Monthly Archive for February, 2011

“Christian” conflict manufacture

A UK court has sensibly ruled that a couple of self-styled “traditional Christians” can’t be foster carers because of their views on gay people.
Has the High Court suddenly taken to ruling on foster carers’ acceptability on a case by case basis?

At the High Court, they asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values.(from the BBC)

Ah. So it was the couple who took the case to the High Court, then. Generally not the most cost-effective action. In fact, a High Court case usually costs thousands of pounds. You might think that, as “traditional Christians”, they maybe could have given all the money that this cost to the poor, instead. However, Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount words, in the lost Gospel of Perrymason, clearly stated that “whosoever will take legal action in the name of prejudice shall inherit the earth”
The BBC reported that the

.. Christian Legal Centre reacted to the ruling with dismay and warned that “fostering by Christians is now in doubt”.

It’s our old friends, the Christian Legal Centre, who are – of course – neither the paralegal wing of the Anglican Church nor a crack tactical team of solicitors operating out of the Vatican.
I’d hate to be represented by them, given their cavalier treatment of the facts (so it’s a good job that I’m not a fundamentalist Christian with a legal problem.) The judges in the case explicitly said that this ruling didn’t imply that religious belief was a bar to adoption and fostering, only that laws protecting people from discrimination must take precedence.
So, “fostering by Christians is now in doubt” can best be put in the ever-expanding category of “lying for Jesus”.
The headline for this story on their site is:

“Breaking News: High Court Judgment suggests Christian beliefs harmful to children. Fostering by Christians now in doubt.”

I would refer them to the words of the judges in the case:

“No one is asserting that Christians – or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims – are not fit and proper persons to foster or adopt. No-one is contending for a blanket ban.”

Sorry, m’luds, that just wasn’t clear enough for the Christian Legal Centre’s lawyers to understand.
However, you have to assume that they did understand perfectly but don’t want anyone else to. The true purpose of the Christian Legal Centre seems to be to get free media exposure – witness their media page – by acting as rent-a-quotes always happy to misrepresent their strange ideas as the “Christian” view whenever media researchers are stuck for a soundbite.
(The couple with a bed and breakfast hotel who got prosecuted for refusing a room to a gay couple were their last major media success story a few weeks ago)
Ok, you have to take off your hat to the skillful marketing and you even have to feel a bit sorry for the low-level big*ts who are their cannon fodder.
But all the same, it seriously pisses me off that they are winning every skirmish in their campaign to convince the average Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph and Star reading idiot in the UK that “Christians” are under threat .

The Clearly Godless Human Eye

There have been arguments both for and against god nestled in the complexities of the human eye.
My own knowledge of the eye kind of slid down the slope of disinterest with the first diagram I saw in Biology class. I took the view, “As long as it works, I'm not fussed why! And I’m never going to take mine apart, so what’s the point of knowing the names of its components?” Yeah, yeah, I know, kinda childish but hey, I was a child.
However, the god-squad makes a fuss about the miraculous mechanics of the human visual system, so I thought I'd cast a beady eye across the subject… (You can probably expect more rubbish optic-puns.)


Many sources detail the imperfections of the human eye, Teenageatheist has a very clear post detailing the flaws, or you can watch the first 3 mins 30 secs of this video “Intelligent Design (2): The Human Eye”

So, it seems clear that the Octopus eye, with its blood vessels on the sensible side of the retina and no blind-spot, is better than the human eye but also, as TeenageAtheist.com suggests, if one was setting out to design the ‘perfect’ human eye, why would a creator not include access to the full ultra-violet to infra-red electromagnetic spectrum like the Mantis Shrimp?
The evidence against intelligent design of the human eye seems incontrovertible, you'd have to be an idiot to rig up the human eye the way god is supposed to have, but I’m going to focus my conjecture here on lens design.

You're probably aware that a design “feature” of the eye is that the image is projected onto the retina in an upside down and left to right switch. This strikes me as an odd “feature” to build into an organ which has the expressed purpose of delivering to the brain, clear images of the current actual environmental circumstances.
Seems to me, whether concave or convex, there would be clear benefits to having a second lens.(If you want, have a look at the Refracting Telescope Designs on Wikipedia.)
As the image would be displayed correctly on the retina, the 'newborn' brain wouldn't have to learn how to correct the image. And this benefit would extend to the entirety of the lifespan; a second lens would release the portion of each brain’s available processing power that is permanently allocated to performing this image correction process.
Wouldn’t any designer worth his salt easily spot that a simple energy-efficient bio-mechanical subsystem (lens and ciliary body mechanism) would eliminate this constant drain of more valuable system resources? Indeed, you could say that a definitive role of any designer is to make structural changes which clearly improve energy and resource efficiency. The improvement to the overall system performance that a second lens would bring, makes it worthy of inclusion regardless of any extra survivability benefit for the newborn.

So, for my perfect design, I’d include a secondary lens to correct the inverted image and, as a little tweak to the whole rig, I'd add of a set inter-ciliary body muscles, to change the distance between the lenses and provide zoom capability. What the hell, it’s just a conjecture. Or is it?
Check this out...
"Secondary lens formation caused by implantation of pituitary into the eyes of the newt, Notophthalmus*1

Whole pituitary glands, as well as equivalent-sized pieces of kidney, liver, and adrenal tissue, were implanted into the anterior chamber of the adult newt eye. Secondary lens formation was present in 16 out of 17 cases of the pituitary implantation experiments in which the pituitary tissues were exposed to the anterior chamber fluid." Article here

The human pituitary gland is located in the brain between the eyes.
Now, I don't know the science, which is probably why I’m leaning toward the next conclusion, but is it not likely that the current pituitary position is responsible for the formation of the lens we have? And, is it therefore, not a possibility that a future human evolutionary mutation could bring an individual’s pituitary gland into closer proximity than 'normal' to the eyes and form a secondary lens?

Watch that space!

No don't actually, you'll go cross-eyed and give yourself a headache!
But, oh, wait, what if going cross-eyed and giving your self a headache would cause the pituitary mutation and give us a second lens??

Right, I know, half of you actually watch that space and half of you watch it metaphorically. ;)

As final flight of fancy…
In a future time a new race comes to visit our planet. In the course of our friendly initial interactions it’s discovered that we have similar monotheistic biblical creation myths, a rapport develops.
Later, in an exchange of medical knowledge, it’s discovered that the visitors have a second lens which displays the universe “the way god meant it”.
We ‘see’ it inverted and so, in their eyes, we are the spawn of Satan.
But hey, that could never happen, could it?

This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!


Do DOMA Reactions Reveal Challenges of Tentative Progress?

So, President Obama comes out last week and says the DOJ will no longer defend DOMA in court (as so many of us have been asking him to do for two years) and the right wing goes CRAZY.

Possible presidential candidate Herman Cain called it a “breach of presidential duty bordering on treason.”

Newt Gingrich has called for Obama to be impeached.

Speaker Boehner expects the House GOPers will step in to defend it.

And plenty of folks all over the right are lying that the President is no longer enforcing DOMA, which he quite notably is.

All of this got me thinking about the very gradual approach—the long haul—toward LGBT equality. In the scheme of the movement, this DOMA decision was not that big. It was two years overdue. It doesn’t undo the damage done by the anti-LGBT DOMA briefs. It doesn’t even necessarily expedite federal recognition of same-sex couples.

If anything, the call for heightened scrutiny is a much bigger deal, but no one’s talking about that.

