By Peter Fredson
(A Political-Religious Satire)
President Jet Fratboy was speechifying to an executive session of Christian Conservatives the other day and we were lucky enough to record some of his speech before we were handcuffed, flogged and thrown out bleeding on the street.
"Friends, it's an honor to speak informally to this group of honest Christian reconstructionists, dominionists, Moral Majoritarians, and Christian Coalitionists. I told you in 1998 that if you got me elected, I would pay you back many fold. We all followed the strategy of misdirection, stealth, deceit, denial, and downright imposition and it worked. It worked real good! I told everybody that I wouldn't intrude my religion on anybody, and they bought the story. Whatta bunch of losers!
"Friends, you know that I'm President now by the grace of God, Jesus Christ and probably the Virgin Mary too. They selected me for this job and I'm gonna repay them. I thank Jerry, Billy, Jimmy, Rushdooty, Franklin, Gary, Paul, Dick and all the other 48,000 televangelists. Without their data bases, computer lists, Sunday sermons on voting choices, selecting me as the Christian choice, I couldn't have beaten those stinking liberals. I gotta good relationship with Jesus, which everybody otta have. Nobody otta be allowed to be President that ain't a True Christian.
"First of all, I'm tired of all the Christian Bashing going on. I'm gonna stop it. I'm passing a law prohibiting blasphemy and derogatory talk about religious leaders. Anybody attacking my friends Jerry, Billy, Jimmy, Johnny, Ronnie or others are gonna find themselves in jail for disturbing the peace. I'm gonna shut down all those liberal media and all those lyin' reporters. They'll never work again.
"Second, I'm sick and tired of all that ruckus about prayer in school. We always had it and we're always gonna have it. I've made up an executive order for it. Me and my good Christian friends have made up a non-denominational Christian prayer that everybody in school is gonna say every morning, just before they say the Pledge of Allegiance…the one where God rules this nation, you better betcha. By the time those damned activist judges know what hit them it'll be too late.
"And speaking of activist liberal judges…well, they ain't gonna be around long. I'm getting rid of all of them, one by one. And I'm putting in good solid Christian True Believers in the Supreme Court so no atheist sonsabitches can murder babies, commit sodomy, blaspheme, or worship any other Gods but our own really True God. And that's a fact!
"And starting tomorrow I'm issuing a proclamation declaring this is the Century of the Bible, the world's greatest book, and that every school is gonna teach those precious words that the Creator hisself said to Moses and other old Jews. And I'm making the laws conform to that dear sacred book to save all our souls. I don't mean to intrude my beliefs on anybody, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
"And next month I'm issuing an executive order to print a picture of Our Lord himself on our Fifty Dollar bills, with a picture of Moses carrying the Ten Commandments on the dollar bill. That'll show those sonsabitchin atheists.
"And them I'm gonna change the antiquated Constitution to reflect our Holy Bible. I kin do it. I got the entire Republican Party behind me on that. Orin says he can figger out how to do it without having a recorded vote.
"And then I'm issuing an order to print a million copies of parchment with the original words of the Ten Commandments and post them in every Court Room, School Room, Congressional Office and washroom. I'm gonna print the 10 Commandments on every driver's license and nobody will be allowed to vote until they swear they have accepted Jesus as Lord. My daddy was right when he said that atheists couldn't be citizens. Now we're gonna shut them up for good.
"And we're gonna open every session of court, congress and federal office with a nice little prayer made up by my wife, which nobody could possibly object to, except some sonsabitchin atheist. I'm putting up a nice little altar in the Oval Office, with a baptismal font, and anybody that wants a contract with me gotta be sprinkled first.
"Ya remember I said I would take care of your needs. Well, I'm starting a new Federal Bureau BELIEF AND FAITH IN GOD because I know I kin trust you guys with money. I'm giving you lots of money to go out and spread the good news about Jesus and God and all that other good stuff. I'm putting General Boycan in charge of that. We got too many heathen here in this country and it's gotta stop. I want you to figger out how to evangelize this entire nation, lock-stock-and barrel. I want everybody down on their knees, praying day and night. I want them feminist women to shut their traps and get back to cookin and cleanin, where God meant them to be. And they gotta give us nooky whenever we want it, like God said. But you gotta be careful at first. Some people are gonna make trouble, so you gotta do it with stealth, and deceit and misdirection… like I did. Always tell them that you won't intrude your sacred beliefs on them. That's the story, so let's stick to it.
"Don't worry about the constitution because my lawyers figgerd out that I kin do anything I please. After all, I'm a War President! It don't matter that I started the war, once I got it going good nobody kin stop it. As you know, God told me that he's on our side. And, when I say God, it's not the fake one of the Muslims, no sir. And if anybody brings up that old junk about Separtition of Church and State just tell ‘em they have misunderestimated and underjudged …… "
At this point 50 men in heavy armor, gas masks, night vision goggles, black boots, black masks, rifles, pistols, grenades, tear gas and clubs stormed in to stop the dastardly recording of their beloved president. I knew I shouldn't have worn that T-Shirt that said:
"JET LIED, PEOPLE DIED."
Maybe someone will find this cassette recording, even if I never am released again. Whatta shame. It used to be a pretty nice country!
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Fanaticus Mormonidae
By Tony Gill
I woke abrupt from a dream filled with oddities, obscurities and fleeting absurdities, to my doorbell. I had a hangover. What species of sadist, I thought, would ring my doorbell at 8 a.m. on a Sunday morning. Fanaticus Mormonidae, of course. I opened the door to two fine specimens (they’re often seen traveling in small groups) perched on my threshold.
Where does the impulse come from to proselytize?
Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth: “religions of great intensity often confine themselves to condemning, destroying, or at best pitying what is not themselves (Burckhardt, Force and Freedom). Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power as Sir Francis Bacon has it “is like a great flood, that will be sure to overflow.” The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have, it is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. From this perspective, it’s not difficult to see that the creed whose legitimacy is most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing impulse. It is doubtful whether a movement that does not profess some preposterous and patently irrational dogma can be possessed of that zealous drive which “must either win men or destroy the world.” It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice - that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt - are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others. The slaveholders of the South became the more aggressive in spreading their way of life the more it became patent that their way of life was untenable in the modern world.
