There has been much rancor, as is usually the case, over the Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments regarding the Second Amendment. I have a confession to make to all my liberal activist buddies out there in the blogosphere:
I am a lifetime member of of the National Rifle Association. (There...I said it....I feel so much better!)...
Now, in all honesty, I have not received any material from them (including the monthly issue of the American Rifleman) for more than a decade now. (I got really annoyed with the NRA when they started referring to ATF agents as "jack-booted thugs" during the whole David Koresh thing at Waco in the early 1990s and quit sending in "change of address" notifications whenever we would move. I had just joined the federal service at that time and was not amused with the whole anti-government crowd - they always struck me as bunch of cry babies who thought the rules of a civilized society didn't apply to them. By the way, and for the record: David Koresh was a coward and that bastard should have burned - the full extent of his cowardice was revealed when he took innocents along with him).
My general indifference to being a member of the NRA not withstanding, I still support the concept of the Second Amendment. I believe there is social value in a citizenry that remains mostly armed - it does give governments pause; and I believe it is one of the few things that keeps our form of government uniquely different from others around the world. I think most of the objections to personal ownership of firearms stem from unfamiliarity with dangerous weapons. I grew up with firearms of all kinds and am as comfortable with them as I am with a knife and fork around my Thanksgiving turkey. I made the Expert rating in rifle competition and just missed the Distinguished Expert medal (my college career interrupted my competitive rifle shooting). (So, in reference to my correctional officer debating partner: I have all those skills plus a doctorate...think about that for a moment!). In effect, I am generally in favor of the armed citizen (note: not just the hunting citizen) and am hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of a personal right to own and bear arms (yes, I am also in favor of concealed weapons permits).
Of course, what this means is that I buy into the argument that armed citizens are a deterrent to all kinds of tyranny. The problem is that most members of the NRA probably consider tyranny in the context of "liberal" efforts to regulate the population. Personally, I am more concerned with the potential for tyranny of conservative ideas....more specifically, theological based tyranny. We already seem to have an infestation of Christian soldiers in the military whose allegiance is to mythological beings and not the US constitution. I would suggest that such people might ultimately pose a threat to civil liberties.
I certainly understand the arguments in favor of gun control, but as I have always proposed, let's not limit someone else's freedoms simply because we don't personally agree with it. Instead, use that freedom to your own benefit. Imagine the response if atheists suddenly joined the NRA in droves. Imagine if Muslims, Buddhists and Wiccans joined shooting clubs. And for something really scary:
Imagine if PZ were not just eloquent, educated, atheistic, and outspoken....but also armed!
Of course it will probably never happen, but gee, wouldn't that get the NRA's panties in a twist? Of course I can hear the arguments now: "The Second Amendment was never intended to apply to atheists"....
Showing posts with label Culture Wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture Wars. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Moral Objections To Medical Treatment
CNN has been reporting on doctors who refuse treatments based on moral grounds. This is theocracy, pure and simple. A doctor who refuses a secularly legal treatment has placed his religious beliefs above those of the patent. In doing so, he/she has determined that religious belief trumps secular law. What are the limits of such an attitude? And what happens when Christian religious belief runs counter to another religious (or non-religious) moral imperative? If society accepts the principle that a doctor may refuse treatment on the basis of a religious belief, a personal, mental concept that cannot be verified by any accepted standard of inquiry, then does that society not take a large step in the direction of theocracy? It is very easy, and very simplistic, to consider this issue solely in terms of certain Christian sects who see contraception or abortion as moral issues, but consider every other medical procedure around the world associated with religious views. We chose not to have our child circumcised - I suppose that I should count my blessings that we did not have a fundamentalist Jewish doctor as our physician. After all, if a Catholic doctor can refuse to provide contraception based on a moral objection, why should a Jewish doctor not insist that his patioent's male children be circumcised, based on a moral imperative? Shall we talk about female circumcision? Should a "gay" gene ultimately be discovered will Christians start accepting (perhaps insist upon) abortion under "special religious circumstances"? Where does this lunacy end?
It ends with strict adherence to secular laws. If it is legal, you have an obligation to perform that action for someone else who insists upon it and your personal religious views be damned. If you can't stomach it, then get another job, you coward! If your religious viewpoint means that much to you then take a cut in pay and do something more menial and less lucrative, and quit protecting your outrageously inflated salary under the guise of a moral objection!
It ends with strict adherence to secular laws. If it is legal, you have an obligation to perform that action for someone else who insists upon it and your personal religious views be damned. If you can't stomach it, then get another job, you coward! If your religious viewpoint means that much to you then take a cut in pay and do something more menial and less lucrative, and quit protecting your outrageously inflated salary under the guise of a moral objection!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
O'Reilly Needs Holiday Cheer
Ok, we all know that Bill O'Reilly is resurrecting the War on Christmas issue again, and we can be assured of more false alarms and spin on the examples he will be presenting on his TV and radio shows.