But this one little decision has spurred a deluge from the right. Treason? Impeachment? Loss of all credibility? All the big guns for just this one little policy change.

Where are our big guns?

We’ve been playing the very long, very patient high-road game. Step by step, we’ll get to equality eventually. But that’s not the way our opponents play the game at all.

They lambast. They overreact. They explode with rage and they attack! attack! attack!

Now am I applauding their strategy? Not necessarily. But I question ours a bit. I don’t want to start lying or exaggerating. But I want us to have some guts. I want us to be able to be pissed.

Our civil rights movement has been pretty posh. Sure, our elders are living in poverty, our kids are bullied and homeless, our trans community attempts suicide at 40x the national rate, and the HIV epidemic never really ended. But it’s the middle-class couples with jobs and children that are our biggest priority, right? We need marriage equality now!

When are we going to be pissed about how our community is actually treated in this society? When are we going to fight back? When are we going to call people out? When are we actually going to make a concerted stand?

I still feel like I haven’t seen it.

If anything, the National Equality March came closest. And it had a lot of potential to energize and motivate and utilize a whole lot of young people tired of injustice. And did anybody do anything with it? No.

Look, the President is hurting us slightly less on one of our issues! Hooray! We’re so grateful! You’re the best gay ally in presidential history! Whoopee!

Suddenly Bil and Pam come along wanting to air some dirty political laundry and everyone backs away. Oh no. We’re not that kind of a movement. We don’t call people out. We just raise lots of money for our elite lobbyists and then let them lobby. Lobby lobby lobby. That’s how we’ll get equality.

I can’t wait to see what Bil and Pam come up with. And I can’t wait to see the whole movement look and say, “Oh! Yeah! Look at the hypocrites!” and suddenly be on board with a little investigative research on our opponents. But in the meantime, are our relationships with the progressive movement so fragile and poor that any political boat-rocking is considered too big a risk? Three and a half minutes from Lawrence O’Donnell calling out some lies is our big guns? (Thanks for that much, Lawrence.)

We can’t do anything big if it isn’t a nice polished campaign with one of the big orgs’ logos on it, because of course, who gets the credit is more important than what gets accomplished. We can’t even agree on messaging. We’re all just doing our own thing and pretending it’s a cohesive movement with a realistic timeline. It’s no wonder it feels like a surprise every time a new state gets civil unions or whatever, because no one’s paying attention to what each other is doing!

We should care about education. We should care about helping every single American citizen understand the basic concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity. We should be quite proud of our morality and call out every hypocrite who tries to smear us “dirty homosexuals” but won’t acknowledge his own vita of adultery, divorce, and other abridgments of the “sanctity of marriage.” We should celebrate every victory, but each should make us more eager to demand the next, not less. We should be pissed every single time any politician or public figure smears us, and we should emphasize immediate movement-wide response (as opposed to, say, just waiting for GLAAD to deal with it).

But that’s not our movement. We aren’t transparent and we don’t work together. We don’t come with the big guns handy, and while for some of us these issues are our lives, our progressive allies think they’re doing us a big one by even mentioning our struggles. And we’re so thankful when they do; it’s a lot to ask of them.

This is insufficient.

If the right is going to make a big deal about every little step forward we take, it’s time we demand the left have the same reaction for every attempt at a little step backward. The stagnancy is stifling, and I’m sorry, but I don’t have the same patience as my very comfortable elders in the movement.


This Just In: Christian Takes Right Side Of Argument For All The Wrong Reasons.

More than one blog that I have visited in the last few weeks has responded to this article from the HuffPo by a Presbyterian Minister in which she claims to want to attack “the feeble lie claiming that same gender love is a sin.”

I would normally have let this stand, as any of my friends know, I am an ardent proponent of gay marriage and LGBT equity.  I applaud Rev. Edwards stand in support of extending the institution of marriage to all loving and consensual couples.  Yet there is something profoundly wrong, in my mind, with trying to claim that same gender love is not a sin from a biblical standpoint.

The problem with taking this stand will show us one of the few places where Christians and atheists should agree.

As an atheist, I really do not want Christians to be able to whimsically pick and chose which doctrines they agree or disagree with.  The bible comes out firmly against homosexuality, and I consider this to be a fundamental liability to the faith.  Just as I want to be able to keep Christians scrambling to explain away God’s apathy toward slavery, I want to continue to question how you can argue against homosexuality from any place other than scripture.  I also want to be able to expose the logical flaw of affirming the Bible and being progressive.

As a Christian, you should stand against this too.  If homosexual love is not a sin, then several passages in scripture are called into question.  We all, by now, know which ones.  I suppose that you might take the stand that this falls under OT law, which was fulfilled by Jesus and therefor does not apply.  Then, though, you also have to affirm that the gospels authored by Paul are also not applicable to modern Christianity.  Paul affirms the law as it applies to homosexuals in Corinthians 6.   For all the “judge not”  and “love thy neighbor” rhetoric in the gospel, homosexuality is still a sin.

Christians can, I think, take the tack that their job is not a legislative one, that Christians have no inherent right to force their values on a pluralistic society.  They can argue that the bible does not impel them to stand in defiance of society’s right to have logically consistent laws.  I do not believe that Christians can say that the bible is ambivalent or supportive of homosexuality.  My issue is not with the stand Rev. Edwards takes, but the reasons she claims to take that stand.  Here is how I see it:

1.  IF there is a God,

2. IF He inspired the Bible, it is the Word of God

3. THEN homosexuality is a sin, and,

4. You cannot SUPPORT gay marriage, or the gay lifestyle.

It really is that simple.  You can take the position that you don’t wish to force your religious position on others.  You can take the position that you will reserve that judgement to a higher power.  You cannot take the position that it is not a sin.  You cannot take the position that the bible does not unambiguously condemn homosexuals.

My preference will always be that Christians take the position that they have no right to project their values on others or legislate their doctrines.  This is an enlightened and reasonable opinion.  I think it is also a biblical one.  I don’t think that we should argue that homosexuality is not a biblical sin.

I think, as well, that this issue will unintentionally hurt progressive Christians.  If you make arguments that are fallacious, as I believe this one is, you make mainstream Christians less likely to listen to those arguments that are constructive.  You risk having them write off all progressive thought and critique as being a perversion of scripture, you rob your faith of possibility.

I would love nothing more than to live in a world where the rights of LGBT people are not just respected, but unequivocally equal.  I just don’t think that comments like those of Rev. Edwards take the debate in the right direction.

Other reactions to the HuffPo article:

From a fellow Atheist-Somemusician has a post (and a number of comments)

From a Christian- John Barron Jr., of Truth in Religion & Politics


Created In The Blink Of An Eye?


Are you smarter than a Meryl Dorey?

There's now a simple test. Head over to Shellity's blog and try it out.


Struttin’ My Stuff

I’ve labeled myself in my circle of writer friends as the guy who writes things that offend people. In fact, it’s quite a cause for inside jokes when I write something that’s actually not offensive. Meanwhile, my girlfriend knows that I’m a really sweet guy under all of this and wonders why I have to put up such a nasty facade. Then, there are the comments from people who think my message would be better served with a helping of compassion. They think that if I conveyed my points with more courtesy, it would make them more likely to be heard. These are nice sentiments and all, but I don’t write to convert people.

