left biblioblography: Chuck Norris
Showing posts with label Chuck Norris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chuck Norris. Show all posts

Monday, May 21, 2007

Walker, Texas Deranger, Has Revealed The Nefarious Plot At Last!

More Norris nonsense:

C.S. Lewis, the former atheist and famous Oxford scholar, once said "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...."

I find Yogi Berra's tautologies much more amusing.

There are a myriad of eminent scholars (like Lewis) who understand the folly of atheism. I will list a few others in this second part of my treatise to expose atheists' agenda to ban Christianity from the courts of culture. In my last article I discussed "step 1" of their plan. In this discourse I will address steps 2 & 3.

The evil atheist conspiracy (again! - GROAN). These people see the devil under every rock, behind every tree, lurking behind every strand of grass. Paranoia sure is a fun way to live, ain't it?

Step two: target younger generations with atheism

Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. Hundreds of web sites and blogs on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naivete.

Christlation: Them thar nefarious secular humanists are hatching plots to pollute the precious bodily fluids of your children! Oh, the humanity! I read between the lines here, and come up with a comparison to online predators.
Gee, thanks chuckles.

What's preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens. The London Telegraph noted that, "Groups including Atheists for Human Rights and Atheist Alliance International – ‘Call 1-866-HERETIC' - are setting up summer camps and an internet recruiting campaign."

Herr brownshirt would most likely like to have this sort of advertising outlawed, cowboy style.

YouTube, the most popular video site on the Net for young people, is one of their primary avenues for passing off their secularist propaganda. Another antagonistic and self-proclaimed "blasphemous" site even beckons youth to record their anti-Christian beliefs on it.

Welcome to America, chuckles.

Even Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins is on personal campaign and militant quest to spread his name, books, and atheism all over the Internet by hoping young people will post his graphics on their MySpace page. Rather than question or critique his methods as slick marketing, young atheists are proud to post his links, follow and defend him like a religious sage, and cite his texts as infallible truth.

Say what? Talk about poisoning the well. Young atheists? What about us middle-aged folk? Or elderly? Appealing to the 'kiddie culture' is the root of any advertising methodology. Infallible truth? Geez, these people project too much.

Of course, it's all right if they do it.

Step three: package and promote atheism as reasonable and scientific

Presenting atheism as scientific fact might be secularists' greatest plan and others point of greatest gullibility, in hope of winning the battle for the ultimate view of reality. And hailed as their chief advocates are men like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, Oxford University's ethologist and evolutionary biologist, with his book, "The God Delusion," atheists' newest "bible" or authoritative text.

Bad news: there's quite a few 'authoritative texts' out there, dating back to a time when the religious stopped being able to put the torch to them.

So what credentials does a man like Dawkins have to discuss the presence or absence of God? Answer: He's "a scientist." And the fact is anyone in our age who is a naturalist professor or wears a white lab coat can virtually speak upon any issue (even God) and their words are received as gospel – unless of course they are a theist!

Oh, goodie - this again. 'Don't have an opinion unless you have sheepskin to back it up'. That is, unless you're religious, that's sacrosanct (of course).

What's interesting is that atheists like Dawkins fall into the same snare they accuse of theists. While he might condemn Christians like me for not being educated enough to speak about theism or creation, his own expertise remains outside the realm of antagonism that defines his world crusade. To make dogmatic assertions about the absence of God and not possess expertise in cosmology, astrophysics, or even theology gives him no more of a credible platform than you and me, except to his devoted followers of course. He is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist – since when does that make one an expert on God? (Similarly, Sam Harris has a bachelor's in philosophy – since when does that make one an expert on the universe?)

Problem is, there ain't no such critter. Prove it, or piss off. This is really quite pathetic. Requiring the child have a degree in the fashion industry is unnecessary to pronounce the emperor naked.

Dawkins condemns Christians for being narrow minded and non-adaptive to other cultures which believed in Thor or Zeus, yet he is unwavering in disrespecting any other creation authority except Western science. What about the wisdom of African, Middle-Eastern or Far-Eastern sages, shamans, or religious figures? Just because science can explain many things in the natural realm, does that mean it owns the corner market on metaphysics and God?