So.....I suggest we all take note of his efforst and send Darwin Christmas Cards to Bill, wishing him a Happy Holiday season of his choosing...nothing provocative in the written messages, just warm wishes to him and everyone else at FOX.
So.....I suggest we all take note of his efforst and send Darwin Christmas Cards to Bill, wishing him a Happy Holiday season of his choosing...nothing provocative in the written messages, just warm wishes to him and everyone else at FOX.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Fundamentalist Christians In The Mililtary
In light of my previous blog on the issue of atheists being mistreated by our own military in Iraq, I ran across this interesting blog on the issue of fundamentalist Christians in the American military. Some frightening stuff....
What Fundamentalist Christians and Radical Muslims Have In Common
Was just catching up on my blog reading over at Dispatches From The Culture Wars and saw Ed's post on this:
Atheist Mistreatment In Iraq
No, not by radical Muslims but by our own military. This email was forwarded to me from a soldier in Iraq whose friend is being harassed at another base for organizing a meeting of atheists on the base....
Thought you'd be interested in this report of the first-ever meeting of Atheist service-members in Iraq under the umbrella of the MAAF-Iraq chapter of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. This meeting was put together by the same young MAAF member who recently had his second letter published in the Stars and Stripes....
Four soldiers attended this meeting - all of them very junior enlisted soldiers with the exception of one Major (an O-4), who claimed to be a "freethinker".
Well, to make a very long story a little shorter, the Major turned out to be a fundamentalist Christian who verbally berated the other attendees, accused them of plotting against Christians and disrespecting soldiers who have died protecting the Constitution, and threatened them with punishment under the UCMJ for their activities (said they were "going down") and said he would do whatever it took to shut the meetings down. Keep in mind that by this point, he had two of the attendees (one soldier fled when the shouting started) standing at the position of attention so that he could yell at them, berate them, and humiliate them. This apparently went on for several minutes at which time the Major shut down the meeting by saying he wasn't some "push-over Chaplain" and that he would not tolerate the meetings to continue.
This Major is as much a threat to American freedom as any radical Muslim. He has no concept of the US Constitution which he claims to be protecting, its history, its principles or its ideals. He should immediately be given a dishonorable discharge and forced to apologize publicly for his despicable behavior.
Atheist Mistreatment In Iraq
No, not by radical Muslims but by our own military. This email was forwarded to me from a soldier in Iraq whose friend is being harassed at another base for organizing a meeting of atheists on the base....
Thought you'd be interested in this report of the first-ever meeting of Atheist service-members in Iraq under the umbrella of the MAAF-Iraq chapter of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. This meeting was put together by the same young MAAF member who recently had his second letter published in the Stars and Stripes....
Four soldiers attended this meeting - all of them very junior enlisted soldiers with the exception of one Major (an O-4), who claimed to be a "freethinker".
Well, to make a very long story a little shorter, the Major turned out to be a fundamentalist Christian who verbally berated the other attendees, accused them of plotting against Christians and disrespecting soldiers who have died protecting the Constitution, and threatened them with punishment under the UCMJ for their activities (said they were "going down") and said he would do whatever it took to shut the meetings down. Keep in mind that by this point, he had two of the attendees (one soldier fled when the shouting started) standing at the position of attention so that he could yell at them, berate them, and humiliate them. This apparently went on for several minutes at which time the Major shut down the meeting by saying he wasn't some "push-over Chaplain" and that he would not tolerate the meetings to continue.
This Major is as much a threat to American freedom as any radical Muslim. He has no concept of the US Constitution which he claims to be protecting, its history, its principles or its ideals. He should immediately be given a dishonorable discharge and forced to apologize publicly for his despicable behavior.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Are We Out To Destroy Christianity? Hardly.
Red State Rabble has always been one of my favorite, not just for its interesting perspective on issues like science and religion, but also because I find it to be very well written. RSR also possesses the uncanny ability to dig straight through the handwringing vagueness that accompanies most efforts at trying to get a point across and get to the heart of the matter.
This post has kept me thinking for the last several days, largely because I believe RSR is dead center on with it. He begins by addressing the furor over the Jesus Tomb and the fundamentalist claims that Hollywood is out to destroy religion, but moves beyond it to find the core. Some snippets:
Forget, for now, the fact that the Cameron documentary, which purported to have discovered the bones of Jesus, made absolutely no impression on anyone outside the fundamentalist movement.
A nation preoccupied with a losing war in Iraq, we suspect, has more important things to think about than whether or not a set of bones proves or disproves an ancient myth, even if a large section of the population professes to believe it. Although, in all honesty, we can't deny that a large section of the populace seems equally absorbed in the details of Anna Nicole Smith's death and Brittany Spears latest haircut, and that may caution us against imputing any particularly noble intent on the part of the people who inhabit the home of the free and the land of the brave.
With the exception of James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and the like on the religious right, and Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and a handful of like-minded "New Atheists," on the other side, everyone else seems perfectly happy to be tolerant of a range of religious belief that extends from traditional Catholics, Jews, and Protestants to a growing acceptance of Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans and even, in many cases now, skeptics like RSR and friends.