I’m aware that sounds odd coming from me. Most of my articles about atheism and skepticism are written in a persuasive manner, talking directly to readers who disagree with me. But I know as well as anyone that a mind cannot be changed by a mere tactical nuke of logic. If I based my success or enjoyment of writing on the number of people I’ve deconverted, I would have quit a long time ago or at least changed my tactics. Neither is my blog a place where I get off on bashing others for their life choices. Sure, I’ve said some pretty strong things about believers of various types, but I believe these words are well earned by the damage these people do to society (for example, creationists).

The constant battle I fight against religion and, in general, the belief in god, is not about ego or my own personal judgement of the people who find themselves on the wrong side of the argument. It is about the struggle we must all go through in order to realize the truth of things. If a creationist were to credulously perform an about-face on their beliefs as a result of my arguments, I would not get a shred of satisfaction from it. After all, the same credulity lead them to believe the Earth was created in 7 days to begin with. It would be like pushing open a saloon door; by the time you were through, it would be swinging back in the other direction.

My own atheism comes as a result of years of learning about the world and struggling with multiple issues that never sat right. Nobody walked up to me and told me that there was no god and I suddenly became a minister of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What a sorry group we would be if that were so for all of us. No, atheism is earned against a variety of struggles; more than any blog can represent. What I do here is illustrate each of those struggles and my triumph over them.

My passion for learning about reality and realizing its implications often manifests itself as a stampede of the toughest love imaginable for the people who hold their blind faith so truly. That’s why its offensive. In basketball, we dunk a ball with emphasis to rub in not only our athletic prowess, but the other team’s inept defense. When it comes to logic, atheists are the slam dunk champions. Don’t like being posterized? Get off the court.

My articles are only as effective as the doubt that already exists in my readers’ minds. I’ll admit that I love to debate commenters when they pop up, but I see it as putting on an exhibition when I’ve already skated away with the gold.

Celebrating religious holidays without religion.

What is your opinion on "secular religion", such as secular judaism or atheistic paganism, where people reject a religions supernatural claims but celebrate its holidays and rituals?
I was asked this on my Formspring recently.

I celebrate Christmas: I love the season. It's a perfect mid-winter festival; an excuse to celebrate & create some memories. It's purely a secular holiday for me.

Participating in such "religious" holidays or rituals can be enjoyable, therapeutic and of course; secular. It's a wonderful opportunity for some celebration and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Someone (gordongoblin) responded with a nice insight in the comments to my recent Christmas post:
"I disagree that Christmas is religious any more than Thursday is. It is a linguistic remnant that the name of a god is wedged into the name, nothing more.                                                                               Christmas belongs to everyone now, just like Thursday does."
I think that sums up everything there is to say quite succinctly. So what do YOU celebrate that has its origins or is typically associated with religion? I'm curious.

.


Celebrating religious holidays without religion.

What is your opinion on "secular religion", such as secular judaism or atheistic paganism, where people reject a religions supernatural claims but celebrate its holidays and rituals?
I was asked this on my Formspring recently.

I celebrate Christmas: I love the season. It's a perfect mid-winter festival; an excuse to celebrate & create some memories. It's purely a secular holiday for me.

Participating in such "religious" holidays or rituals can be enjoyable, therapeutic and of course; secular. It's a wonderful opportunity for some celebration and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Someone (gordongoblin) responded with a nice insight in the comments to my recent Christmas post:
"I disagree that Christmas is religious any more than Thursday is. It is a linguistic remnant that the name of a god is wedged into the name, nothing more.                                                                               Christmas belongs to everyone now, just like Thursday does."
I think that sums up everything there is to say quite succinctly. So what do YOU celebrate that has its origins or is typically associated with religion? I'm curious.

.


John Dominic Crossan’s ‘blasphemous’ portrait of Jesus

(Emy's Note: After taking a few days off from blogging, having just moved across the country, I found this article on CNN and felt it had to be posted. Ultimately, I am interested in people who say something like, "What is remarkable about Jesus is not his death, but his life." And to think people call this man blasphemous and demonic. Wow. Currently, my family is trying to get me to join their local church choir. Now I've done church gigs for years. But it's important to set up boundaries. I'll go to a church if it's important to them. But no one asks if it's even something I want or believe in. I find that interesting. I'll let you know how that plays out.)

February 27, 2011 1:48 a.m. EST


(CNN) -- One of his first fan letters came from someone who declared:

"If Hell were not already created, it should be invented just for you."

Other critics have called him "demonic," "blasphemous" and a "schmuck."

When John Dominic Crossan was a teenager in Ireland, he dreamed of becoming a missionary priest. But the message he's spreading about Jesus today isn't the kind that would endear him to many church leaders.

Crossan says Jesus was an exploited "peasant with an attitude" who didn't perform many miracles, physically rise from the dead or die as punishment for humanity's sins.

Jesus was extraordinary because of how he lived, not died, says Crossan, one of the world's top scholars on the "historical Jesus," a field in which academics use historical evidence to reconstruct Jesus in his first-century setting.

"I cannot imagine a more miraculous life than nonviolent resistance to violence," Crossan says. "I cannot imagine a bigger miracle than a man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square."

In another time, Crossan's views would have been confined to scholarly journals. But he and his best-selling books, including the recent "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography," have changed how biblical scholars operate.
Crossan believes the public should be exposed to even the most divisive debates that scholars have had about Jesus and the Bible. He co-founded the Jesus Seminar, a controversial group of scholars who hold public forums that cast doubt on the authenticity of many sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus.


John Dominic Crossan says even the writers of the Bible disagreed about Jesus' message.
John Dominic Crossan says even the writers of the Bible disagreed about Jesus' message.
 
 
The 77-year-old Crossan has built on the seminar's mission by writing a series of best-selling books on Jesus and the Apostle Paul. With his silver Prince Valiant haircut and his pronounced Irish accent, he's also appeared on documentaries such as PBS's "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians" and A&E's "Mysteries of the Bible."

Crossan's overarching message is that you don't have to accept the Jesus of dogma. There's another Jesus hidden in Scripture and history who has been ignored.

"He's changed the way we look and think about Jesus," says Byron McCane, an archaeologist and professor of religion at Wofford College in South Carolina. "He's important in a way that few scholars are."

A reluctant scholar

Crossan is also reviled in a way that few scholars are.

Some critics say he's trying to debunk Christianity. Some question his personal faith. At a college lecture, Crossan says an audience member stood up and asked him if he had "received the Lord Jesus" as his savior.
Crossan said he had, but refused to repeat his questioner's evangelical language to describe his conversion.

"I wasn't going to give him the language; it's not my language," Crossan says. "I wasn't trying to denigrate him, but don't think you have the monopoly on the language of Christianity."

When asked if he is a Christian, Crossan doesn't hesitate.

"Absolutely."

Crossan says he never planned to be a Jesus scholar but was drafted to play that role -- by the Roman Catholic Church.

He had other plans. He grew up in a small town in Ireland reading adventure stories like "20,000 Leagues under The Sea" and reciting poetry with his father on long walks.

He wanted adventure and travel. The missionary priests who visited his boyhood school with stories of mission trips to Africa seemed to offer both.

Crossan says his father, a banker, and his mother, a housewife, didn't push religion on him. He was raised in a traditional Irish Catholic church where faith was "undiscussed, uninvestigated and uncriticized."

"I didn't grow up in an atmosphere where the Bible was stuffed down my throat."


John Dominic Crossan's parents, Daniel and Elizabeth, never pushed religion on him.
John Dominic Crossan's parents, Daniel and Elizabeth, never pushed religion on him.
 
