybe he’s trying to get out. Maybe we should just give him the benefit of the doubt, and for the sake of his 1 yr. old son, let them enjoy the afternoon together like us “normal” folks. For better or worse, our response was to simply watch him out of the corner of a raised eyebrow and to try to distance ourselves inconspicuously.
I want to explore the roots, psychology, culture, and memetic evolution of gangs in future posts. What I want to discuss here is subtle terror. How just a little bit of fear and suspicion put us on guard and made us attentive, but also left us confused. In not knowing how to react, we didn’t. It is striking to see how fear, even at this not-so-uncomfortable level to do anything about, implicitly makes it an acceptable level to live with.
Terror is the use of unfathomable as well as realistic fear. I say “unfathomable” in the sense that it is so far from our norm or understanding, that we don’t know how to accurately interpret the message to quantify the danger and how to respond to it appropriately. In this afternoon, I was struck that “unfathomable” fear was not only grandiose displays of things like bombs, but also included the subtle presence of cryptic signs.
-----------
Fear is a common message in religion. Christianity’s easiest target is Hell and its prospect of eternal, painful suffering. There are also the messages that life without God is empty, loveless, and unfulfilling. A Christian ponders his relationship with God not only by judging how happy he is in the religion and in that relationship, but he also measures this contentment against how he envisions his life would be without God. He uses the relationship to protect himself from what he assumes is threatening.
When admirable traits are given to a God, it is easy to play into the fears of a life without God. Christianity not only introduces the fear, which can leave us stressed and confused, but then offers a solution -- Jesus is the answer (and thereby maintaining it’s corollary: Without Jesus, there is no answer). Perhaps what is important to consider before accepting Jesus as a solution is to ask, “Is the fear real?”
Ask yourself these questions.
Does morality come from God? Does love come from God?
Does law come from God?
Does happiness come from God?
Does pain and hate come from the devil, or God?
What good is God?
At the core of Christianity is the belief that we have all sinned, and that without God’s grace, we will be doomed to keep sinning. The immediate threat of sin is that we will not know true love and fulfillment. The long term threat is Hell or at least a life of doom.
But what is sin? Sinning is not the same as acting immorally. Sinning is simply refusing God. The reason sinning and immorality are often confused is that when it is assumed that moral commands come from God and not men, then immorality is the same as refusing God. It is in this way that Christianity promotes the idea that the only way you can act morally is to believe in God, and that immorality shows that you are not part of the redeemed.
To cast love, morals, law, and happiness to God is at a minimum an unknowable proposition. That assumption also means that law, morality, love, and happiness are ultimately not natural. If societal demands for collective cooperation are gifts from God, then Christians are equally comparable to those who demonstrate “white pride”. The assumption of the racist is that they are better than other races because they have been endowed with physical traits and/or culture that is superior. The assumption that love, morals, law, and happiness can only come from God does nothing but lead to bigotry.
-----------
Evolution is often cast as predator/prey, dog eat dog. Indeed, like capitalism, independent greed and selfishness can work to promote the common good of a population. And also like capitalism, there is an ironic recognition that cooperation is also mandatory for our (or a population’s) overall fulfillment and success. Cooperation is often overlooked in considerations of evolution, but individuals of a species work together. It is not unreasonable to believe that if ants can work together building colonies, then we humans, with our superior intellect, opposable thumbs, and gift of gab can also work together to construct colonies where we find fulfillment.
-----------
From the atheist’s point of view, God, religion, and laws and behavior attributed to God, are man-made constructs. As such, when Christianity presents “Jesus is the answer”, it is important to ask, “To what?” Can it be shown that the questions for which Jesus is the answer are not man-made constructs, which many times are created and play into human fears? No. As such, Christianity apparently offers up its own strawman arguments leaving Jesus, paradoxically, hanging on a cross like a scarecrow.
I am excited for the AAI Convention this weekend. I finally get to see the folks I read about and or read from online in person.
The Atheist Spot will have a booth as well. We weren't allowed to hang banners, because of the antique wood on the Queen Mary. But I stumbled upon an old wall frame to use as a backdrop. Pretty cool stuff.