The passion for proselytizing and the passion for world dominion are both perhaps symptoms of some serious deficiency at the center. It is probably as true of a band of apostles or conquistadors as it is of a band of fugitives setting out for a distant land that they escape from an untenable situation at home.
After explaining my agnosticism and them looking at me like I sprouted horns, I told them that the only real difference between us was that they use words as if they were ignorant of their true meaning.
They said “Wah?”
And I said “If a doctrine, and the particular religion it supports, is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable. Why else would one have to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine? When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the yoos guys to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made Pickwickian and pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. Ergo, there is this illiterate air about the most literate true believer,” (Truth be told, I’m quite incapable of working both “Pickwickian” and “ergo” into my sentences that early in the morning.) At once, one of them reached for a clear glass vial strung from his neck. On the vial was printed “Incase of heretic, Break!” Inside the shattered remains was a piece of rolled paper that had a quote from their holy book. It was a thinly veiled threat concerning my fate in the "life to come." (Only later did I determine that this necklace thingy was part of the Universal Emergency Mormon Reply Kit.).
I concluded with a “then I guess I’ll see you there” and sent them on their merry way.
I woke abrupt from a dream filled with oddities, obscurities and fleeting absurdities, to my doorbell. I had a hangover. What species of sadist, I thought, would ring my doorbell at 8 a.m. on a Sunday morning. Fanaticus Mormonidae, of course. I opened the door to two fine specimens (they’re often seen traveling in small groups) perched on my threshold.
Where does the impulse come from to proselytize?
Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth: “religions of great intensity often confine themselves to condemning, destroying, or at best pitying what is not themselves (Burckhardt, Force and Freedom). Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power as Sir Francis Bacon has it “is like a great flood, that will be sure to overflow.” The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have, it is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. From this perspective, it’s not difficult to see that the creed whose legitimacy is most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing impulse. It is doubtful whether a movement that does not profess some preposterous and patently irrational dogma can be possessed of that zealous drive which “must either win men or destroy the world.” It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice - that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt - are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others. The slaveholders of the South became the more aggressive in spreading their way of life the more it became patent that their way of life was untenable in the modern world.
The passion for proselytizing and the passion for world dominion are both perhaps symptoms of some serious deficiency at the center. It is probably as true of a band of apostles or conquistadors as it is of a band of fugitives setting out for a distant land that they escape from an untenable situation at home.
After explaining my agnosticism and them looking at me like I sprouted horns, I told them that the only real difference between us was that they use words as if they were ignorant of their true meaning.
They said “Wah?”
And I said “If a doctrine, and the particular religion it supports, is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable. Why else would one have to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine? When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the yoos guys to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made Pickwickian and pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. Ergo, there is this illiterate air about the most literate true believer,” (Truth be told, I’m quite incapable of working both “Pickwickian” and “ergo” into my sentences that early in the morning.) At once, one of them reached for a clear glass vial strung from his neck. On the vial was printed “Incase of heretic, Break!” Inside the shattered remains was a piece of rolled paper that had a quote from their holy book. It was a thinly veiled threat concerning my fate in the "life to come." (Only later did I determine that this necklace thingy was part of the Universal Emergency Mormon Reply Kit.).
I concluded with a “then I guess I’ll see you there” and sent them on their merry way.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Religion is Totalitarian
(Editor's note: This post was written by Alon Levy.)
Although I am an atheist, I am a God-fearing person. More precisely, I fear the people who speak for this entity and derive their ethics and general worldview from it. By subordinating the needs of human beings to the needs of a God, religion is clearly authoritarian. God’s will is not subject to dispute, except for a court-like debate on what scripture or oral tradition means. Even the US constitution, which Americans revere religiously, can be changed with a sufficient majority; God’s word cannot be. God can be benevolent at times, but so can a totalitarian dictator—in the Soviet Union, nobody starved after the collectivization programs of the 1930s unless the state wanted him dead, in direct contrast to many third-world countries plagued by famine.
The point that religion has done a great deal of good is irrelevant. It is true that Martin Luther King was deeply religious, and had religious motives. But his rhetoric was as humanist as it was religious, and the movement he led contained religious and secular people alike. Furthermore, Martin Luther King is an odd if saintly case; more common among leaders of progressive movements are religious people who are very oppressive on other issues, such as William Jennings Bryan, who crusaded for creationism in the Scopes trial. In general, religious groups often mobilize against communist oppression, but not against fascist oppression, which usually goes hand in hand with fusion of church and state. While the exceptions, that is religious groups that oppose all tyranny, including their own, are laudable, they are in the minority everywhere in the world.
Religion is totalitarian because of its near-complete destruction of the private sphere. The social structure of theocracy permeates all aspects of life, including not just the public space, but also private space issues such as clothing, food, sex, what books one is allowed to read, and what people one is allowed to associate with. In these spheres there is strict control; the Taliban’s beard patrols are the most egregious example of this, but it differs from John Ashcroft’s covering of a nude statue only by quantity, not by quality.
Further, variation on the approved line of thought is not tolerated. Academics base their research on reality rather than scripture, and are hence vilified and, when religion gains enough power, persecuted. Disagreement with scripture is heresy, punishable by death in theocracies. Books are banned; heretics are murdered; science is suppressed; freedom of thought is nonexistent. Some religions are milder about this than others, but this is always because somebody is forcing them to; in India, for example, Hindu mobs rather than the state burn Muslims because the constitution is forcing the state to be secular.
Many religious people claim that their religion is actually tolerant and peaceful, and the extremists are hijacking the religion. The claim about peace is sometimes true, since many Christian and Muslim sects oppose both American imperialism and Al Qaida. As far as scriptures go, both the Koran and the New Testament contain passages promoting the holy war to spread the word and passages exalting peace, so this is not a good test. However, these devout Christians or Muslims seldom oppose other oppressive aspects of their respective religions. When the time came to take a stance on the religious statement in the USA’s pledge of allegiance—itself a fascist concept—hardly anyone opposed it, not even the churches that support gay marriage and abortions. Liberal Muslims who oppose anti-Semitism, veiling, and homophobia exist, but are insignificant in power and numbers compared to conservative, mainstream Islam.