 
Yet Crossan immersed himself in the world of the Bible for the rest of his adult life. When he entered a monastery at 16, church leaders told him they wanted him to be a scholar because he had already taken five years of Latin and Greek.

He became a priestly prodigy: ordained by 23; a doctorate at 25. He studied in Rome and Jerusalem, and eventually became a New Testament scholar who became known as an authority on the parables of Jesus. (Crossan saw them as subversive literary gems.)

His days as a priest would end, though, because of the same forces that shaped the rest of his career: the clash between church dogma and scholarly truth.

Crossan says it was "bliss" being a priest and scholar in the mid-1960s because the Roman Catholic Church had instituted a series of modernizing reforms.

But conservative church leaders fought those reforms, and Crossan says they pressured him to steer his research toward conclusions that reinforced church doctrine.

"It's like you're a scientist in research and development, and you say that this drug is lethal, and they say, 'Find something good in it,' '' Crossan says.

He left the priesthood in 1969 after he angered church leaders by publicly questioning the church's ban on birth control. He married, and settled into a career of teaching and writing books that were read primarily by other scholars.

Later, however, Crossan would anger church leaders again.

Crossan takes on a public role

In 1985, Robert Funk, a New Testament scholar, asked Crossan to join him on a risky mission: Expose the public to academic debates about the historical Jesus.

The seminar was Crossan's first wide exposure to the public. The media gravitated to him because he was a scholar who didn't talk like a scholar.

Christianity both admits and subverts the historical Jesus.
--John Dominic Crossan, historic Jesus scholar
 
He became known for his sound bites -- inspired, he says, by Jesus' use of parables to distill complex truths in pithy but provocative sayings.

Explaining why America's reliance on military might was similar to Rome's, he told Time magazine:

"There's good news and bad news from the historical Jesus. The good news: God says Caesar sucks. The bad news: God says Caesar is us.

Crossan's public profile rose another notch in 1991 when The New York Times ran a front-page story two days before Christmas on his book, "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant."

The book became a bestseller, and Crossan followed up with more. He says people were anxious to embrace a faith with "brains and heart," and learn the history behind the text, not just its wording.

"When we started out, people thought we were out on the left wing," he says. "Now, I'm talking in about 30 churches a year. ... A lot of this is becoming mainstream."

Crossan's revolutionary Jesus

It's still controversial, though.

A casual search of Crossan's name online turns up plenty of insults and warnings not to read his books.
Crossan says, however, that he's "trying to understand the stories of Jesus, not refute them."

Still, his findings often end up challenging some of Christianity's most cherished beliefs.

Consider his understanding of the resurrection. Jesus didn't bodily rise from the dead, he says. The first Christians told Jesus' resurrection story as a parable, not as a fact.

"Crucifixion meant that imperial power had won," Crossan says. "Resurrection meant that divine justice had won. God is on the side of the crucified one. Rome's' values are a dead issue to me."

How about the stories of Jesus' miracles, like raising the dead or stilling the storm?

John Dominic Crossan wanted to be a missionary priest as an Irish schoolboy.
John Dominic Crossan wanted to be a missionary priest as an Irish schoolboy
 
 
Most were parables, too, Crossan says. But there were some exceptions.

 "I'm completely convinced that Jesus was a major healer," he says. "I don't think anybody would talk about Jesus if all he did was talk."

People like to talk about Scripture, but Christians should also know history to understand Jesus, Crossan says.

In Jesus' time, Rome was forcing many Jewish families into destitution, with high taxes and land seizures. Some Jews advocated violent rebellion, but others opted for non-violent resistance.

Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. He was crucified because he threatened Roman stability -- not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins, Crossan says.

If you believe in a God that uses violence to "save" humanity, you'll start believing that violence is permissible in certain circumstances, such as suicide bombing or invading other countries to spread democracy, Crossan says.

The human addiction to violence, though, is so ingrained that even the authors of the New Testament had trouble accepting Jesus' nonviolence, Crossan says.

So they did a little editing.

Crossan's proof: Jesus preaches nonviolence at the beginning of the New Testament. By the book of Revelation, he's leading armies through heaven to kill evildoers.


"Christianity both admits and subverts the historical Jesus," Crossan says.

Does Crossan subvert Christianity?

Is Crossan doing the same -- admitting and subverting Jesus, some wonder?

The words "brilliant," "keen mind" and someone who "loves the Bible" are often used by fellow scholars to describe Crossan. They say he is generous with his time, funny and personally warm.

"He has real depth of the soul," says McCane, the biblical scholar and archaeologist. "He's spiritual in the best sense of the word. He sees the world as a place where values matter."

Yet some also wonder if he unwittingly gives people an excuse to diminish Jesus' importance.

Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar who has written several books about the early Christian community, says Crossan's work allows people to sidestep questions like: Did he come to save the world? Is he the son of God?

"It's a user-friendly Jesus that doesn't make demands on someone," he says.

Witherington says Crossan is trying to find a nonsupernatural way to explain Jesus and Scripture, and "the shoe doesn't fit."

"The stories are inherently theological," he says. "They all suggest that God intervenes in history. If you have a problem with the supernatural, you have a problem with the Bible. It's on every page."
 
If you have a problem with the supernatural, you have a problem with the Bible. It's on every page.
--Ben Witherington, New Testament scholar

One of the most persistent criticisms of Crossan's work is that he's turned Jesus into a peasant insurrectionist because his Irish ancestors battled the British Empire.

Crossan says growing up Irish "makes you skeptical about empire." But he says he came of age in the first generation after Irish independence when hatred of the British was not pervasive.

Crossan once wrote in his memoir that he learned two things from Irish history: "One, the British did terrible things to the Irish. Two, the Irish, had they the power, would have done equally terrible things to the British (they did it to one another with the British gone)."

Supporters of Crossan's work say he's encouraged ordinary Bible readers to ask tough questions.

"He opened up space in popular culture for people to think about the history behind the biblical texts," says Timothy Beal, author of "The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book."

"He invited people back into the texts to question those authoritative sources that have been telling them, 'This is what the Bible says, and you don't need to read it to yourself,' " Beal says.

His Irish accent remains, but Crossan is now an American citizen. He lives near Orlando, Florida, and spends much of his time traveling to lectures and appearing in religious documentaries.

After spending much of his life in the Roman Catholic Church, Crossan is now an outsider.

He hasn't joined a church because he says a priest might deny him the sacraments because of his run-ins with church leaders.

"If I attend a local Roman Catholic Church, I would get sucked back into all the debates," he says. "I don't want to spend my life fighting Roman Catholicism."

Crossan has also broken with church tradition by marrying. He married Margaret Dagenais, a university art professor, soon after leaving the priesthood in 1969. She died of a heart attack in 1983.

Today, his current wife, Sarah, is a yoga teacher and photographer. She's also his partner in travel. Crossan wanted to see the world as a boy. Now he sees it as a man. The two often travel to holy sites, where she takes photos that Crossan later uses in church presentations.

Crossan's reputation among traditional Christians was so touchy that it initially affected his relationship with her parents, Sarah said.

"We didn't talk about his work with them," she says. "They couldn't handle it. They thought he was so wrong. They loved him as a person, but not his work."

Crossan is not worried that his work will shatter people's faith in Jesus. The closer one gets to the historical Jesus, Crossan says, the more extraordinary Jesus becomes.