Most of us grew up believing that religious belief belongs in the private sphere of church and family. We're as reluctant to push our own beliefs on others as we are to criticize theirs. That's broken down recently because the religious right insists on pushing their rather peculiar beliefs on the rest of us.
They've made religion into a political issue by demanding that we teach the supposed controversy over evolution while suppressing information about preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. They say that developing cures for devastating diseases such as Parkinson's is less important than keeping frozen embryos frozen. Inoculating girls against a virus that causes 70 percent of cervical cancer cases -- which kills about 290,000 deaths a year world-wide -- would be immoral, they say.
Moreover, rather than just practicing what they preach and be done with it, they demand that all the rest of us follow the strange dictates of their religious faith rather than our own.
These fundamentalists also have the rather distressing trait of thundering moral condemnation on the beliefs held dear by the rest of us while demanding scrupulous respect for themselves. They can say anything they want about us, but criticism of them is blasphemy.
This is why, people like RSR, who were once comfortable in their own beliefs and would never have thought of criticising the beliefs of others are now speaking up. And, for the most part, were not trying, as Medved would have it, to discredit religion as a whole, but to protect ourselves against an aggressive, self-righteous, fundamentalism.
Emphasis is mine on that last paragraph in part because I'm definitely one of those "people like RSR". Christianity spawned a reaction from me when it became predominately political and less spiritual. Had that not happened, Northstate Science might well still be on my mental list of things to get around to one day.
This post has kept me thinking for the last several days, largely because I believe RSR is dead center on with it. He begins by addressing the furor over the Jesus Tomb and the fundamentalist claims that Hollywood is out to destroy religion, but moves beyond it to find the core. Some snippets:
Forget, for now, the fact that the Cameron documentary, which purported to have discovered the bones of Jesus, made absolutely no impression on anyone outside the fundamentalist movement.
A nation preoccupied with a losing war in Iraq, we suspect, has more important things to think about than whether or not a set of bones proves or disproves an ancient myth, even if a large section of the population professes to believe it. Although, in all honesty, we can't deny that a large section of the populace seems equally absorbed in the details of Anna Nicole Smith's death and Brittany Spears latest haircut, and that may caution us against imputing any particularly noble intent on the part of the people who inhabit the home of the free and the land of the brave.
With the exception of James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and the like on the religious right, and Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and a handful of like-minded "New Atheists," on the other side, everyone else seems perfectly happy to be tolerant of a range of religious belief that extends from traditional Catholics, Jews, and Protestants to a growing acceptance of Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans and even, in many cases now, skeptics like RSR and friends.
Most of us grew up believing that religious belief belongs in the private sphere of church and family. We're as reluctant to push our own beliefs on others as we are to criticize theirs. That's broken down recently because the religious right insists on pushing their rather peculiar beliefs on the rest of us.
They've made religion into a political issue by demanding that we teach the supposed controversy over evolution while suppressing information about preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. They say that developing cures for devastating diseases such as Parkinson's is less important than keeping frozen embryos frozen. Inoculating girls against a virus that causes 70 percent of cervical cancer cases -- which kills about 290,000 deaths a year world-wide -- would be immoral, they say.
Moreover, rather than just practicing what they preach and be done with it, they demand that all the rest of us follow the strange dictates of their religious faith rather than our own.
These fundamentalists also have the rather distressing trait of thundering moral condemnation on the beliefs held dear by the rest of us while demanding scrupulous respect for themselves. They can say anything they want about us, but criticism of them is blasphemy.
This is why, people like RSR, who were once comfortable in their own beliefs and would never have thought of criticising the beliefs of others are now speaking up. And, for the most part, were not trying, as Medved would have it, to discredit religion as a whole, but to protect ourselves against an aggressive, self-righteous, fundamentalism.
Emphasis is mine on that last paragraph in part because I'm definitely one of those "people like RSR". Christianity spawned a reaction from me when it became predominately political and less spiritual. Had that not happened, Northstate Science might well still be on my mental list of things to get around to one day.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Savage and Coulter: Payback Is A Bitch, Isn't It?
Wow...I hadn't seen this...
Via PZ I see that right wing talk show host Michael Savage and right wing "hate crime in high heels" Ann Coulter are finally getting the payback they so richly deserve.
All I can say is...maybe there IS a God!
Via PZ I see that right wing talk show host Michael Savage and right wing "hate crime in high heels" Ann Coulter are finally getting the payback they so richly deserve.
All I can say is...maybe there IS a God!
The Taliban Are Coming! The Taliban Are Coming!
Don't get too comfortable after last November's election...
The Religious Right is shifting focus to the states and trying to ramrod all kinds of legislation through that would bring us closer to a Taliban-like form of government:
The assaults are by no means limited to efforts to aid religious education. Other bills focus on issues like religion in public schools, controversies related to marriage, the display of religious symbols by government and the teaching of "intelligent design" creationism in public schools.