Presuppositionalism at its finest. What about all those other alternative wisdoms? Lending them credence, are we, Herr Norris?

As they say in Missouri, "Show me."

Is it possible that the scientific worldview is inferior to reveal the truths behind the curtain of creation?

Seeing as the supernatural can't even seem to pull the curtain, or provide a peek, and seeing also that science has pulled its weight (whereas theology has not), looks that way.

Even Paul Davies, the renown British-born physicist, agnostic, professor of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology, said to Time, "Science, God, and Man," that no one can rightfully say there is no God. "Agnosticism – reserving judgment about divine purpose – remains as defensible as ever, but atheism – the confident denial of divine purpose – becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"

Negative proof fallacy.

John Horgan, a former senior staff writer for Scientific American and the Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, wrote a book titled, "The End of Science." In it he discusses the futility of men like Oxford's Dawkins, Cambridge's Hawking, and others pursuit to discover a "theory of everything." He agrees with Paul Davies in purporting that we must face the limits of science in the twilight of the scientific age, opting that the discovery of ultimate answers about the universe will not rely in rationale and empirical examination but possibly a metaphysical practice. (A striking similarity to the words in the Bible, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command...")

That's nice. Christlation: "Let's surround our ignorance with flowery rhetoric."

Of course for men like Harris, Dawkins, and other atheists, the thought that science cannot provide these ultimate answers must be a horrifying reality to face, as their whole lives depend upon the western-scientific paradigm of reality. Their predicament reminds me of the words of Robert Jastrow, American astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist, from his work, "God and the Astronomers"

'Ultimate answers'? Is he kidding? Only madmen or neurotics cry for 100 percent certitude.

The universe has a beginning.This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth.For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Oh, please. Did anyone ever say otherwise? No. The onus is on the believer to provide a human face behind the somewhat mysterious processes of the universe. One that doesn't appear on a tortilla, that is.

Once again the Bible is proven correct, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god.'"

And the wise man posts it on his website.

That, dear readers, is my nickel's worth: spend it wisely, and well.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Monday, May 14, 2007

Walker, Texas Ranger, Has Delusions About 'Fighting The Good Fight' - More Norris Nonsense

chuckles

(Cross-posted at God is for Suckers!)

Old Chuck is at it again. More martyrdom drivel.

This past week an ABC News debate aired on "Nightline," which pitted popular theists against Internet atheists. While I'll have more to say about that battle of wits in my next article, it testifies to the growing number (30 million Americans) of those who profess there is no God. Add to that what I believe is possibly three times the number of functional atheists, those who believe in a God but practically don't show it, and America is facing a new religious horizon in which atheism is becoming a formidable foe.

Well, first and foremost, it wasn't by any stretch a 'battle of wits', since Cameron and Comfort got their asses handed to them. If it was to be made into an action film, it'd probably resemble a vaudevillian rendition of the Gunfight At The O. K. Corral, with Ray and Kirk as the Clantons, fumbling for their guns before getting their fool heads blown off. Secondly, atheism's not a religion, third, if atheists want a seat at the damn table; unless I woke up in Berlin in 1941, this is fucking America, Chuck, and neither you nor anyone else has the constitutional right to deny me or anyone else a seat at that table.

Though the majority of Americans continue to claim to be Christians, a Gallup poll discovered 45 percent of us would support an atheist for president, 55 percent would support a homosexual candidate and 72 percent would support a Mormon candidate.

Such a survey is a clear indication that most Americans are simply confused about what it means to be Christian. It also shows that the secularization of society is alive and well, especially when almost half would endorse an atheist president.

Ummm...most Christians are confused about what it means to be them, and you clowns still can't agree on a standard.

Secularization is a bad thing, how exactly?

The opponents of God

Once upon a time, years ago, it seemed that the only major fire for atheism burned from the anti-Christian work of Madelyn Murray O'Hair and the American Atheist organization, whose claim to fame was the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in 1963.