Further, opposing the bad apples in your group is not enough; you have to also show that following your ideology does not lead to totalitarianism. Liberalism has its shady past too, in particular the corporate supremacy of the late 19th century in the West, but modern liberalism has absorbed enough socialist ideas for this to never happen again in a liberal state. The left-wing radicals of the 1960s were generally against authoritarianism as well as against capitalism, so if the student protests of May 1968 had toppled the French government, there would have been no risk of communist tyranny ensuing. However, this break with the shady past hardly exists in religions. Nowadays the Catholic Church is recurrently apologizing for past atrocities while still committing some, with strict opposition to abortion being the greatest. Protestants no longer murder Jews, but demonize Muslims instead; there are still no massacres only because the basically secular governments will not allow it.
Therefore, we have several world religions, which oppress women, invade people’s privacy, make shambles of free speech, and murder heathens. Further, although only the extremists actively pursue totalitarianism, the moderates are by and large very shrill and afraid to take a stand. Only when there is violence do moderate factions voice their dissent, and even then, they fail to answer the question, “How do you know you are immune to this?” What do Muslim pacifists do to quell the beheadings in Iraq? The religious liberals’ actions are commendable, but the religious conservatives do little more than wash their hands off this barbarism. The same applies to Christianity and Christian atrocities, although these are more confined to the past.
Now, I should get back to my original point about fearing religion. In the past twenty-five years, religion has been on the rise in several key areas of the world: the United States, the Islamic world, and India. Europe is not exactly undergoing religious revivalism, but runs the risk of one if Christianity is seen as the only counter to Islam. China was never religious, but it has always been authoritarian, and is now only taking baby steps toward liberal democracy. Latin America’s religious revival is very recent and not encompassing all countries, but still exists.
This revivalism is problematic, to say the least, for it goes hand in hand with decrease in individual liberty. If we should have learned anything from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, it is that authoritarianism and modern technology mix to form a catastrophic result. American liberals are decrying the lack of social justice in the Religious Right, but not the fact that the rise of religion is necessarily oppressive. Saddam Hussein and the Shah were brutal tyrants, but offered women many more rights than do the fundamentalists who took control of Iran and are nigh taking control of Iraq.
If indeed large swaths of the world slip to religious totalitarianism, this will be worse than when communism seemed invulnerable in two ways: one, theocracy plays on people’s tradition and culture, to which communism has never really connected, and two, religious revival is in progress in several areas of the world, so there will not be a great power opposing fundamentalism the way the USA opposed communism. The faint light at the end of the tunnel is that communist states did not fight one another too much, whereas fundamentalist states of different religions are very likely to, given the rhetoric of Pat Robertson on the one hand and Osama bin Laden on the other. Still, it’s likely that a properly configured global system of theocracies will result in a second Dark Age similar in length to the first.
While Hindu fundamentalism suffered a setback in the 2004 election, this does not reflect any permanent improvement, and meanwhile, Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are only on the rise. In the United States, organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition are getting stronger by the day, a trend that outweighs the increasingly liberal attitude of Americans toward gay rights. In the Islamic world, there simply isn’t any strong liberal organization; there are writers and activists who try to revive the rationalistic tradition of ijtihad, but they are weaker than the religious fanatics by several orders of magnitude.
The power of religion is increasing, and with it, so do the prospects of totalitarianism in the 21st century. Along with China, nonreligious but authoritarian, we have the Islamic bloc, India, and the United States, plus possibly Latin America. The religions these last four regions sport are all anti-humanistic, anti-individualistic, and anti-liberty. All the good causes they support pale in comparison to the suffering they cause. Their rise terrifies me, for it has the potential to cast a long shadow on the future of humanity.
Although I am an atheist, I am a God-fearing person. More precisely, I fear the people who speak for this entity and derive their ethics and general worldview from it. By subordinating the needs of human beings to the needs of a God, religion is clearly authoritarian. God’s will is not subject to dispute, except for a court-like debate on what scripture or oral tradition means. Even the US constitution, which Americans revere religiously, can be changed with a sufficient majority; God’s word cannot be. God can be benevolent at times, but so can a totalitarian dictator—in the Soviet Union, nobody starved after the collectivization programs of the 1930s unless the state wanted him dead, in direct contrast to many third-world countries plagued by famine.
The point that religion has done a great deal of good is irrelevant. It is true that Martin Luther King was deeply religious, and had religious motives. But his rhetoric was as humanist as it was religious, and the movement he led contained religious and secular people alike. Furthermore, Martin Luther King is an odd if saintly case; more common among leaders of progressive movements are religious people who are very oppressive on other issues, such as William Jennings Bryan, who crusaded for creationism in the Scopes trial. In general, religious groups often mobilize against communist oppression, but not against fascist oppression, which usually goes hand in hand with fusion of church and state. While the exceptions, that is religious groups that oppose all tyranny, including their own, are laudable, they are in the minority everywhere in the world.
Religion is totalitarian because of its near-complete destruction of the private sphere. The social structure of theocracy permeates all aspects of life, including not just the public space, but also private space issues such as clothing, food, sex, what books one is allowed to read, and what people one is allowed to associate with. In these spheres there is strict control; the Taliban’s beard patrols are the most egregious example of this, but it differs from John Ashcroft’s covering of a nude statue only by quantity, not by quality.
Further, variation on the approved line of thought is not tolerated. Academics base their research on reality rather than scripture, and are hence vilified and, when religion gains enough power, persecuted. Disagreement with scripture is heresy, punishable by death in theocracies. Books are banned; heretics are murdered; science is suppressed; freedom of thought is nonexistent. Some religions are milder about this than others, but this is always because somebody is forcing them to; in India, for example, Hindu mobs rather than the state burn Muslims because the constitution is forcing the state to be secular.
Many religious people claim that their religion is actually tolerant and peaceful, and the extremists are hijacking the religion. The claim about peace is sometimes true, since many Christian and Muslim sects oppose both American imperialism and Al Qaida. As far as scriptures go, both the Koran and the New Testament contain passages promoting the holy war to spread the word and passages exalting peace, so this is not a good test. However, these devout Christians or Muslims seldom oppose other oppressive aspects of their respective religions. When the time came to take a stance on the religious statement in the USA’s pledge of allegiance—itself a fascist concept—hardly anyone opposed it, not even the churches that support gay marriage and abortions. Liberal Muslims who oppose anti-Semitism, veiling, and homophobia exist, but are insignificant in power and numbers compared to conservative, mainstream Islam.