The spate of new state-based attacks on church-state separation is a stark reminder that the fight to maintain the wall of separation between church and state never ends. The outlook in Congress might be brighter in light of recent political changes, but many states remain roiling cauldrons of controversy.
Don't think this is Talibanesque? How about these?:
At least two states are facing attempts to pass laws approving certain types of government-supported religion.
State Sen. Chris Buttars of Utah wants to pass a state law that he says will expand religious liberty. Critics say it will open a can of worms. S.B. 1171 would ostensibly prevent government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Opponents say the measure is unnecessary because those rights are already protected by the U.S. and Utah constitutions. They believe Buttars, a longtime proponent of Religious Right causes, is trying to find ways to increase governmental involvement with religion under the guise of religious free exercise.
Buttars' bill passed the Senate Government Operations Committee in January.
Among the most galling measures is a proposed state constitutional amendment in Virginia. HJ 724, introduced by Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr., would amend the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson, to permit government-sanctioned prayer and the recognition of "religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including public schools." (The language is lifted from a proposed federal constitutional amendment offered by former U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma.)
In Kentucky, lawmakers will consider HR 4, a resolution that calls on Congress to pass a bill designed to make it harder for people to bring church-state lawsuits into the federal courts.
A similar but even more extreme measure is pending in Arizona. Sen. Karen Johnson, a Republican from Mesa, is sponsoring a bill that would bar state courts from being able to intervene in any cases that challenge "the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government."
There is no difference between these efforts and what Muslim extremists have nurtured in the Middle East. They are all on the same path, just using two different gods.
The Religious Right is shifting focus to the states and trying to ramrod all kinds of legislation through that would bring us closer to a Taliban-like form of government:
The assaults are by no means limited to efforts to aid religious education. Other bills focus on issues like religion in public schools, controversies related to marriage, the display of religious symbols by government and the teaching of "intelligent design" creationism in public schools.
The spate of new state-based attacks on church-state separation is a stark reminder that the fight to maintain the wall of separation between church and state never ends. The outlook in Congress might be brighter in light of recent political changes, but many states remain roiling cauldrons of controversy.
Don't think this is Talibanesque? How about these?:
At least two states are facing attempts to pass laws approving certain types of government-supported religion.
State Sen. Chris Buttars of Utah wants to pass a state law that he says will expand religious liberty. Critics say it will open a can of worms. S.B. 1171 would ostensibly prevent government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Opponents say the measure is unnecessary because those rights are already protected by the U.S. and Utah constitutions. They believe Buttars, a longtime proponent of Religious Right causes, is trying to find ways to increase governmental involvement with religion under the guise of religious free exercise.
Buttars' bill passed the Senate Government Operations Committee in January.
Among the most galling measures is a proposed state constitutional amendment in Virginia. HJ 724, introduced by Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr., would amend the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson, to permit government-sanctioned prayer and the recognition of "religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including public schools." (The language is lifted from a proposed federal constitutional amendment offered by former U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma.)
In Kentucky, lawmakers will consider HR 4, a resolution that calls on Congress to pass a bill designed to make it harder for people to bring church-state lawsuits into the federal courts.
A similar but even more extreme measure is pending in Arizona. Sen. Karen Johnson, a Republican from Mesa, is sponsoring a bill that would bar state courts from being able to intervene in any cases that challenge "the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government."
There is no difference between these efforts and what Muslim extremists have nurtured in the Middle East. They are all on the same path, just using two different gods.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Religiosity = Social Dysfunction? Looks That Way...
From Delaware Watch...an interesting perspective on the relationship between religion and social dysfunction. Sam Harris points out the data suggesting that red states are generally more socially dysfunctional than blue states, despite red state populations claiming the moral high ground in most cases. In a study entitled Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies, author Gregory S. Paul writes:
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies....
...The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly....
...Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion.
Delaware Watch then asks...are we surprised?
No, not really....science has always forced societies to come to grips with their social problems...only religion is adept at social illusion.
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies....
...The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly....
...Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion.
Delaware Watch then asks...are we surprised?
No, not really....science has always forced societies to come to grips with their social problems...only religion is adept at social illusion.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
O'Reilly The Raging Catarrhine
I'm beginning to like MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.
He recently asked media psychologist Caryn Stark to watch a clip from FOX's The O'Reilly Factor and analyze Bill O'Reilly's body language. Her assessment? O'Reilly acts very...well...primate-like. More than that, O'Reilly is apparently acting like a frenzied, territorial catarrhine:
He's screaming. And he starts flailing his hands around, and that's typical primate behavior that shows that "this is my territory; I'm protecting it."
Actually, an obsessed, raging, territorial catarrhine:
He obsesses about his points. He mentions liberal. You're going to see it again. There you go, over and over again. "I'm obsessed with this point about being a liberal and I'm going to let you know, and I'm going to use my fingers for emphasis, and I'm going to make a lot of noise and a lot of fury about nothing." So, I don't think we have to pay too much attention to what he's doing because he's enjoying himself, and he's doing a lot of, "here's my territory, and I'm going to protect it."