O'Hair was a primary figurehead in America in the 20th century, but atheism has been around since ancient Greece up until this century.

Today many more antagonist groups and individuals to theism abound, and they are using every means possible for global proliferation – from local government to the World Wide Web. Such secular progressives include the Institute for Humanist Studies, Secular Coalition of America, American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Internet Infidels, the Atheist Alliance International, Secular Student Alliance, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, etc. Of course no list of atheistic advocates would be complete without mentioning the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as the anti-God militancy of men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Cue the weird X Files whistle music...the creeping conspirators are hiding in the shadows, waiting to pounce!

Life ain't an action movie, Chuck.

Though the U.S. Constitution outlaws religious discrimination, these organizations and individuals would love nothing more than to help society look with distain upon Christianity and, ultimately, make its components illegal. In fact, right now, they are coalescing and rallying at least 5 million of their troops to mount counter offensives to Christianity.

We have heard this particular nonsense before, have we not? Discrimination = criticism, and vice versa. I love how he make it seem as if it's some sort of war of good vs. evil. Dontcha just love these folks, living in a comic book world?

For that reason I believe theistic patriots need to be wise to atheists' overt and covert schemes, exposing their agenda and fighting to lay waste to their plans.

Wow, do I hear the thrumming chords of McCarthyism in all this? Yes I do.

Not too patriotic, Chuck.

Step 1: Initiate restrictions and legislation against theism and Christianity

In God we bust

For these liberal groups to win the war of ideological dominance, they know they must minimize the effects of Christianity, which many are doing (unbeknownst to others) behind the scenes through lobbying and legislation. In fact, two significant actions occurred on the National Day of Prayer just two weeks ago!

'Minimize the effects of Christianity'? What effects? The crazies wandering the streets with sandwich boards, pronouncing the 'End Of Days'? Women claiming that 'gawd' told them to kill their kids? GW sending our troops into a debacle based on a little voice in his head? Dominionists trying to take over our country in the name of their cosmic babysitter?
Shame on you. Shame on you all.

The London Telegraph noted that, while American Christians were praying across the land on the National Day of Prayer, atheists were petitioning the Texas Legislature against the civic display of the words, "In God We Trust."

Umm...hello? Establishment clause of the First Amendment? Don't let a little thing like constitutional rights get in the way, now.

Eroding and erasing theistic language in culture is a growing trend. Earlier this year George Washington dollar coins were not only inscribed with the words "In God We Trust" on their edges, but many excluded them entirely! Such minting modifications are a flagrant defiance against theism and a public reflection of the place God is now relegated – to the fringes of society.

That was an error, Chuck, not some 'evil atheist conspiracy'. Sheesh, I'll lend you a quarter so you can by a clue. Or one of those mis-struck dollar coins, hehehehe.

Secularists of course have made repeated attempts to rid "under God" from "The Pledge of Allegiance." Thank God the Legislature of Texas is moving along a bill to include the words in our state pledge: "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God and indivisible." I was also grateful to read in the Dallas Morning News May 1 that the House also embraced legislation "that seeks to clarify the rights of Texas public school students to offer public prayers at football games or graduation, hand out religious messages or hold religious meetings during the school day if they want."

The Pledge of Allegiance, as anyone well-informed knows, was inserted in the last half of the 20th century during the...drum roll please!...Tah DAH! The McCarthy era.

If Texas wants to secede, I'm all for it. Ass-backwards state anyways.

Another example of atheistic advocacy can be found in the 10,000-member Freedom from Religion Foundation initiation of a Supreme Court case, which asserts that President Bush's faith-based initiatives pose a violation of the wall of separation between church and state.

Surprise! Yes, they do indeed. Reading comprehension must be shot to hell, Chuck. ' Prohibiting or respecting'...guess where that comes from?

Atheists also received a proverbial shot in the arm by locating a representative and advocate of sorts in Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who "is the first member of Congress – and the highest-ranking elected official in the country – to make known that he is a nontheist."

No doubt Chuckles and his brownshirt buddies would forcibly eject Mr. Stark from office, if they could.