See you there!
Joel and Ethan Cohen's new film, "Burn After Reading," is an attempt at creating one of those stories where you get fleeting introductions to characters, but eventually all the characters come together. Does, "Burn After Reading," succeed in creating a unique, interesting tale? Or, do you watch each scene while knowing what's going to happen next because it's so predictable? I'd say it's a mix of the two. While the threads of the story are predictable, what happens with each character interaction approach a strangeness common to cult classic films. I won't even bother with a description of the plot, because it's unnecessary, however, this is a good movie to see if you are a fan of the Cohen brothers, like George Clooney, or Brad Pitt? Did I mention that john Malkovitch is also in this movie? And Francis McDormand?
My good friend Dan Sawyer is quite the polymath, as I've known since first crossing paths with him on ExChristian.Net. Many other people know this as well, from his appearances on the Infidel Guy show, his own podcast (The Polyschizmatic Reprobates' Hour), as well as from his participation in the Apologia discussion.
What you may not know is that he's also an ambitious artist, photographer, director, and author- the former which find an outlet at ArtisticWhispers Productions, and the latter which spills over into JDSawyer.Net. You can find there his latest project: an audio production of his novel, "Predestination (and Other Games of Chance)," which is the first in his "Antithesis" series.
Most of you are avid podcasters (consumers and producers, as am I), but may not have considered the possibility of a story being told in serial form through this medium. I have to confess, I never gave it much thought until listening to Dan's first attempt with this short story collection "Sculpting God." Take a few minutes to swing over to Dan's site and subscribe to the feed- I hope you enjoy it as much as I am.
What you may not know is that he's also an ambitious artist, photographer, director, and author- the former which find an outlet at ArtisticWhispers Productions, and the latter which spills over into JDSawyer.Net. You can find there his latest project: an audio production of his novel, "Predestination (and Other Games of Chance)," which is the first in his "Antithesis" series.
Most of you are avid podcasters (consumers and producers, as am I), but may not have considered the possibility of a story being told in serial form through this medium. I have to confess, I never gave it much thought until listening to Dan's first attempt with this short story collection "Sculpting God." Take a few minutes to swing over to Dan's site and subscribe to the feed- I hope you enjoy it as much as I am.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is preparing to spend £40m of taxpayers’ money plus £5m a year on research into malaria treatments and vaccines in the developing world.
http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=9769780
With the NHS millions and millions of pounds in debt, is this really where the government’s priority should be?
Apparently the US is also committing $5bn to the cause. Where is this money coming from?
One million people die from Malaria every year, so the charitable act of free people to help others is indeed a commendable one. But the enormous sums of money being invested into other countries is at the non-voluntary expense of the taxpayers of those countries; countries whose economy is already faltering; the US is in great financial turmoil and Britain is on the brink of recession. So what do our altruistic governments decide to do?: hand over millions or billions of expropriated wealth into causes that arguably have no benefit to their own countries.
Now the Pope is asking the Western world to be “brave” despite their financial problems and end poverty and hunger (as if it was the sacred responsibility of these governments to carry out these tasks).
Needless to say, I am not against charity or helping other countries out, providing such countries are at least partly-free and doing so is of practical benefit to our own. Indeed, when people are left free to appreciate their own property and wealth they invariably do help the less-fortunate out by charity. This is undeniable: where do you think any and all existing charity in the world today actually comes from? It CANNOT come from the have-nots, so it must come from the haves.
What I am against is the role of government as a re-distributor of wealth and “saviour” of other less-fortunate countries, which necessarily comes at the sacrificial expense of its own. It must necessarily come at sacrificial expense, because the billions of pounds being given to help developing nations is not connected to any real world market – it is taken from mass taxation and is not linked to any genuine production (which is the source of wealth). This is obvious, since if countries were so wealthy that they could spare this much money to help other nations, their economy would not be in the state that it is!