There was always something familiar about O'Reilly's constant caterwauling about "liberals" and Stark's analysis reminded me of it: recollections of my primate behavior classes in college. O'Reilly behaves much like Rhesus macaques I remember watching (I was going to say baboons, but they're too dignified).
He recently asked media psychologist Caryn Stark to watch a clip from FOX's The O'Reilly Factor and analyze Bill O'Reilly's body language. Her assessment? O'Reilly acts very...well...primate-like. More than that, O'Reilly is apparently acting like a frenzied, territorial catarrhine:
He's screaming. And he starts flailing his hands around, and that's typical primate behavior that shows that "this is my territory; I'm protecting it."
Actually, an obsessed, raging, territorial catarrhine:
He obsesses about his points. He mentions liberal. You're going to see it again. There you go, over and over again. "I'm obsessed with this point about being a liberal and I'm going to let you know, and I'm going to use my fingers for emphasis, and I'm going to make a lot of noise and a lot of fury about nothing." So, I don't think we have to pay too much attention to what he's doing because he's enjoying himself, and he's doing a lot of, "here's my territory, and I'm going to protect it."
There was always something familiar about O'Reilly's constant caterwauling about "liberals" and Stark's analysis reminded me of it: recollections of my primate behavior classes in college. O'Reilly behaves much like Rhesus macaques I remember watching (I was going to say baboons, but they're too dignified).
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Night At The Museum Mentions Evolution: Answers In Genesis Issues Warning To Children
Ken Ham's group is nothing if not predictable. Now they have a beef with Ben Stiller's new movie Night At The Museum because of references to evolution. Mark Looy, Answer in Genesis CCO, watched the movie at the invitiation of his local U.S. Congressman who told him the move had some "evolutionary content". I saw the movie on New Year's eve with many of my relatives and noted the same evolution comments Looy and his congressman seem concerned with, although Looy is magnaminous at the end of the paragraph:
The evolutionary content in the movie includes: 1) stick- and stone-wielding brutish Neandertals, who come alive in their exhibit and, as clueless cavemen, try to make fire; 2) a declaration by Robin Williams, who portrays US President Teddy Roosevelt,3 that monkeys are our “primate brothers,” and that if we didn’t have the monkeys, “there’s no us”; 3) a night-guard (the film’s main actor, Ben Stiller) is chastised by Teddy after having a spat with a monkey and is asked the question: “Who has evolved? Who has evolved?” (i.e., you or the monkey?). But the evolutionary content is not very dominant in what, after all, is a film of fantasy-comedy. It shouldn’t be considered an evolutionary propaganda piece.
But Looy isn't satisfied that the film didn't exhibit overt evolutionary tones. The very fact that some references are made is enough to warrant AIG putting a "parental guidance" sticker on the film:
At the same time, this film demonstrates once again how evolutionary beliefs continue to permeate the Western culture...Accordingly, some caution should be offered for those parents who are thinking of taking their children to see Night at the Museum...Discerning parents should be aware of this, and if they still decide to see the movie with their children, they should offer the correct, biblical teaching of biological origins in order to counter the evolution presented in the movie.
Yes, make sure you shield your children from the fascinating and testable world of scientific discovery and instead indoctrinate them in Bronze Age mythology. Then they can be assured of accurately citing passges from ignorantly written text and justify thier comfort in a world devoid of useful knowledge. Everything AIG parents are advising their kids on biological origins is at the best misrepresented and at worse, absolutely false. It's no wonder such restricted education has been described as child abuse.
Looy does find a nugget within the film that fits his purpose:
I did find myself agreeing with one aspect of the movie. In a scene, a docent tells a group of young people that the more you know about the past, the better you’ll be prepared for the future. Indeed, as people examine the real history of the world according to the Bible (which is a main theme of AiG’s museum), we hope they will come to the realization that their future will only be secure if they place their trust in a historical Christ, and believe the Bible’s accounts of His death, burial, and resurrection 2,000 years ago—which He accomplished to save us from our sins so that our eternal future will be secure with Him in heaven.
So according to AIG, studying the past is valid only so long asit is accomplished according to the Bible - more to the point, AIG's particular version of biblical interpretation. What a travesty of education! Once again, Ken Ham and AIG can only get their distorted worldview across by preying on young, impressionable minds and ignorant parents. And they call atheism immoral.
The evolutionary content in the movie includes: 1) stick- and stone-wielding brutish Neandertals, who come alive in their exhibit and, as clueless cavemen, try to make fire; 2) a declaration by Robin Williams, who portrays US President Teddy Roosevelt,3 that monkeys are our “primate brothers,” and that if we didn’t have the monkeys, “there’s no us”; 3) a night-guard (the film’s main actor, Ben Stiller) is chastised by Teddy after having a spat with a monkey and is asked the question: “Who has evolved? Who has evolved?” (i.e., you or the monkey?). But the evolutionary content is not very dominant in what, after all, is a film of fantasy-comedy. It shouldn’t be considered an evolutionary propaganda piece.