His election stands in stark contrast to the wishes of our Founding Fathers, who encouraged American citizens to vote Christians into public office. As John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

So you may as well as ban Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and any other 'alternate' religions from attaining office as well.

I have illustrated amply both here and here, that not only is this horrendously incorrect, it's discriminatory and yes, unpatriotic.

The tyranny of the state over the church

The other legal disgrace that occurred on the National Day of Prayer was that Congress passed what might become one of the most religiously restrictive pieces of legislation in history: H.R. 1592, "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act." With Senate approval, this bill will expand the law against such hate crimes, allowing federal funds and other resources to assist local law enforcement to deter and punish acts of violence committed against an individual because of the victim's race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.

LEGAL DISGRACE!?!? Let me get this straight - you want to become an advocate for violence committed against non-Christians? Wait for it...Chuckles tries to pull some rhetorical crap about this:

While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, it could very easily end up (even inadvertently) restricting First Amendment rights of Christians to speak freely against such anti-biblical practices as homosexuality and transvestitism. As Janet Folger, the author of "Criminalizing Christianity," has pointed out, "H.R. 1592 isn't about hate. It isn't about crime. It's about silencing our speech."

Obviously, Norris hasn't read the damn thing.

As with other laws of this type, once enacted, local justices could easily expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. Once enforced, what would stop a clergy from being accused as an accessory to a hate crime, after he preached to his church on Sunday about the woes of same-sex marriage and discovered on Monday one of his congregants got in a fight with a homosexual co-worker as a result of a moral altercation? The fact is, if the hate-crime bill passes, pastors could easily become pulpit partners in crime.

Read the whole bloody thing. It specifically mentions physical violence several times, along with kidnapping, and it's hardly loose in its wording.

I agree with Rev. Henry Jackson, who said the law would "mandate unequal protection under the law and will pave the way for criminalization of thoughts and religious beliefs contrary to politically correct ideas."

I call bullshit on that one. Denouncing something from a pulpit isn't included, if you want to speak out against something, go to it, this is America, baby. But if you (as a pastor) specifically instruct the sheep to 'smite the unbeliever', the homosexual or transvestite, then sorry buck-a-roo, your ass is in a sling. Freedom of speech doesn't hand you a blank check to do as you like. It's not a luxury, it's a privilege and a responsibility, and if you cause violence by blathering about it, you share the blame.

Hate-crime laws are not only a violation of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, but a violation of the 10th Amendment's limitations on the power of federal government.

The 10th amendment is hotly contested, even today. A reserved powers clause hardly applies here. Besides, most hate-crime laws are targeting people who would infringe on other people's ' life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', don't they?

Hang together or hang separately?

Thank God our president's senior advisers have gone on record that they will advise him to veto the bill if it reaches the doors of the White House. We, too, must follow his lead by speaking up and taking a stand against this unnecessary and unconstitutional bill – and any others like it. Just as atheists are gathering to combat God, we patriots must come together to sustain the godly heritage we've been handed. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."

Oh, goodie - more false dichotomies, religious oppression, and comic book histrionics. The 'Evil Atheist Conspiracy' is conspiring to take religion away!
Get real. Better yet, get bent.

I urge you to write the president and your representatives today to encourage the overturning of this ungodly, religiously restricting and unconstitutional piece of legislation, erroneously titled by the misnomer, "Hate Crimes Prevention Act."

There must be something incredibly potent in the water table in Texas - it seems to make folks more than a little crazy.

Final analysis - intolerant, unbelievable, the Karate Kommando is cognitively dissonant.

In laymen's terms, he's thoroughly addled.

Not a very good American, I might add.

Read More...

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Teaching The Fable - Again, I Agree With Norris

(Cross-posted at Gods4suckers.net)

tract3


Recently, (Chuck) Norris' kata of cognitive dissonance actually resembled something of note.

Bringing the Bible back into public schools

Three hundred eighty-two public school districts have voted to implement a course on it.

Over 1,350 schools in 37 states can now offer it as a textbook.

Approximately 190,000 students have already been taught from it as a course curriculum.