Further, opposing the bad apples in your group is not enough; you have to also show that following your ideology does not lead to totalitarianism. Liberalism has its shady past too, in particular the corporate supremacy of the late 19th century in the West, but modern liberalism has absorbed enough socialist ideas for this to never happen again in a liberal state. The left-wing radicals of the 1960s were generally against authoritarianism as well as against capitalism, so if the student protests of May 1968 had toppled the French government, there would have been no risk of communist tyranny ensuing. However, this break with the shady past hardly exists in religions. Nowadays the Catholic Church is recurrently apologizing for past atrocities while still committing some, with strict opposition to abortion being the greatest. Protestants no longer murder Jews, but demonize Muslims instead; there are still no massacres only because the basically secular governments will not allow it.
Therefore, we have several world religions, which oppress women, invade people’s privacy, make shambles of free speech, and murder heathens. Further, although only the extremists actively pursue totalitarianism, the moderates are by and large very shrill and afraid to take a stand. Only when there is violence do moderate factions voice their dissent, and even then, they fail to answer the question, “How do you know you are immune to this?” What do Muslim pacifists do to quell the beheadings in Iraq? The religious liberals’ actions are commendable, but the religious conservatives do little more than wash their hands off this barbarism. The same applies to Christianity and Christian atrocities, although these are more confined to the past.
Now, I should get back to my original point about fearing religion. In the past twenty-five years, religion has been on the rise in several key areas of the world: the United States, the Islamic world, and India. Europe is not exactly undergoing religious revivalism, but runs the risk of one if Christianity is seen as the only counter to Islam. China was never religious, but it has always been authoritarian, and is now only taking baby steps toward liberal democracy. Latin America’s religious revival is very recent and not encompassing all countries, but still exists.
This revivalism is problematic, to say the least, for it goes hand in hand with decrease in individual liberty. If we should have learned anything from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, it is that authoritarianism and modern technology mix to form a catastrophic result. American liberals are decrying the lack of social justice in the Religious Right, but not the fact that the rise of religion is necessarily oppressive. Saddam Hussein and the Shah were brutal tyrants, but offered women many more rights than do the fundamentalists who took control of Iran and are nigh taking control of Iraq.
If indeed large swaths of the world slip to religious totalitarianism, this will be worse than when communism seemed invulnerable in two ways: one, theocracy plays on people’s tradition and culture, to which communism has never really connected, and two, religious revival is in progress in several areas of the world, so there will not be a great power opposing fundamentalism the way the USA opposed communism. The faint light at the end of the tunnel is that communist states did not fight one another too much, whereas fundamentalist states of different religions are very likely to, given the rhetoric of Pat Robertson on the one hand and Osama bin Laden on the other. Still, it’s likely that a properly configured global system of theocracies will result in a second Dark Age similar in length to the first.
While Hindu fundamentalism suffered a setback in the 2004 election, this does not reflect any permanent improvement, and meanwhile, Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are only on the rise. In the United States, organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition are getting stronger by the day, a trend that outweighs the increasingly liberal attitude of Americans toward gay rights. In the Islamic world, there simply isn’t any strong liberal organization; there are writers and activists who try to revive the rationalistic tradition of ijtihad, but they are weaker than the religious fanatics by several orders of magnitude.
The power of religion is increasing, and with it, so do the prospects of totalitarianism in the 21st century. Along with China, nonreligious but authoritarian, we have the Islamic bloc, India, and the United States, plus possibly Latin America. The religions these last four regions sport are all anti-humanistic, anti-individualistic, and anti-liberty. All the good causes they support pale in comparison to the suffering they cause. Their rise terrifies me, for it has the potential to cast a long shadow on the future of humanity.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Just Suppose
By Peter Fredson
If I claim that I had seen Big Foot, there would probably be a goodly number of people who would believe me. If I were to claim that a space ship beamed me up, and that little green aliens with big slanty eyes examined me there would be a number of people who believed my story. If I stomped down some corn, wheat or grass in circular patterns and claimed that aliens had come at night to visit us, how many people would believe me? Gullibility is one of the hallmarks of believers and is world-wide, so probably I could start my own cult by claiming some sort of connection with supernatural activity. Of course, some people might call me weird, crazy, loony and might even try to commit me to a mental institution.
So suppose I changed my story to seeing Jesus, in white robes, who preached a tender sermon to me, telling me that I had been chosen to spread his word and show love to everyone. How many people would believe me? Would I be eligible to start my own church, to raise money in his name, to hold healing sessions, and start my own television program? After all, did not someone recently say he saw a 750-foot- tall Jesus who told him to raise a certain sum of money or he would be "called home?" And did not some True Believer actually come up with the money? Who could disprove this story?
If I claimed to see St. Peter, an angel, a demon, the Virgin Mary, Buddha, Krishna, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, who could disprove the claim?
Asserting a claim is sufficient for some people who see angels, fairies, demons, and other intangible usually invisible entities, and they have started many a religion by simple assertion and sticking to their claims. After all, if a President can lie about weapons of mass destruction and stick to his lie thru daily repetition and have millions of fans believe him, why cannot any shyster, con-artist, or faker compete successfully in this world of True Believers in superstitious supernatural nonsense?
We have thousands of evangelists begging for money, for Jesus, to help God, and gullible masses send them their hard-earned dollars which are spent on expensive clothes, cars, planes, homes and high-living. We know that neither Jesus, nor God, will ever see a thin dime of any money raised in their name. We know that absolutely, positively. But we still have the dear old little ladies who save every penny for food and medicine being enticed to send seed to the televangelists, to the prancing dancing bible-thumping parsons who promise heaven or a good return on the money.
We know there are faith-healers who heal people with incurable diseases and ailments, such as cancer by simply clapping them on the forehead and invoking some invisible intangible inerrant omnipotent omnipresent being, then flopping their arms overhead and shouting "Hallelujah. Be Praised. You are CURED."
You would think that some Administrative Bureau dealing with health would investigate the claims, wouldn't you? You would think that if there are truly miraculous cures we would have no need for doctors, or medications, or hospitals. Just let a preacher clap people on the forehead and away goes Parkinson's, cancer, phlebitis, gout, arthritis, kidney failure, and all other ailments known to date. Isn't it strange that no official investigation of claims was ever made? Yet, if people want to import cheap medicine from Canada, they are met with the argument that the medicines might not be safe, so the medications are prohibited from entry for people on very limited incomes. Any claims of great economic benefit are dismissed because of the extremely influential drug lobby with True Believer higher administration officials.