"A lot of people in the first century thought Jesus was saying something so important that they were willing to die for it. If people finish with my books and now see why Pilate executed him and why people died for him, then I've done my job."

The week’s twitterings – 2011-02-27

  • “@Herbez32: Are agnostics atheists? NO. The atheists are BELIEVERS, just like the Christians are.” < What an utter crock… #
  • “@timhaines: Fruit trees and lease comes with a gardener. Woot!”< Why does the lease need a gardener? #confused #
  • “@furrygirl: YOU PEOPLE NEGLECTED TO MENTION ITS SUPERFLUOUS CAPYBARA! http://t.co/PfJ0k4x” <A capybara is NEVER superfluous! #
  • For some reason, hearing Captain Beefheart playing in Starbucks struck me as particularly bizarre… #
  • Amazing essay from TAM London. http://t.co/rkUZixQ #
  • “@wattersjames: @geoffarnold You're saying that arguing about the validity of homeopathy is merely tribal? What an odd epistemology. #
  • The wisdom of Ike: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/quote-9.html #
  • “@thinguy: (I'm still here)” Good. Now what? #
  • Local forecast for Palo Alto this Friday night/Saturday morning: "Partly cloudy. A chance of showers and snow showers. Low 27F." REALLY?!?! #
  • Why are UK Muslims homophobic? 58% of Brits are OK with gays, but among British Muslims it's 0%. ZERO! Unacceptable. http://t.co/Zx79GoZ #
  • Just replaced my 1st gen MacBook Air with a new 11.6" MBA (4GB/128GB/1.6GHz). Like my 12" PB G4 from 2004, except faster and half the weight #

Powered by Twitter Tools

{{Retrieved from geoffarnold.com via RSS/ATOM.}}

The week’s twitterings – 2011-02-27

Do Do That Voodoo That You Do…Not So Well

Cross posted @ the Atheist Oasis

I'm not the one who's so far awayBrother Voodoo 2
when I feel the snake bite into my veins.
Never did I wanna be here again,
and I don't remember why I came. – GodSmack, Voodoo

This would be wildly amusing, if it weren’t so tragic:

Voodoo ritual sparks fatal New York apartment fire

An apartment fire in New York City that killed a retired school teacher last weekend was sparked by candles lit for a voodoo ritual to bring good luck, city officials have said.

The blaze began after a woman visited the apartment of a man in Brooklyn and paid him to perform the ritual.

Candles on the floor then ignited bed linen either while the couple were having sex or briefly afterwards.

It is not known if intercourse was part of the ceremony, city officials said.

The woman reportedly paid the man, who is known as a priest in the neighbourhood of Flatbush, $300 (£185) to carry out the service.

The man first tried to put the fire out using water from a bathroom sink, but the blaze quickly spread after a window was opened, allowing wind to fan the flames, a fire department official said.

Mary Feagin, a 64-year-old resident of the building, was trapped by the blaze and was later found dead in the building.

Eleven residents and 20 firefighters were injured in the fire, while 50 families were left without a home.

It took nearly seven hours and close to 200 firefighters to bring the blaze under control.

It is not believed the ceremony that caused the fire was an official voodoo ritual, but rather a home-grown practice.

That superstition flourishes is occasion enough to grind the teeth, but that people in the pursuit of magical nonsense go about endangering and even killing other folks is abominable. Everywhere we look, we see some sort of mumbo-jumbo used to part foolish folk from their money. Voodoo (also known as Voudou) is no different than any of the other masturbations we term ‘religion’. While as a practice it doesn’t quite do the damage Hollyweird presents (any and every time it’s in the movies) due to the bad press it received from St. John’s "Haiti or the Black Republic", it is still basically an intricate hierarchy of non-existent deities who are likely as effed up as any European tradition.

No doubt there will be some who protest and claim that I caricature a ‘true’ religion, but the fact is, all religions are caricatures, and are composed of stuff and nonsense.

Till the next post, then.

God Is Pro-Choice

Well, that's the conclusion I draw considering that yesterday in New York City the rain was absolutely pouring around 1 P.M., and yet today, for the rally I attended in support of Planned Parenthood in downtown Manhattan, the weather was about as nice as one could hope for in February. Because you know if it had rained during the rally like we experienced yesterday, some Bible Thumpers would be saying "You see, God's showing you how much he disapproves of what you're doing."

The rally itself was in response to the recent vote by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives to strip federal funding to Planned Parenthood for the terrible sin of providing abortions in addition to the majority of their work, which is health care and birth control. I myself utilized Planned Parenthood's services during a time of crisis in my life, so I know first hand the valuable work that they perform. It's not often that I feel motivated to get off my duff to stand up for a cause, but the actions by the Republicans not only in Congress, but increasingly in state legislatures across the country, have made me realize that when it comes to defending what I believe is a woman's fundamental reproductive rights, I can't just be a passive supporter.

Below are some pictures I took at the rally this afternoon. The first one, which is partly obscured, is of a sign carried by one attendee that reads "Keep Your Boehner Away From My Planned Parenthood," referring to the Speaker of the House John Boehner, who is apparently more concerned with making a woman's uterus a public domain rather than focusing on job growth. A couple of other amusing signs follow.





Of course, the rally featured more than just some catchy signs. There was also some important politicians and celebrity figures. Below is New York Senator Charles Schumer.



Next up, the fiery Anthony Weiner, who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens in the House of Representatives. I believe Weiner's district is the one that Schumer formerly represented in the House before Schumer was elected to the Senate.


In the celebrity department, we have actress Kathleen Turner, her voice huskier than ever. I kept hoping she would say "Pussywillows, Dotty." Apologies for the grainy shot. She was far from me and I had the lens on near maximum zoom.


Another amusing sign. It's the one in the middle that reads "Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries."


Another well known personality, at least in the blogging community, is the feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon. Again, apologies for the grainy picture.


Last in batch, I couldn't leave out my own representative in the New York State Assembly, Charles Lavine. It's starting to become something of a running gag with us that we keep crossing paths with one another. Last autumn, we met at an open house at the Islamic Center of Long Island in Westbury. Then on Election Day I was eating lunch at my local Cosi when he stopped in to eat with a couple of other people. He recognized me from the Islamic Center and we spoke briefly. So, as I was leaving the rally shortly after he spoke, I passed by him and when we made eye contact I greeted him again and was like "Hey, remember me?"

There were numerous other elected officials and feminist activists who spoke to the crowd, but I decided to focus only on the ones that I knew. Sadly, to me at least, all of the elected officials at the rally were Democrats. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate their support on reproductive rights, and since 2004 I have voted mostly for Democratic candidates either on the Democratic line or if they appear on other party lines, such as the Working Families Party. But it was not all that long ago that you could still find a few Republican politicians in New York who supported abortion rights. Regrettably, the Republican Party is increasingly solidifying itself as a party that opposes abortion rights even here in New York. For me as a voter, I find it difficult to pull the lever for a candidate that opposes abortion rights, but sometimes it puts me in the position of having to vote for a pro-choice candidate who is lackluster or who I do not otherwise care for. I would like to see the pendulum shift in the other direction so that opposition to abortion does not become a litmus test for Republican candidates for elected office.