The issue of taxation aside, a government’s role is to protect the Rights of its citizens, and that is all. For a government to actually acquire its own citizens’ wealth and plunge billions of it to aid foreign countries whilst their own economy is on the rocks is not just foolishness, it is treachery.
Confused said ...
I don’t really get what you’re asking here. To be WHAT? Or not to be WHAT?
Englishteacher said ...
I hate to be a punctuation nazi, Hamlet, but if you’re asking a question, it should end in a question mark.
Sirsleepsalot said ...
Are you saying that dying and sleeping are THE SAME THING???? Sheesh!
Hamlet said ...
@sleepsy:
No, I’m just saying that in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffel’d off this mortal coil must give us pause. Dying and sleeping are alike, but clearly they’re not the same. You wake up from sleeping but you don’t wake up from dying.
Sirsleepsalot said ...
Unless you die IN YOUR SLEEP!!!! LOL.
happy dane said ...
i do’nt think you shoud worry so much about being nobel in the mind. you sound like a graet princ. just go with what feels rite :)
Scienceprude said ...
We don’t sleep or dream when we’re dead. Learn some biology, jerkoff.
Horatio said ...
IMHO, this whole “to be or not to be” thing sounds like a big whine. Are you crazy, or are you just making believe?
Hamlet said ...
What ho, Horatio! LTNS! Listen, how strange or odd I bear myself — as I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put an antic disposition on — don’t ask me about it, OK?
Rich3 said ...
I know this is a little off-topic, but does anybody have a horse for sale?
Grumble Bunny said ...
Great post! You’re soooo right! Fortune IS outrageous! The guy up the street won the lottery twice and I never won it at all! How is that fair?!!!!!
Zeen0f0Be said ...
Anybody who goes to an undiscovered country doesn’t deserve to return from its “bourn,” as you put it. I’m willing to bet that you haven’t even seen all of Denmark, but you’re in a big hurry to go elsewhere and spend good kroner in other places. How about supporting our workers here?
Hamlet said ...
@ Zee:
A friend of mine thinks that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I also don’t mind picking up decent products from foreign manufacturers once in a while.
Wide Awake said ...
I have read your blog and find it both entertaining and informative. If you have problems waking up with that fresh and rested feeling, click the link below to learn about the personal benefits of YawnAway™.
Zeen0f0be said ...
@ Hammy:
Yeah, try buying some of that poisoned toothpaste in Sweden.
Hamlet said ...
@ Zee:
Well, the Swedes say the same thing about stuff made here. They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase soil our addition.
Englishteacher said ...
Sorry to nitpick again, H, but, honestly, who says “clepe” any more? What are you, like 50 years old?
Grumble Bunny said ...
Hamlet, I’m reading more of your fantastic post and you’re soooo right again! How’s this for the proud man’s contumely?! My brother is a English teacher and he keeps correcting my grammer! Between you and I, I could care less!!!!!!
Trollonius said ...
Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that conscience makes cowards of us all? I’ve got a conscience, and I’m not afraid of anything. I think you’re just talking out of your behind.
Zeen0f0be said ...
@Hammy, you said: Well, the Swedes say the same thing about stuff made here.
Is that why they keep crossing our borders illegally to look for better toothpaste? Get your facts straight.
Hamlet said ...
@Zee:
Well, I do have my facts straight. You can read any magazine and find out how corrupt Denmark is. This three years I have took note of it: the age is grown so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier he galls his kibe.
Englishteacher said ...
I don’t mean to be a pain, H, but it’s not “I have took note of it.” It’s “I have taken note of it.” When using the present perfect tense, “have” should always be followed by the past participle. Also, did you realize that the antecendents are unclear for both “he” and “his”?
Grumble Bunny said ...
Hamlet, this is the best post you’ve ever written! And you’re soooo right about the insolence of offices! Yesterday, I made a simple mistake and filed an email from Rosencrantz in the Guildenstern folder! My boss called me a rogue and peasant &#^%*! Now that’s insolent!!!!!
happy dane said ...
did you decide what to do yet? i know its nun of my busness but heres my too sense. i think you shoud “be” :)
Hamlet said ...