But Looy isn't satisfied that the film didn't exhibit overt evolutionary tones. The very fact that some references are made is enough to warrant AIG putting a "parental guidance" sticker on the film:
At the same time, this film demonstrates once again how evolutionary beliefs continue to permeate the Western culture...Accordingly, some caution should be offered for those parents who are thinking of taking their children to see Night at the Museum...Discerning parents should be aware of this, and if they still decide to see the movie with their children, they should offer the correct, biblical teaching of biological origins in order to counter the evolution presented in the movie.
Yes, make sure you shield your children from the fascinating and testable world of scientific discovery and instead indoctrinate them in Bronze Age mythology. Then they can be assured of accurately citing passges from ignorantly written text and justify thier comfort in a world devoid of useful knowledge. Everything AIG parents are advising their kids on biological origins is at the best misrepresented and at worse, absolutely false. It's no wonder such restricted education has been described as child abuse.
Looy does find a nugget within the film that fits his purpose:
I did find myself agreeing with one aspect of the movie. In a scene, a docent tells a group of young people that the more you know about the past, the better you’ll be prepared for the future. Indeed, as people examine the real history of the world according to the Bible (which is a main theme of AiG’s museum), we hope they will come to the realization that their future will only be secure if they place their trust in a historical Christ, and believe the Bible’s accounts of His death, burial, and resurrection 2,000 years ago—which He accomplished to save us from our sins so that our eternal future will be secure with Him in heaven.
So according to AIG, studying the past is valid only so long asit is accomplished according to the Bible - more to the point, AIG's particular version of biblical interpretation. What a travesty of education! Once again, Ken Ham and AIG can only get their distorted worldview across by preying on young, impressionable minds and ignorant parents. And they call atheism immoral.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Aspiring To The Knowledge of Gods
In perusing the internet this morning, several times I came across Jacob Bronowski's 1970s documentary The Ascent of Man and reference to one particular scene. In referring to a piece he wrote on the need to recognize doubt and uncertainty, Andrew Sullivan, following advice from a reader, linked to this superb video piece of Bronowski commenting on the ultimate cause of the Nazi death camps. PZ Meyers, in answering the question of what was the all time greatest science show, also comes up with the same Bronowski episode. The video is powerful and I recommend you watch it and think about it. But here are Bronowski's words in the shadow of Auschwitz:
It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
But I offer it a second time, with the request that the reader reflect on the nature of the links provided in context of Bronowski's words. The image provided is mine, but I believe it reflects a coming era unless politics change.
"It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods".
What more can be said?
It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
But I offer it a second time, with the request that the reader reflect on the nature of the links provided in context of Bronowski's words. The image provided is mine, but I believe it reflects a coming era unless politics change.
"It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods".
What more can be said?
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Defend the Constitution
A local reader sent me this about Defend The Constitution's battle against the growing tyranny of the religious right. I was actually already a member (I see that Red State Rabble is also posting it). There are a lot of grassroots organizations springing forth to combat fundamentalism in all its form (and of course all ask for donations!). At some point, one has to limit how many organizations of which he or she can be a part. I'm personally interested in those organizations that defend science (and science education) first and foremost, but also those that combat the growing threat of religious fundamentalism. Here's my list:
Tops is the National Center for Science Education. They have always been in the forefront of defending science education and I have always supported their efforts.
I've also recently joined (and would recommend):
Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA)
Defend Science
And one of my new personal favorites:
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason
For fighting fundamentalism I recommend the following:
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (probably the best)
Center for Progressive Christianity
Christian Alliance for Progress
I'm sure there are others....the issue at stake is the ability for Americans to choose their own religious convictions (or lack of) without fear or intimidation from others and to recognize that religious organizations should not be allowed to dictate policy.
Tops is the National Center for Science Education. They have always been in the forefront of defending science education and I have always supported their efforts.
I've also recently joined (and would recommend):
Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA)
Defend Science
And one of my new personal favorites:
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason
For fighting fundamentalism I recommend the following:
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (probably the best)
Center for Progressive Christianity
Christian Alliance for Progress
I'm sure there are others....the issue at stake is the ability for Americans to choose their own religious convictions (or lack of) without fear or intimidation from others and to recognize that religious organizations should not be allowed to dictate policy.
Dick Cheney and Ken Ham Have The Same Audience
We all know that Ken Ham from Answers In Genesis is most effective getting his message out when the audience is comprised of six-year olds...
Apparently the same goes for Dick Cheney...
Apparently the same goes for Dick Cheney...