And that leads me to another observation I want to make. Reproductive rights in this country are under a sustained and increasing assault by the anti-choice movement, and what I have noticed is that supporters of abortion rights are constantly on the defensive. What I would like to see from those of us who support abortion rights, access to contraception, and comprehensive sex education, is a counteroffensive to force our opponents to spend their money and resources responding to us rather than forcing us to always play defense. I would be eager to hook up with anyone in the New York area who would be interested in bouncing ideas off of each other and coming up with strategies to make this happen.

Book Review: Godless

I haven’t posted a book review here in awhile, so this seemed like a good one to catch up with.

A couple of months ago the local chapter of the PA Nonbelievers gave me a free copy of Dan Barker‘s Godless at the meeting I went to. I gratefully took it home and once the Christmas season was over, I pulled it out and read it.

There are many different types of atheists, ranging from the insincere to the fully committed. Dan Barker is one of those who I think has the most credibility when they discuss their atheism. I wouldn’t necessarily go to him for a lesson in biology (though far better him than, say, Ben Stein) but on the issue of religion, and in particular theism and Christianity, he has my undivided attention. The reason is that for much of his childhood and early adult life, he was a full blown evangelical proselytizing Christian. He was a Christian preacher and missionary, and was educated at some of the more respected (by Christians) educational facilities in the country. He lived his Christianity, and knew his Bible inside and out. He was, and is, a smart man. And a musician and composer to boot.

And then something wonderful happened. (A Miracle! Praise the FSM!) His brain kicked in. Somewhere along the line a seed, a small seed of doubt crept in, and unlike most Christians, he resolved to resolve it, so to speak. He pried it open and looked at it twelve ways from Sunday, and found that he couldn’t reconcile his doubt with his previous beliefs. This may sound condescending, but the practice of acquiring religion, through childhood indoctrination, actually dampens and suppresses the ability to critically think, but in some people it doesn’t always take. It didn’t for me, and thank doG it didn’t for Dan Barker. And it didn’t. In a relatively short time, that seed of doubt grew into a cancerous growth in his brain (a good form of cancer) that continued until it had fully consumed all of the theistic molecules in his body.  (If you don’t like that metaphor, I’ve got a few more.)

As you would expect from the title of the book, he became godless. He realized that the very concept of god, much less god itself, was an irrational, nonsensical notion, based on contrived, yet ignorant explanations of nature, ones not worthy of belief, not worth basing one’s whole life around.

Godless is broken up into multiple parts. The first is autobiographical. It relates how Dan went from proselytizing preacher to ardent atheist; sort of the “getting to know Dan” section. It’s not superfluous, because for the rest of the book, he relates much of his understanding of atheism in terms of what he learned, what he taught, how he changed his views from that of a Christian, and how people in his life reacted to him. The autobiographical section is used as a vehicle to explain godlessness.

The next part of the book is an explanation of exactly why he is an atheist (titled, unsurprisingly “Why I Am An Atheist”). In one chapter, he reviews all of the significant refutations of atheism thrown at him, and throws them back like limp, washed out rags. The reader can tell he’s put a lot of thought into these discussions, and his logic, like that of most rationalists, is hard to beat. No. I’m sorry. It’s impossible to beat.

The third section is the meat of the book, the one that shows conclusively why Christianity is not a sustainable worldview, much less a religion. Much of the discussion centers on the Bible, and Barker knows his Bible. I was inspired to write a few posts of my own on the subject, which were triggered by the Barker book as I read it. In short, the Bible is an old book and nothing more. It was written by well meaning yet relatively ignorant people thousands of years ago. We have come so far as a species, yet we cling to the outdated, superstitious notions of a goat-herding society from a small speck of dust in the Middle East. It’s so obsolete, it’s mind boggling.

The book concludes with a short section on how his deconversion has affected his life. He’s involved in The Freedom From Religion Foundation, one of the most active and effective freethinking organizations in the country. He is married to Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the founders of the the FFRF, which organization has taken free-thought and atheism and helped to make it more acceptable in a country where it has always been thought of as the cultural equivalent of B.O. (with religion the antiperspirant, I guess – jeez, that was a terrible metaphor).

There’s still a lot of work to do, but this book goes a long way in helping the reader feel optimistic about the future. It works on a couple of different levels. On the one level, it’s a memoir, a deconversion story, and we all know how well deconversion stories work in helping people who might be on the fence, experiencing their own doubts about religion, identify with what Barker went through, and in the process, find the same or a similar path to atheism.

On another level, it works as a primer for atheism. All of the arguments, all of the logical fallacies, all of the refutation of apologetics are in here. Well, maybe not all of them, but it’s doubtful that most of us will ever get the chance, or inclination, to debate William Lane Craig, so the stuff that is in here will more than suffice to understand atheism. And it’s written in a clear and lucid style, so that it’s much easier to comprehend than other, more arcane documents on the subject of religion (like the Bible.)

So, I can’t recommend it highly enough. It’s in paperback and there are links to both Amazon and Barnes & Noble in this review, or patronize your local independent bookstore.

Oh. And don’t get it mixed up with the Ann Coulter book by the same name. There’s no comparison.


Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Beliefs, Book Review, Books, Christianity, Church and State, Critical thinking, Faithfreeism, Freethought, god, Humanism, Non-Theistic, Rationalism, reality, Reason, Religion, Science, Theism, Theology, Truth Tagged: apologetics, Atheism, Beliefs, Ben Stein, Bible, Book Review, Books, Christian, Christianity, creationism, Dan Barker, Faithfreeism, god, Humanism, Middle East, Reading, Reason, Religion, Theism

Sco v. IBM, what happens to a political case

The "save Amanda Knox" cause that has recently consumed this blog, is undergoing a shift.  Initially the core group standing behind Amanda Knox were people who knew her.  People who simply couldn't conceive of her being the sort of person Mignini described.  People who paid their own airfare to testify in her trial.   Then a small group of people examined the evidence and found it wanting.  So while there was publicity, it was mostly directed in the early days by Mignini towards villifying Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito so as to generate false statements (see Amanda Knox and prosecutorial abuse for more on this).   As the cause is broadening out to a few thousand people, its beginning to look more like a small political movement. Fewer and fewer people involved knew Amanda or any of the main parties involved personally.

So what we have here is a structure: a core group of people involved in the formal legal case, surrounded by a web support group who are gathering "evidence" in parallel with the actual trial, surrounded by a broader political movement. There are lots of criminal cases with the broader political movement. There are lots of political cases with a web based investigation but no broad political support. This triple is rare. And the best analogy is a civil suit that occurred recently SCO v. IBM that I was involved with in much the same way as this case.  And the point of this post is to examine this earlier case for what is instructive about it.

SCO was a market leader in x86 (PC) based Unixes during the 1980s  and 90s, and arguably along with Microsoft one of the few companies that believed there was money in the operating system's business as opposed to operating systems being a lost liter for selling hardware.     As Linux came in they moved onto more of a legacy support role and eventually saw their value eroded, eventually being merging with a Unix company (see Caldera OpenLinux on wikipedia for more details).

The public controversy started when the SCO Group's CEO, Darl McBride, initiated a media campaign arguing that the Linux kernel contained "hundreds of lines" of code from SCO's version of UNIX, and that SCO would reveal the code to other companies under NDA in July.  The Linux development process is public, and the kernel team has always been aggressive in attempting to ensure compliance with copyright law.  The SCO code copyright violations, if they existed most likely were in the IPX module which had been funded by Caldera, the predecessor to the SCO group.  And so this media campaign led to public outrage by a small group of people who were involved with Linux.  But this outrage quickly moved onto the broader community of people involved in the Linux community.  In much the same way that Mignini's media leaks to British and Italian tabloids originally offended just Amanda's family and friends but later generated the public interest in Seattle regarding Amanda Knox.