Suppose I went up into the mountains around California for 40 days and nights and came back with some stone tablets containing a host of proverbs and words saying that Mugabooga commands everyone to wear hats made of aluminum foil and clothing made of burlap. Suppose I said that I was inspired by Mugabooga himself, and that he carved the words with his very fingernails. And that he sat with me and showed me some secrets of creation. How many people would believe me? What ever possessed them in bygone days to believe anyone who claimed this outlandish occurrence?
If a movie star can claim to have gone through multiple reincarnations, from Queen of Egypt to Anne Boleyn, who can disprove her?
A few years ago an elderly black man said that he was God himself. He called himself Father Divine. Very few white people believed him because they think God is white. But he acquired quite an audience of black people, with a few whites, and he is still remembered today by them as God Almighty. Something like a black George Burns! Emperor Haile Selassie has become a minor deity for Ethiopian Rastafarians. Julius Caesar crowned himself and proclaimed himself a god. Why not? George Bush dressed up in military uniform and strutted like a hero with an accomplished mission. Lots of people still believe him.
How can you tell a lunatic from an avid True Believer? Answer: you can not.
They both believe in unbelievable processes and situations. They both claim to prove the improbable. They both reject any disbelief in their claims and vociferously defend their assertions, even to the point of violence.
I wonder if the gullible innocents of Heaven's Gate ever made their rendezvous with the mother-ship? And where in space are they now located? Have they passed Jupiter and Titan, gone out of our solar system, met St. Peter? How many other people believed their story and are even now preparing for their own ascension into Heaven? Let us hope they all know how to play harps.
If I claim that I had seen Big Foot, there would probably be a goodly number of people who would believe me. If I were to claim that a space ship beamed me up, and that little green aliens with big slanty eyes examined me there would be a number of people who believed my story. If I stomped down some corn, wheat or grass in circular patterns and claimed that aliens had come at night to visit us, how many people would believe me? Gullibility is one of the hallmarks of believers and is world-wide, so probably I could start my own cult by claiming some sort of connection with supernatural activity. Of course, some people might call me weird, crazy, loony and might even try to commit me to a mental institution.
So suppose I changed my story to seeing Jesus, in white robes, who preached a tender sermon to me, telling me that I had been chosen to spread his word and show love to everyone. How many people would believe me? Would I be eligible to start my own church, to raise money in his name, to hold healing sessions, and start my own television program? After all, did not someone recently say he saw a 750-foot- tall Jesus who told him to raise a certain sum of money or he would be "called home?" And did not some True Believer actually come up with the money? Who could disprove this story?
If I claimed to see St. Peter, an angel, a demon, the Virgin Mary, Buddha, Krishna, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, who could disprove the claim?
Asserting a claim is sufficient for some people who see angels, fairies, demons, and other intangible usually invisible entities, and they have started many a religion by simple assertion and sticking to their claims. After all, if a President can lie about weapons of mass destruction and stick to his lie thru daily repetition and have millions of fans believe him, why cannot any shyster, con-artist, or faker compete successfully in this world of True Believers in superstitious supernatural nonsense?
We have thousands of evangelists begging for money, for Jesus, to help God, and gullible masses send them their hard-earned dollars which are spent on expensive clothes, cars, planes, homes and high-living. We know that neither Jesus, nor God, will ever see a thin dime of any money raised in their name. We know that absolutely, positively. But we still have the dear old little ladies who save every penny for food and medicine being enticed to send seed to the televangelists, to the prancing dancing bible-thumping parsons who promise heaven or a good return on the money.
We know there are faith-healers who heal people with incurable diseases and ailments, such as cancer by simply clapping them on the forehead and invoking some invisible intangible inerrant omnipotent omnipresent being, then flopping their arms overhead and shouting "Hallelujah. Be Praised. You are CURED."
You would think that some Administrative Bureau dealing with health would investigate the claims, wouldn't you? You would think that if there are truly miraculous cures we would have no need for doctors, or medications, or hospitals. Just let a preacher clap people on the forehead and away goes Parkinson's, cancer, phlebitis, gout, arthritis, kidney failure, and all other ailments known to date. Isn't it strange that no official investigation of claims was ever made? Yet, if people want to import cheap medicine from Canada, they are met with the argument that the medicines might not be safe, so the medications are prohibited from entry for people on very limited incomes. Any claims of great economic benefit are dismissed because of the extremely influential drug lobby with True Believer higher administration officials.
Suppose I went up into the mountains around California for 40 days and nights and came back with some stone tablets containing a host of proverbs and words saying that Mugabooga commands everyone to wear hats made of aluminum foil and clothing made of burlap. Suppose I said that I was inspired by Mugabooga himself, and that he carved the words with his very fingernails. And that he sat with me and showed me some secrets of creation. How many people would believe me? What ever possessed them in bygone days to believe anyone who claimed this outlandish occurrence?
If a movie star can claim to have gone through multiple reincarnations, from Queen of Egypt to Anne Boleyn, who can disprove her?
A few years ago an elderly black man said that he was God himself. He called himself Father Divine. Very few white people believed him because they think God is white. But he acquired quite an audience of black people, with a few whites, and he is still remembered today by them as God Almighty. Something like a black George Burns! Emperor Haile Selassie has become a minor deity for Ethiopian Rastafarians. Julius Caesar crowned himself and proclaimed himself a god. Why not? George Bush dressed up in military uniform and strutted like a hero with an accomplished mission. Lots of people still believe him.
How can you tell a lunatic from an avid True Believer? Answer: you can not.
They both believe in unbelievable processes and situations. They both claim to prove the improbable. They both reject any disbelief in their claims and vociferously defend their assertions, even to the point of violence.
I wonder if the gullible innocents of Heaven's Gate ever made their rendezvous with the mother-ship? And where in space are they now located? Have they passed Jupiter and Titan, gone out of our solar system, met St. Peter? How many other people believed their story and are even now preparing for their own ascension into Heaven? Let us hope they all know how to play harps.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
I Do Believe This, But I Don't Believe That!