I’m cutting off all comments on this post. Sorry, you guys, but the rest is silence.
I don’t really get what you’re asking here. To be WHAT? Or not to be WHAT?
Englishteacher said ...
I hate to be a punctuation nazi, Hamlet, but if you’re asking a question, it should end in a question mark.
Sirsleepsalot said ...
Are you saying that dying and sleeping are THE SAME THING???? Sheesh!
Hamlet said ...
@sleepsy:
No, I’m just saying that in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffel’d off this mortal coil must give us pause. Dying and sleeping are alike, but clearly they’re not the same. You wake up from sleeping but you don’t wake up from dying.
Sirsleepsalot said ...
Unless you die IN YOUR SLEEP!!!! LOL.
happy dane said ...
i do’nt think you shoud worry so much about being nobel in the mind. you sound like a graet princ. just go with what feels rite :)
Scienceprude said ...
We don’t sleep or dream when we’re dead. Learn some biology, jerkoff.
Horatio said ...
IMHO, this whole “to be or not to be” thing sounds like a big whine. Are you crazy, or are you just making believe?
Hamlet said ...
What ho, Horatio! LTNS! Listen, how strange or odd I bear myself — as I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put an antic disposition on — don’t ask me about it, OK?
Rich3 said ...
I know this is a little off-topic, but does anybody have a horse for sale?
Grumble Bunny said ...
Great post! You’re soooo right! Fortune IS outrageous! The guy up the street won the lottery twice and I never won it at all! How is that fair?!!!!!
Zeen0f0Be said ...
Anybody who goes to an undiscovered country doesn’t deserve to return from its “bourn,” as you put it. I’m willing to bet that you haven’t even seen all of Denmark, but you’re in a big hurry to go elsewhere and spend good kroner in other places. How about supporting our workers here?
Hamlet said ...
@ Zee:
A friend of mine thinks that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I also don’t mind picking up decent products from foreign manufacturers once in a while.
Wide Awake said ...
I have read your blog and find it both entertaining and informative. If you have problems waking up with that fresh and rested feeling, click the link below to learn about the personal benefits of YawnAway™.
Zeen0f0be said ...
@ Hammy:
Yeah, try buying some of that poisoned toothpaste in Sweden.
Hamlet said ...
@ Zee:
Well, the Swedes say the same thing about stuff made here. They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase soil our addition.
Englishteacher said ...
Sorry to nitpick again, H, but, honestly, who says “clepe” any more? What are you, like 50 years old?
Grumble Bunny said ...
Hamlet, I’m reading more of your fantastic post and you’re soooo right again! How’s this for the proud man’s contumely?! My brother is a English teacher and he keeps correcting my grammer! Between you and I, I could care less!!!!!!
Trollonius said ...
Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that conscience makes cowards of us all? I’ve got a conscience, and I’m not afraid of anything. I think you’re just talking out of your behind.
Zeen0f0be said ...
@Hammy, you said: Well, the Swedes say the same thing about stuff made here.
Is that why they keep crossing our borders illegally to look for better toothpaste? Get your facts straight.
Hamlet said ...
@Zee:
Well, I do have my facts straight. You can read any magazine and find out how corrupt Denmark is. This three years I have took note of it: the age is grown so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier he galls his kibe.
Englishteacher said ...
I don’t mean to be a pain, H, but it’s not “I have took note of it.” It’s “I have taken note of it.” When using the present perfect tense, “have” should always be followed by the past participle. Also, did you realize that the antecendents are unclear for both “he” and “his”?
Grumble Bunny said ...
Hamlet, this is the best post you’ve ever written! And you’re soooo right about the insolence of offices! Yesterday, I made a simple mistake and filed an email from Rosencrantz in the Guildenstern folder! My boss called me a rogue and peasant &#^%*! Now that’s insolent!!!!!
happy dane said ...
did you decide what to do yet? i know its nun of my busness but heres my too sense. i think you shoud “be” :)
Hamlet said ...
I’m cutting off all comments on this post. Sorry, you guys, but the rest is silence.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