With a high level of public interest the initial filing in their lawsuit against IBM was heavily scrutinized.  I was typical in noticing dozens of incorrect and false statement.    I caught a lot of statements about the history of SCO, which I had been a fan of during the early 1990s, which were false.    There were also provably false statements about the history of Linux.   So in the discussions on the case I started raising these points.  And this was nothing more than internet blather.  What was different in this case, than so many others was I wasn't alone.  Dozens of people were doing the same thing.  And very quickly a site, Groklaw, was set up which organized this counter information.  Playing much the same role as Injustice in Perugia and Friends of Amanda do for the Knox case.  A central collection of information about the case as if the broader public had a vote.

Its hard to give examples on a general purpose blog since: most of the readers don't know what an operating system is, Linux / SCO has to do with operating systems kernels and the debates about things like IPX have to do with kernel libraries.  So I'll pick an example, which while trite gives an example of how misleading and dishonest the entire filling was.  Point 75, reads (points are mine)
The name "Linux" is commonly understood in the computing industry to be a combination of the word "UNIX" (referring to the UNIX operating system) and the name "Linus." The name "Linus" was taken from the person who introduced Linux to the computing world, Linux Torvalds.
Which of course is false in a whole bunch of ways. The name of the original programmer was Linus Torvalds, not Linux Torvalds. His name for the system was Freax which was a combination of Free, Freak and X. The name "Linix" (not a typo) was Ari Lemmke's abbreviation of "Linus' Minix".  Ari ran the site where Linux was first uploaded and first distributed from.    Minix was a reference to Andrew S. Tanenbaum  Operating system he wrote as a companion to his standard text, Operating Systems: Design and Implementation (link is to the late 1980s version, current is here).

And these details are important in context.  The point of 75 was to argue that even the name Linux is evidence for their theory of the derivation of Linux  While in reality the origin of the name shows the opposite.  The reference to Minix shows that the early version of the code came from the educational / academic community and not the commercial community, product lines with the AT&T code.      As an aside, the name Linux was a failed attempt at unifying the pronunciation using Linus name. American's were pronouncing Linix (Linn-ks) rather than 'Lee-nuks' (Len-uxs) and since Linus pronounces his name 'Lee-nus' the assumption was Linux would be pronounced that way; however Americans pronounce Linus as 'lye-nus' and Lye-nuks was the natural connection which also wasn't right and just added to the confusion.

So again while that point may sound nitpicky, and it is, this is meant to be an example that doesn't require background of how wrong SCO was on its many many points.   And there were hundreds of these.  All like the Harry Potter book, the blood on the knife, the bloody footprints... evidence that simply didn't exist.  And just as guilters today in the Knox case encourage everyone to ignore the specific facts that virtually ever piece of evidence that is not irrelevant has been refuted, SCO's defenders encouraged the people hearing about these nonsensical claims to focus on the big picture.   But of course the big picture was just an amalgamation of innuendo.   But unlike in the Knox case the judiciary didn't feel it appropriate to create their own theories from SCO's claims, filling in the blanks with "it is possible and in fact probable".   Rather they focused on the evidence as presented by the plaintiff:

Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the UNIX software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities.

The interest and controversy, fed by these sites continued to build.  Journalists covering these sorts of things, typically rewrite a press release throw in a line or two of their own and move on after a few hours.  For serious cases of course everything needs to be carefully fact checked, reputations can be made or lost based on how evidence was handled.  And journalists soon found that this case was not going to be treated the same way as a minor lawsuit.    The level of controversy and heat, was more like writing about the Israeli / Palestinian crisis or a major political case.  There were expected to check and double check every line they wrote.  Years later journalists faced criticism for what they had written in SCO v. IBM; and almost all who had done little more than regurgitate press releases had to write detailed apology / retractions admitting it, to maintain their credibility.

But journalists were not the only ones effected.  The legal system itself was substantially influenced.  They were people in IBM that originally been inclined to settle cheaply.  The PR campaign and the community reaction to the SCO PR campaign put those ideas to rest.  IBM knew the community reaction to anything short of total victory would be devastatingly negative publicity.  Conversely the ongoing case was a net positive in terms of marketing, IBM's got to be the good guys among a large chunk of their potential customer base all for the cost of a minor lawsuit, SCO's PR campaign backfired.  And again the analogy of Mignini's original vilification campaign leading to a dozen books and at least 3 movies works well in this analogy.

And as the case continued the people involved who were deposing themselves to assist IBM were not secondary players like myself but primaries.  For example the project manager who had negotiated parts of the project Monterey contract for SCO with IBM came forward to contradict SCO's claims about what their intent had been at the time.  The estate of John Lions, whom both sides knew had died of old age, came forward publicly to forward to contradict SCO's claims, and provide evidence to IBM about having gotten parts of Lions' Commentary on UNIX from AT&T that Lions hadn't.  IBM's lawyers had the effect of an infinite investigative budget.   Even SCO admitted how effective Groklaw was and tried to create a connection with IBM to put an end to their activities, which failed.

In terms of the Judges, most couldn't believe that this "BS lawsuit" was the case they were going to be famous for.  None had experienced this level of public scrutiny where every motion was discussed publicly and in detail.  It caused them to go more slowly and more carefully.  It is my hope that the publicity for the Knox case similarly effects the Italian judges.  The Italian judiciary is being attacked from the right within Italy, from the British with the EU it doesn't need to further alienate America where  Italy has consistently taken the position that justice must meet international standards and shouldn't be a one country affair, (see Italy the EU and the international standards of justice).

Finally business partners and contributors to the lawsuit like like Yarro, Microsoft and Sun were affected.   Negative PR for Linux had been a boon for Microsoft and Sun.  Positive PR for SCO had been a boon for Yarro.  But once this case became really hot everyone backed off.  Microsoft while seen as unavoidably hostile to Linux needed to avoid being truly detested the way SCO was.  SUN wanted credibility in the open source world.  Conversely people on the other side like Novell and IBM who had often been mixed earned a lot street cred by being on the side of the angels.  Perguia was shocked when Seattle rejected Perugia park.  Rocco Girlanda has a US reputation now, and contacts with average Americans.

While the Knox case is not nearly as big as the SCO v. IBM case, I do think its an instructive example.

Sco v. IBM, what happens to a political case

The "save Amanda Knox" cause that has recently consumed this blog, is undergoing a shift.  Initially the core group standing behind Amanda Knox were people who knew her.  People who simply couldn't conceive of her being the sort of person Mignini described.  People who paid their own airfare to testify in her trial.   Then a small group of people examined the evidence and found it wanting.  So while there was publicity, it was mostly directed in the early days by Mignini towards villifying Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito so as to generate false statements (see Amanda Knox and prosecutorial abuse for more on this).   As the cause is broadening out to a few thousand people, its beginning to look more like a small political movement. Fewer and fewer people involved knew Amanda or any of the main parties involved personally.

So what we have here is a structure: a core group of people involved in the formal legal case, surrounded by a web support group who are gathering "evidence" in parallel with the actual trial, surrounded by a broader political movement. There are lots of criminal cases with the broader political movement. There are lots of political cases with a web based investigation but no broad political support. This triple is rare. And the best analogy is a civil suit that occurred recently SCO v. IBM that I was involved with in much the same way as this case.  And the point of this post is to examine this earlier case for what is instructive about it.