(Editor's note: This post originally appeared on Stupid Evil Bastard.)
By Peter Fredson
When I was young I did not hold many beliefs, other than that candy was good, and that I would be spanked if I were bad. I went to school and was told about George Washington and a cherry tree, and I believed the story. Why wouldn't I? Were not teachers supposed to teach only the truth? I was sent to a Sunday School, and there, among other things, I was told that a Holy Ghost had intercourse with a woman and the result was a Holy Baby. I had to believe that, because the neighborhood minister of the church were I was sent, without consultation, told me it was true. He told me that without cracking a smile, so I guessed it was true. He wouldn't lie to me, would he?
Later I learned that there were other almost-identical reports from other societies, like the Greek, Roman, Chinese, Assyrian, Hindu, Aztec, etc......but I can't believe THEM...those are not MY people. Perhaps THEY really believed those stories. So what? They were ignorant and gullible and they believed anything their priests told them, or if they didn't they would shut up about their disbelief lest they lose their social status, their property or their life. They didn't consider that having sexual intercourse with a virgin, without her consent or knowledge, by any entity, (ghost, spirit, spook, or otherwise,) was rape and was a very bad thing.
Either that, or people today are just as gullible as in the days of the Greeks, when they firmly believed in gods and goddesses on Mt. Olympus, and on land and on sea, and when they made sacrifices to those supernatural entities, and believed heart and soul in them, and built great edifices and statuary to those supernatural entities. It took 100,000 Egyptians over 20 years, so one mummified corpse of some specially-privileged person could be placed in a tomb and be preserved until resurrection. But, of course, I don't believe ANY of THAT stuff. It is TOO unbelievable.
WOULD THEY LIE TO ME?
I was told that priests of OTHER societies were generally intolerant and vicious with their disbelievers, and that other gods were vicious, murderous and intolerant, although MY priests tell me they are NOW very tolerant and peaceful. I must believe them because they are MY people. They tell me that they are now MUCH better than any other priesthood of any other nation....so I must believe them. They tell me that they are in sole possession of the absolute eternal TRUTH! Would they deceive me? Would they hide any ugly side of religion from me? Religion once caused social boycott, elimination from public office, discrimination, torture, murder, and war? Could that happen in this enlightened day and age with a religion of truth, peace, love, tolerance and charity?
Priests of OTHER cultures lie and deceive and make up imaginative scenarios concerning supernatural beings and places...but I don't believe ANY of that stuff...no sir. It is obviously imaginative fiction, or illusion or delusion on the part of the OTHER people, but MY priests tell me they are absolutely right and that they only tell the absolute truth. And then they thump their 'sacred' book, written directly by a god, and thunder threats down on me if I don't believe that....so I believe. I believe ALL that stuff. You bet!
We can examine claims of OTHER societies and find that all the claims concerning supernatural intervention (miracles) are false....but we must not examine OUR claims....it would be wrong....it would be 'sinful', and besides belief doesn't have to be based on evidence...in fact the lesser the probability of evidence the greater grows the strength of belief. OUR religion will not let us waste our time in investigating any claims of OUR religion. It's not necessary. Truth is truth ...right?
Although many nations have 'sacred' texts, written by or by the 'inspiration' of some god or goddess or a follower, such as the Rig Veda, the Koran, the Popol Vuh, etc....I don't believe ANY of that nonsense...no sir. It is too full of fanciful statements...too full of unbelievable events and statements...only a stupid jerk, priest-educated from childhood to believe those texts, would believe those texts.
But, it is different with OUR sacred texts. They were written by OUR god, or by HIS inspiration to OUR priests, and whatever is written by OUR god or OUR priests must be absolutely legitimate all-time truth, so we must believe those writings. Besides, that is customary, and it keeps people out of trouble.
It is better to be conformist...to believe anything the official line believes, anything the majority believes, especially if they have blasphemy laws, social boycotts, property confiscation, torture, burning at the stake, drowning, strangulation and other niceties to protect us from straying away from OUR truths.
So therefore, although I disbelieve in any one of the 100,000 gods and goddesses of the past, and although I disbelieve in the 'sacredness' of any text of some OTHER society of the past....yet, I am absolutely positively convinced beyond all shadow of a doubt, that OUR gods and OUR eternally renewed virgins, angels, cherubims, devils, demons, tooth fairies, Santa Clauses, and Easter Bunnies actually exist....that's what I am daily told is the absolute positive truth, so I believe it all. Yes, sir! For, if I say I do believe all that I can run for and hold any public office, almost any job, and be honored and respected. But if I say I don't believe all that--- then I will be shunned, ostracized, thrown out of positions, not be allowed to hold public office, and suffer enormous discrimination and very possibly any of various physical injuries.
All politicians uphold belief without evidence (or even contrary to evidence) as a pre-eminent virtue: all of the 1,000 born-again judges appointed by Ronald Reagan and George Bush affirm it fervently, and even the President of the Supreme Court says that state-church separation is a bad metaphor. He probably believes that a state-church would be better, that conformity is better than investigation, that truth is whatever church dogma is. The only trouble is that HE believes that only HIS church should be connected to the state.....much as Islamic Fundamentalists firmly believe in a church state, or Hindus, or Irish Catholics.
Now if only everyone in the world could agree on which specific dogma, doctrine and belief is absolutely true, (which of the thousands of these)...then we could all conform and there would be world peace, and we could all kiss someone's hands or feet, (or some other designated part of anatomy) of some self-designated intermediary to some deity! Wouldn't that be dandy?
Perhaps if everyone in the world chanted HARE KRISHNA 50 times a day, the millennium will come. Perhaps if we all spun prayer-wheels 1000 times a day, we could all be 'saved'. Perhaps if we got Jews to accept Christianity, and then start a war, then the Apocalypse will come, and 99% of the world's people will be consigned to hell and the remaining 1% will go straight to heaven. Perhaps if we get Saddam Hussein to convert to Judaism, and all Irish Protestants to kiss some part of Papal anatomy, the millennium will come. Or, if everybody would embrace Buddhism we could all enter Nirvana. Wouldn't that be nice?
I firmly believe all this....really, truly. Honest to Betsy!
IS GOD'S SPIRIT ON THEM?