I'm talking about the Bible in public school. It's no joke! And I want to help you get a course on it offered in your school district, too.

I'm actually in agreement with this idea. More on this a little later on.

The Bible is big news!

Over the past few years dozens of news agencies from all over our nation have reported on the re-entry of Bible curriculum back into classrooms.

Just this past week, Time ran a cover story, "Why we should teach the Bible in public school."

Georgia's Legislature approved and is preparing its 180 school districts to offer two literature classes on the Bible.

More than 800 Craig, Colo., residents are petitioning to get an elective class at Moffat County High School on the history and literature of the Bible.

In my own state of Texas, the House Public Education Committee is presently considering requiring the state's 1,700 school districts to offer history and literature courses using the Bible as the primary text.

History and literature? The bible is most distinctly not historical in the slightest. Literature? Sure. Just like the Popul Vuh is, or Homer's The Iliad.

But of course, them thar nasty 'libruls' are hatching nasty plots in the background (supply your own farcical vaudevillian laughter):

Liberal attacks on Bible curriculum

Of course, liberal groups are fighting at great expense to keep the Bible from being taught in public classrooms.

The Texas Freedom Network, or TFN, is one of them – a self-admitted adversary of any biblically conservative movement, calling themselves "a mainstream voice to counter the religious right." The TFN, for example, is requesting five unnecessary changes to the Texas bill, which is intended to assure students are taught this classic text:

  • Mandate that teachers have appropriate academic qualifications and sufficient training on legal and constitutional issues surrounding instruction about the Bible in public schools.
  • Require rigorous, scholarly reviewed textbooks and other curriculum materials for all courses.
  • Include strong and specific language that protects the religious freedom of students and their families by barring the use of Bible classes to evangelize or promote personal religious perspectives.
  • Require the Texas Education Agency to regularly monitor and report on the content of public school Bible courses to ensure that they are academically and legally appropriate.
  • Continue to allow districts the option to offer – or not offer – such courses.

These are all RATIONAL intelligent responses. Note #3 (must really stick in their craws): NO EVANGELIZING OR PROMOTING PERSONAL RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES.

I'll bet when the Koran is offered as such, they'll all be nodding their heads in agreement at that clause. Because of course, 'That's DIFFERENT!'

Much more subtle than the TFN are the liberal ''compromises'' being offered by such individuals as Charles Haynes, the head of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, who purports to be a helper ''for schools and communities [to] find common ground on conflicts involving religion and values in public schools.'' Haynes' address of this issue remains suspect due to his continued track record of pushing a very pro-liberal platform – something that would make any card-carrying member of the ACLU proud. His conflict of interest also lies in the self-promotion of a textbook, ''The Bible and its influence,'' which he has partnered in developing and marketing to public schools.

Oh, the horrors! Oh, the humanity! Think of the children! How dare they promote tolerance of anything else?!?!?

Groups like TFN, or masked secular progressives like Charles Haynes, are offering a paranoid and polemic reaction to protect children from being preached at with the Scriptures. In the end, however, if they have their way, they will inadvertently prohibit the children of our land from learning about the one sacred text that has influenced more spheres in our nation than any other. Even more, they are fighting against the very positions and purposes for which our Founding Fathers raised up this country.

Hello? First amendment, anyone? There's plenty of real world examples where people get preached at at the drop of a hat. Gimmee a break here.

The Word from your Founding Fathers

Anyone who has studied early American history knows that the Bible has always been embedded throughout our culture, from classrooms to congressional halls. This was especially the case in the origins of our nation.

I get sick to death of people who claim that they 'speak for the Founders' (what're you using, the Ouija board? Get spirit messages?) - but of course Norris is listening to my least favorite propagandist, Barton, so small wonder there.

A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era, which was from 1760-1805, discovered that 94 percent of the period's documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible. The Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.