SCO was a market leader in x86 (PC) based Unixes during the 1980s  and 90s, and arguably along with Microsoft one of the few companies that believed there was money in the operating system's business as opposed to operating systems being a lost liter for selling hardware.     As Linux came in they moved onto more of a legacy support role and eventually saw their value eroded, eventually being merging with a Unix company (see Caldera OpenLinux on wikipedia for more details).

The public controversy started when the SCO Group's CEO, Darl McBride, initiated a media campaign arguing that the Linux kernel contained "hundreds of lines" of code from SCO's version of UNIX, and that SCO would reveal the code to other companies under NDA in July.  The Linux development process is public, and the kernel team has always been aggressive in attempting to ensure compliance with copyright law.  The SCO code copyright violations, if they existed most likely were in the IPX module which had been funded by Caldera, the predecessor to the SCO group.  And so this media campaign led to public outrage by a small group of people who were involved with Linux.  But this outrage quickly moved onto the broader community of people involved in the Linux community.  In much the same way that Mignini's media leaks to British and Italian tabloids originally offended just Amanda's family and friends but later generated the public interest in Seattle regarding Amanda Knox.

With a high level of public interest the initial filing in their lawsuit against IBM was heavily scrutinized.  I was typical in noticing dozens of incorrect and false statement.    I caught a lot of statements about the history of SCO, which I had been a fan of during the early 1990s, which were false.    There were also provably false statements about the history of Linux.   So in the discussions on the case I started raising these points.  And this was nothing more than internet blather.  What was different in this case, than so many others was I wasn't alone.  Dozens of people were doing the same thing.  And very quickly a site, Groklaw, was set up which organized this counter information.  Playing much the same role as Injustice in Perugia and Friends of Amanda do for the Knox case.  A central collection of information about the case as if the broader public had a vote.

Its hard to give examples on a general purpose blog since: most of the readers don't know what an operating system is, Linux / SCO has to do with operating systems kernels and the debates about things like IPX have to do with kernel libraries.  So I'll pick an example, which while trite gives an example of how misleading and dishonest the entire filling was.  Point 75, reads (points are mine)
The name "Linux" is commonly understood in the computing industry to be a combination of the word "UNIX" (referring to the UNIX operating system) and the name "Linus." The name "Linus" was taken from the person who introduced Linux to the computing world, Linux Torvalds.
Which of course is false in a whole bunch of ways. The name of the original programmer was Linus Torvalds, not Linux Torvalds. His name for the system was Freax which was a combination of Free, Freak and X. The name "Linix" (not a typo) was Ari Lemmke's abbreviation of "Linus' Minix".  Ari ran the site where Linux was first uploaded and first distributed from.    Minix was a reference to Andrew S. Tanenbaum  Operating system he wrote as a companion to his standard text, Operating Systems: Design and Implementation (link is to the late 1980s version, current is here).

And these details are important in context.  The point of 75 was to argue that even the name Linux is evidence for their theory of the derivation of Linux  While in reality the origin of the name shows the opposite.  The reference to Minix shows that the early version of the code came from the educational / academic community and not the commercial community, product lines with the AT&T code.      As an aside, the name Linux was a failed attempt at unifying the pronunciation using Linus name. American's were pronouncing Linix (Linn-ks) rather than 'Lee-nuks' (Len-uxs) and since Linus pronounces his name 'Lee-nus' the assumption was Linux would be pronounced that way; however Americans pronounce Linus as 'lye-nus' and Lye-nuks was the natural connection which also wasn't right and just added to the confusion.

So again while that point may sound nitpicky, and it is, this is meant to be an example that doesn't require background of how wrong SCO was on its many many points.   And there were hundreds of these.  All like the Harry Potter book, the blood on the knife, the bloody footprints... evidence that simply didn't exist.  And just as guilters today in the Knox case encourage everyone to ignore the specific facts that virtually ever piece of evidence that is not irrelevant has been refuted, SCO's defenders encouraged the people hearing about these nonsensical claims to focus on the big picture.   But of course the big picture was just an amalgamation of innuendo.   But unlike in the Knox case the judiciary didn't feel it appropriate to create their own theories from SCO's claims, filling in the blanks with "it is possible and in fact probable".   Rather they focused on the evidence as presented by the plaintiff:

Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the UNIX software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities.

The interest and controversy, fed by these sites continued to build.  Journalists covering these sorts of things, typically rewrite a press release throw in a line or two of their own and move on after a few hours.  For serious cases of course everything needs to be carefully fact checked, reputations can be made or lost based on how evidence was handled.  And journalists soon found that this case was not going to be treated the same way as a minor lawsuit.    The level of controversy and heat, was more like writing about the Israeli / Palestinian crisis or a major political case.  There were expected to check and double check every line they wrote.  Years later journalists faced criticism for what they had written in SCO v. IBM; and almost all who had done little more than regurgitate press releases had to write detailed apology / retractions admitting it, to maintain their credibility.

But journalists were not the only ones effected.  The legal system itself was substantially influenced.  They were people in IBM that originally been inclined to settle cheaply.  The PR campaign and the community reaction to the SCO PR campaign put those ideas to rest.  IBM knew the community reaction to anything short of total victory would be devastatingly negative publicity.  Conversely the ongoing case was a net positive in terms of marketing, IBM's got to be the good guys among a large chunk of their potential customer base all for the cost of a minor lawsuit, SCO's PR campaign backfired.  And again the analogy of Mignini's original vilification campaign leading to a dozen books and at least 3 movies works well in this analogy.

And as the case continued the people involved who were deposing themselves to assist IBM were not secondary players like myself but primaries.  For example the project manager who had negotiated parts of the project Monterey contract for SCO with IBM came forward to contradict SCO's claims about what their intent had been at the time.  The estate of John Lions, whom both sides knew had died of old age, came forward publicly to forward to contradict SCO's claims, and provide evidence to IBM about having gotten parts of Lions' Commentary on UNIX from AT&T that Lions hadn't.  IBM's lawyers had the effect of an infinite investigative budget.   Even SCO admitted how effective Groklaw was and tried to create a connection with IBM to put an end to their activities, which failed.

In terms of the Judges, most couldn't believe that this "BS lawsuit" was the case they were going to be famous for.  None had experienced this level of public scrutiny where every motion was discussed publicly and in detail.  It caused them to go more slowly and more carefully.  It is my hope that the publicity for the Knox case similarly effects the Italian judges.  The Italian judiciary is being attacked from the right within Italy, from the British with the EU it doesn't need to further alienate America where  Italy has consistently taken the position that justice must meet international standards and shouldn't be a one country affair, (see Italy the EU and the international standards of justice).

Finally business partners and contributors to the lawsuit like like Yarro, Microsoft and Sun were affected.   Negative PR for Linux had been a boon for Microsoft and Sun.  Positive PR for SCO had been a boon for Yarro.  But once this case became really hot everyone backed off.  Microsoft while seen as unavoidably hostile to Linux needed to avoid being truly detested the way SCO was.  SUN wanted credibility in the open source world.  Conversely people on the other side like Novell and IBM who had often been mixed earned a lot street cred by being on the side of the angels.  Perguia was shocked when Seattle rejected Perugia park.  Rocco Girlanda has a US reputation now, and contacts with average Americans.

While the Knox case is not nearly as big as the SCO v. IBM case, I do think its an instructive example.