When I look at television evangelists squinching their beady eyes deep into their sockets, and strain all the muscles of their face as through they were constipated and were trying to defecate a watermelon, I know that the Spirit of some Lord is upon them. I know that because they tell me that's what is happening. Would they lie to me? When they tell me that they can cure people by having some sick person put a hand on the television set while the evangelist squints and strains again...I KNOW that they are effecting a cure....through some Lord of course. And when they collect a million dollars by doing this nothingness, I KNOW that God's Grace is really beyond all understanding.
By Peter Fredson
When I was young I did not hold many beliefs, other than that candy was good, and that I would be spanked if I were bad. I went to school and was told about George Washington and a cherry tree, and I believed the story. Why wouldn't I? Were not teachers supposed to teach only the truth? I was sent to a Sunday School, and there, among other things, I was told that a Holy Ghost had intercourse with a woman and the result was a Holy Baby. I had to believe that, because the neighborhood minister of the church were I was sent, without consultation, told me it was true. He told me that without cracking a smile, so I guessed it was true. He wouldn't lie to me, would he?
Later I learned that there were other almost-identical reports from other societies, like the Greek, Roman, Chinese, Assyrian, Hindu, Aztec, etc......but I can't believe THEM...those are not MY people. Perhaps THEY really believed those stories. So what? They were ignorant and gullible and they believed anything their priests told them, or if they didn't they would shut up about their disbelief lest they lose their social status, their property or their life. They didn't consider that having sexual intercourse with a virgin, without her consent or knowledge, by any entity, (ghost, spirit, spook, or otherwise,) was rape and was a very bad thing.
Either that, or people today are just as gullible as in the days of the Greeks, when they firmly believed in gods and goddesses on Mt. Olympus, and on land and on sea, and when they made sacrifices to those supernatural entities, and believed heart and soul in them, and built great edifices and statuary to those supernatural entities. It took 100,000 Egyptians over 20 years, so one mummified corpse of some specially-privileged person could be placed in a tomb and be preserved until resurrection. But, of course, I don't believe ANY of THAT stuff. It is TOO unbelievable.
WOULD THEY LIE TO ME?
I was told that priests of OTHER societies were generally intolerant and vicious with their disbelievers, and that other gods were vicious, murderous and intolerant, although MY priests tell me they are NOW very tolerant and peaceful. I must believe them because they are MY people. They tell me that they are now MUCH better than any other priesthood of any other nation....so I must believe them. They tell me that they are in sole possession of the absolute eternal TRUTH! Would they deceive me? Would they hide any ugly side of religion from me? Religion once caused social boycott, elimination from public office, discrimination, torture, murder, and war? Could that happen in this enlightened day and age with a religion of truth, peace, love, tolerance and charity?
Priests of OTHER cultures lie and deceive and make up imaginative scenarios concerning supernatural beings and places...but I don't believe ANY of that stuff...no sir. It is obviously imaginative fiction, or illusion or delusion on the part of the OTHER people, but MY priests tell me they are absolutely right and that they only tell the absolute truth. And then they thump their 'sacred' book, written directly by a god, and thunder threats down on me if I don't believe that....so I believe. I believe ALL that stuff. You bet!
We can examine claims of OTHER societies and find that all the claims concerning supernatural intervention (miracles) are false....but we must not examine OUR claims....it would be wrong....it would be 'sinful', and besides belief doesn't have to be based on evidence...in fact the lesser the probability of evidence the greater grows the strength of belief. OUR religion will not let us waste our time in investigating any claims of OUR religion. It's not necessary. Truth is truth ...right?
Although many nations have 'sacred' texts, written by or by the 'inspiration' of some god or goddess or a follower, such as the Rig Veda, the Koran, the Popol Vuh, etc....I don't believe ANY of that nonsense...no sir. It is too full of fanciful statements...too full of unbelievable events and statements...only a stupid jerk, priest-educated from childhood to believe those texts, would believe those texts.
But, it is different with OUR sacred texts. They were written by OUR god, or by HIS inspiration to OUR priests, and whatever is written by OUR god or OUR priests must be absolutely legitimate all-time truth, so we must believe those writings. Besides, that is customary, and it keeps people out of trouble.
It is better to be conformist...to believe anything the official line believes, anything the majority believes, especially if they have blasphemy laws, social boycotts, property confiscation, torture, burning at the stake, drowning, strangulation and other niceties to protect us from straying away from OUR truths.
So therefore, although I disbelieve in any one of the 100,000 gods and goddesses of the past, and although I disbelieve in the 'sacredness' of any text of some OTHER society of the past....yet, I am absolutely positively convinced beyond all shadow of a doubt, that OUR gods and OUR eternally renewed virgins, angels, cherubims, devils, demons, tooth fairies, Santa Clauses, and Easter Bunnies actually exist....that's what I am daily told is the absolute positive truth, so I believe it all. Yes, sir! For, if I say I do believe all that I can run for and hold any public office, almost any job, and be honored and respected. But if I say I don't believe all that--- then I will be shunned, ostracized, thrown out of positions, not be allowed to hold public office, and suffer enormous discrimination and very possibly any of various physical injuries.
All politicians uphold belief without evidence (or even contrary to evidence) as a pre-eminent virtue: all of the 1,000 born-again judges appointed by Ronald Reagan and George Bush affirm it fervently, and even the President of the Supreme Court says that state-church separation is a bad metaphor. He probably believes that a state-church would be better, that conformity is better than investigation, that truth is whatever church dogma is. The only trouble is that HE believes that only HIS church should be connected to the state.....much as Islamic Fundamentalists firmly believe in a church state, or Hindus, or Irish Catholics.
Now if only everyone in the world could agree on which specific dogma, doctrine and belief is absolutely true, (which of the thousands of these)...then we could all conform and there would be world peace, and we could all kiss someone's hands or feet, (or some other designated part of anatomy) of some self-designated intermediary to some deity! Wouldn't that be dandy?
Perhaps if everyone in the world chanted HARE KRISHNA 50 times a day, the millennium will come. Perhaps if we all spun prayer-wheels 1000 times a day, we could all be 'saved'. Perhaps if we got Jews to accept Christianity, and then start a war, then the Apocalypse will come, and 99% of the world's people will be consigned to hell and the remaining 1% will go straight to heaven. Perhaps if we get Saddam Hussein to convert to Judaism, and all Irish Protestants to kiss some part of Papal anatomy, the millennium will come. Or, if everybody would embrace Buddhism we could all enter Nirvana. Wouldn't that be nice?