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Comment on a Comment
I just noticed a comment left on one of my previous posts regarding our local paper, the Lassen County Times, and its staff. Like most bloggers, I wouldn't normally bring this up to a new post, but there were a couple of points in the message I wanted to address up front. In addition, this is someone clearly local and since more northstate residents are reading Northstate Science I thought I would answer this person's comments. Someone using the name "Prayforjes" posted the following comment:
my. my. my even the good professor has resorted to Eileen Spencer tactics to get his anti God opinion across. The managing editor may well no agree with anything you wrote but she may not agree with anyone else either.Did she not run you tripe in full and unedited. I saw it and was ashamed to be part of the education community.Are public schools the best place to educate children? Where is the proof. Why not teach the Bible as historic? Why not pray silently? Free speech is for everyone but Christians/I have talked to Ms. France when she was news editor about her coverage of the Israel story. I too was concerned but why do you not mention that the Susanville team and Dr. Baugh did help uncover the Pool of Siloam?As for covering religion, she told me that the paper will cover any religious group Christian or otherwise. Open your eyes O'Brien the fundamentalists tell the paper their story. Ms. Ashmore did a story on Muslims a few years back with the prison chaplain.People who are afraid of Christian thougt and who are almost fearful of the conservative right are also afraid of God.At least now we know where you stand and can make sure our sons and daughters who attend university can be forwarned.Thank you for adding one more nutcase to the Lassen County peanut barrell
Ok, not sure what the "Eileen Spencer tactics" are (for those not from Susanville, Eileen is a local resident who is frequently outspoken at public meetings - apparently Prayforjes doesn't think people should be outspoken???). So, once again, I'm accused of getting my "anti-God" opinion across. This person has no idea what I really believe - they know only that any version of spiritual conviction I might hold is not in line with theirs (and theirs can be the only ONE TRUE belief to have - not counting, of course, the millions of other ONE TRUE belief systems out there). Yes, the managing editor ran my "tripe" (she's referring to my editorial discussed here) in full and unedited - only after I requested that the piece be run in full or not at all. The Times has a habit of strategically editing some things.
There are two things I find interesting about this comment. The first is that the local fundamentalists are still smarting over the piece I wrote almost two years ago challenging comments made about archaeology and the Bible as presented in an article about two residents who went to Israel with Carl Baugh and the Creation Science Museum to excavate at the Pool of Siloam. The two published negative responses to my editorial on teachers also couldn't help but refer to my supposed "anti-God" position and the two year old Pool of Siloam issue (the anti-God comments are clearly in response to the two year old Pool of Siloam piece and not the piece in defense of teachers - I'm not sure how defending teachers can be interpreted as being anti-God, but remember we ARE dealing with fundamentalists, so logic isn't necessarily at play here). As for the Carl Baugh comment: if people would bother to read and not jump to conclusions they will find that I in fact did give Baugh and his team (including the two local residents) credit for being there and helping to uncover the Pool of Siloam site. I even suggested that they were probably a great help and had a wonderful experience. Unfortunately, our paper could not let it go at that and had to nuance the language of the articles (there were three) to suggest that: 1) Carl Baugh is a legitimate archaeologist (he's not - he does not have an accredited degree, he has done no professional archaeological work, his "discoveries" have been faked, and he has published nothing of any archaeological or paleontological value); 2) Carl Baugh's team directed the excavation and were responsible for discovering the Pool of Siloam (they weren't - the Israeli Department of Antiquities has no record of there involvement in a professional capacity - there were nothing more than glorified volunteers; the actual discoverers of the Pool of Siloam were not mentioned in the original articles, even in their capacity as the actual directors of the excavation) and 3) archaeology is proving the Bible correct (most of the information presented was flat false or taken out of context - typical strategy for creationists). The fact that there still appears to be local angst over that editorial is amusing. I can't help but find it gratifying that this particular burr is still chafing at the local fundamentalist horse.
Secondly, Prayforjes continues the same old whining about Christians not being allowed to voice their opinions. This is a ridiculously stupid statement to make. No one has ever denied free speech rights to Christians. Most of my editorials written locally specifically refer to the fact that not only should they have the right to speak their minds but that those ideas should be welcomed (largely because they need to be slain in public so that others can the true nature of fundamentalist propaganda). What Prayforjes and others are really objecting to is the fact that others have the ability to respond to fundamentalist opinion and question their motives. What they mean by "free speech" is that their opinions should be free from critique or comment. Their opinions should as revered in public as they are at private church services. Sorry, that's not the way free speech works. All of us believe fundamentalists are certainly free to express themselves and their ideas in public, and we appropriately defend even their freedom of expression when it is challenged. If you don't like the responses, keep it in the church and at home; when it's public, it's grist for the mill. You have every right to express your beliefs - you don't have a right to feel comfortable with them in public.