I firmly believe all this....really, truly. Honest to Betsy!
IS GOD'S SPIRIT ON THEM?
When I look at television evangelists squinching their beady eyes deep into their sockets, and strain all the muscles of their face as through they were constipated and were trying to defecate a watermelon, I know that the Spirit of some Lord is upon them. I know that because they tell me that's what is happening. Would they lie to me? When they tell me that they can cure people by having some sick person put a hand on the television set while the evangelist squints and strains again...I KNOW that they are effecting a cure....through some Lord of course. And when they collect a million dollars by doing this nothingness, I KNOW that God's Grace is really beyond all understanding.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Growing Up
(Editor's Note: Thomas Cabernoch is a fellow godless Phoenician. This post was originally published at his personal website here. Read the rest of his writings here.)
By: Thomas Cabernoch
It's a 'growing up' thing, like how babies eat real food instead of a bottle after they get old enough.
I was a bright kid. I was an altar boy, Boy Scout, played baseball, went to karate and gymnastics, and attended Catholic school (nuns and all!).
I was pre-occupied with god. I felt awful about myself, and I wanted god to make it all go away. I used to pray constantly, and then berate myself for praying for personal gain (on things like sixth-grade math tests). I shoplifted a lot and then prayed about it. There was even some self-mutilation in there. Religion was supposed to fix all of it, but seemed to have no effect.
One day I when I was 12, I was riding my bicycle, doing a little thinking about it all. I wistfully decided that all psychic and ufo stories (which I had been collecting avidly) were probably horseshit. Witchcraft and magic were obviously also complete trash.
... and then ...
With no fanfare whatsoever, I turned my attention to god. It was completely obvious that the Bible had nothing on any other religion, and that all of them were lies.
And then I was free. The moment was no different from the previous one. Just me. No god there. There had never been a god there. The delusion was simply gone.
I took control of my life. I got a job (paperboy). I got in a couple fights. I focused on school. I met some friends. I learned that true honesty comes because of self-respect, not a duty to god. I found that achievement is the product of effort. I started developing into a person instead of a scared little child.
That moment changed my life. In some respects I feel it started my life.
By: Thomas Cabernoch
It's a 'growing up' thing, like how babies eat real food instead of a bottle after they get old enough.
I was a bright kid. I was an altar boy, Boy Scout, played baseball, went to karate and gymnastics, and attended Catholic school (nuns and all!).
I was pre-occupied with god. I felt awful about myself, and I wanted god to make it all go away. I used to pray constantly, and then berate myself for praying for personal gain (on things like sixth-grade math tests). I shoplifted a lot and then prayed about it. There was even some self-mutilation in there. Religion was supposed to fix all of it, but seemed to have no effect.
One day I when I was 12, I was riding my bicycle, doing a little thinking about it all. I wistfully decided that all psychic and ufo stories (which I had been collecting avidly) were probably horseshit. Witchcraft and magic were obviously also complete trash.
... and then ...
With no fanfare whatsoever, I turned my attention to god. It was completely obvious that the Bible had nothing on any other religion, and that all of them were lies.
And then I was free. The moment was no different from the previous one. Just me. No god there. There had never been a god there. The delusion was simply gone.
I took control of my life. I got a job (paperboy). I got in a couple fights. I focused on school. I met some friends. I learned that true honesty comes because of self-respect, not a duty to god. I found that achievement is the product of effort. I started developing into a person instead of a scared little child.
That moment changed my life. In some respects I feel it started my life.
The Holy Trinity Of Science
(Editors Note - Reinhart Faust writes columns for the Finger Lakes Community website. His most recent column can be found here.)
By: Reinhart Faust
Throughout history humanity has created many powerful tools used to increase the sum of its knowledge. The compass, the telescope, the microscope and the x-ray have all given our civilization a greater understanding of ourselves and our universe than that possessed by any generation before us. But there are three tools without which all of these things are mere toys. Logic, reason and observation are the three most powerful tools ever used to enlighten the human mind. The scientific method has been used to destroy countless myths and falsehoods over the millennia. It’s why we no longer believe the earth to be flat and why we no longer use leeches to cure fevers. But there are those in society and, worse yet, those in power who don’t understand the power and value of logic, reason and observation, this Holy Trinity of science. There is no controversy in which this problem is more apparent than the current movement to inject ‘Intelligent Design’ into the science classrooms of American public schools.
Intelligent Design (ID) is a relatively new school of thought that has gained widespread approval amongst fundamentalist religious groups. It states that the variety and complexity of life on earth indicates that it could not have formed by natural means, but must have been guided by an intelligent force. Even though the word ‘God’ is scrupulously avoided, the implications are obvious. ID advocates almost always favor a religious explanation of the origins of life and of the universe. These arguments, however, have no corroborating evidence whatsoever, and basically consist of a selective criticism of evolution. That is why not one study in support of ID can be found in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. While it is true that there are certain subtle nuances of evolution that remain unexplained, and the precise mechanisms of evolution are still open to debate, the evidence in favor of evolution is so overwhelming that to deny it without a different theory supported by an equally impressive body of evidence, is purely irrational. What it all comes down to is that far too may people lack a fundamental understanding of science. Isaac Asimov said it best when he said; “Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night”. But in truth, a theory in scientific circles is an idea that has been tested so rigorously, proven to such a degree, that it can be taken as fact. Gravity is a theory.
So maybe it’s time that scientists should have a say in what is taught in science classrooms. If a person wishes to honor more traditional beliefs, that is fine. But let those beliefs be taught by clergymen and parents, not science teachers. If we allow posturing politicians and ambitious clergymen to use the science classroom as a platform, if we teach our children anything other than sound, proven science, then we are doing our children and our nation a grave disservice. At this point some advocates of ID would say that to refuse to allow ID to be taught in schools would unfairly stifle scientific debate, which is a necessary step in the discovery process. But try to suggest to a clergyman that a chapter on evolution be inserted into Genesis. See what he has to say.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Test Post
This is a test post. UTI Annex will be an alternate address for the blog Unscrewing The Inscrutable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