my. my. my even the good professor has resorted to Eileen Spencer tactics to get his anti God opinion across. The managing editor may well no agree with anything you wrote but she may not agree with anyone else either.Did she not run you tripe in full and unedited. I saw it and was ashamed to be part of the education community.Are public schools the best place to educate children? Where is the proof. Why not teach the Bible as historic? Why not pray silently? Free speech is for everyone but Christians/I have talked to Ms. France when she was news editor about her coverage of the Israel story. I too was concerned but why do you not mention that the Susanville team and Dr. Baugh did help uncover the Pool of Siloam?As for covering religion, she told me that the paper will cover any religious group Christian or otherwise. Open your eyes O'Brien the fundamentalists tell the paper their story. Ms. Ashmore did a story on Muslims a few years back with the prison chaplain.People who are afraid of Christian thougt and who are almost fearful of the conservative right are also afraid of God.At least now we know where you stand and can make sure our sons and daughters who attend university can be forwarned.Thank you for adding one more nutcase to the Lassen County peanut barrell
Ok, not sure what the "Eileen Spencer tactics" are (for those not from Susanville, Eileen is a local resident who is frequently outspoken at public meetings - apparently Prayforjes doesn't think people should be outspoken???). So, once again, I'm accused of getting my "anti-God" opinion across. This person has no idea what I really believe - they know only that any version of spiritual conviction I might hold is not in line with theirs (and theirs can be the only ONE TRUE belief to have - not counting, of course, the millions of other ONE TRUE belief systems out there). Yes, the managing editor ran my "tripe" (she's referring to my editorial discussed here) in full and unedited - only after I requested that the piece be run in full or not at all. The Times has a habit of strategically editing some things.
There are two things I find interesting about this comment. The first is that the local fundamentalists are still smarting over the piece I wrote almost two years ago challenging comments made about archaeology and the Bible as presented in an article about two residents who went to Israel with Carl Baugh and the Creation Science Museum to excavate at the Pool of Siloam. The two published negative responses to my editorial on teachers also couldn't help but refer to my supposed "anti-God" position and the two year old Pool of Siloam issue (the anti-God comments are clearly in response to the two year old Pool of Siloam piece and not the piece in defense of teachers - I'm not sure how defending teachers can be interpreted as being anti-God, but remember we ARE dealing with fundamentalists, so logic isn't necessarily at play here). As for the Carl Baugh comment: if people would bother to read and not jump to conclusions they will find that I in fact did give Baugh and his team (including the two local residents) credit for being there and helping to uncover the Pool of Siloam site. I even suggested that they were probably a great help and had a wonderful experience. Unfortunately, our paper could not let it go at that and had to nuance the language of the articles (there were three) to suggest that: 1) Carl Baugh is a legitimate archaeologist (he's not - he does not have an accredited degree, he has done no professional archaeological work, his "discoveries" have been faked, and he has published nothing of any archaeological or paleontological value); 2) Carl Baugh's team directed the excavation and were responsible for discovering the Pool of Siloam (they weren't - the Israeli Department of Antiquities has no record of there involvement in a professional capacity - there were nothing more than glorified volunteers; the actual discoverers of the Pool of Siloam were not mentioned in the original articles, even in their capacity as the actual directors of the excavation) and 3) archaeology is proving the Bible correct (most of the information presented was flat false or taken out of context - typical strategy for creationists). The fact that there still appears to be local angst over that editorial is amusing. I can't help but find it gratifying that this particular burr is still chafing at the local fundamentalist horse.
Secondly, Prayforjes continues the same old whining about Christians not being allowed to voice their opinions. This is a ridiculously stupid statement to make. No one has ever denied free speech rights to Christians. Most of my editorials written locally specifically refer to the fact that not only should they have the right to speak their minds but that those ideas should be welcomed (largely because they need to be slain in public so that others can the true nature of fundamentalist propaganda). What Prayforjes and others are really objecting to is the fact that others have the ability to respond to fundamentalist opinion and question their motives. What they mean by "free speech" is that their opinions should be free from critique or comment. Their opinions should as revered in public as they are at private church services. Sorry, that's not the way free speech works. All of us believe fundamentalists are certainly free to express themselves and their ideas in public, and we appropriately defend even their freedom of expression when it is challenged. If you don't like the responses, keep it in the church and at home; when it's public, it's grist for the mill. You have every right to express your beliefs - you don't have a right to feel comfortable with them in public.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Dilusions of Bill O'Reilly
Anyone who doesn't honestly think that Bill O'Reilly is the most egocentric and dillusional person in the world needs to look at the review of his latest book, Culture Warrior, at Media Matters.
An example from the review:
An example from the review:
"I mean, what I don't get about Susan Sarandon and her fellow S-P travelers," Bill O'Reilly writes in Culture Warrior, "is the constant anger" (Page 161). But if there's one thing Bill O'Reilly knows about, it's anger. In fact, Culture Warrior is little more than a string of attacks against people and media outlets O'Reilly doesn't like. O'Reilly presents himself as an independent, someone who opposes any ideological extremes. "Because I criticize what I consider to be dishonest and unfair media, and extremist pundits on both the right and the left as well as corrupt and/or ineffective politicians," he writes, "there is no shortage of people trying to marginalize me, or worse, destroy me" (Page 4). But as anyone who has watched his show knows, this is little more than a pose. A look at the list of people he specifically attacks in the book shows that among the dozens there appear to be only two clear conservatives -- Michael Savage and Ann Coulter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