Bad news, chuckles: that's called plagiarism. Spouting off biblical verses for eighty percent of your speech (or document) is just what my old English writing teacher called using 'driftwood'. ('Psst! You've got half an hour to kill!' 'Quick, hand me a bible!') No, the scriptures weren't the bedrock nor blueprint for our society. Bibles were brought in via the Northwest Ordinance because we didn't have a school system - what's the cheapest possible textbook you can use? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Citing a few of our Founding Fathers, the NCBCPS website notes:

"The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed." – Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom." – Horace Greeley

"I have always said, and will always say, that studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens." – Thomas Jefferson

While president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was elected the first president of the Washington, D.C., public school board, which used the Bible as a reading text in the classroom.

Besides the fact that Horace Greeley isn't even on the Founder's list, Paine was a Deist and anti-Christian, Jefferson was a (closet) Deist, Franklin was an open Deist, Washington didn't even hang around for the communicant (and when criticized for not doing so, stopped attending services altogether), Jefferson AND Madison both were advocates of Separation of Church and State - I could go on at length on this alone.

If men like Jefferson believed in biblical education, it is not difficult to understand why liberal groups like TFN are losing the battle to prohibit the Bible and its influence on Western civilization from being taught in public schools. Try as they might, they will succumb to a force far bigger than themselves.

Oh, please. Jefferson trimmed all the crap out of the bible (read: Old Testament and all miracles in the New), thereby creating his own bible.

National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools

Gena and I ponder and pray through many requests to endorse certain causes and products, but it took us only a few minutes to decide to support and even join the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, or NCBCPS.

Oh geez. I'm glad there is that provision that doesn't permit evangelization.

NCBCPS's course helps students understand the Bible's influence and impact on history, literature, our legal and educational systems, as well as art, archaeology and other parts of civilization. In this elective class, students are required to read through their textbook – the Bible.

Um, let's see, yes (influence), yes (history), yes (literature) no (legal, no, educational, provisional), yes (art), archaeology's pretty much savaging the 'historical' part, and it HAS had a profound effect on our culture. Not all of it good. Most of it not good, in fact.

Unknown to most, it's legal and our constitutional right to be taught the Bible in public schools!

As a literature/historical elective? Sure.

That is why, from California and Alaska to Pennsylvania and Florida, 93 percent of boards approached with NCBCPS's Bible curriculum have voted to implement it.

You can preview some of the curriculum or the teacher's guide at their website.

This is a stupid maneuver on their part: I'll get to that in a moment.

Your first step to get God back into your public school

To learn how anyone can help their local school board to implement Bible curriculum, please write or call NCBCPS at the contact information below.

I'm all for this. As a compilation of literature that's had a profound impact on Western civilization, there's no argument.

Problem is, when I first started 'cracking the books', I had the Internet to balance the perspective. I began weighing all the elements, the debates, the points/counterpoints, and spent many, many hours of research looking into the subject.

I am now an atheist. For good reason. The book comes apart at the seams with an alarming regularity (especially given the claim that it was divinely dictated). It is by no means an historical work. Between contradictions, interpolations (both obvious and subtle), the nearly weekly archeological finds that contravene its allegedly 'holy' contents, it is, as Mary says in The Amber Spyglass, "A powerful and convincing lie."

"The More You Know," as the commercial states. I'd quote Asimov again, but then perhaps we should take a clue from one of the Founders:

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820

Read More...

Friday, March 09, 2007

PEOPLE I'VE CHALLENGED THUS FAR...

So I make a conscientious effort to notify people that they're being challenged. Fair is fair. Come defend yourself. I realize that I'm small fry - and my guess is that most folks in the public eye probably view blogs as beneath them, or are far too busy to respond. I'm not in the news, newspapers, or on the boob tube. Or perhaps my critiques aren't quite as trenchant or piercing as I'd hoped.

The AFA, here, back in November.

Professor Campos, here - I'll give him a few months, see what's what.

Karen Hunter, here - got a snarky email response worthy of a 12 year old child.

Chuck Norris, here - I sent an email to his fanmail base, and posted on the WMD thread (Twice! Big surprise: neither showed up).

Marshall Hall, here - no response

Goro Adachi, here - interestingly enough, he emailed me back, not really interested.

T. Chase, here - de nada.

Tim Todd, here - still waiting.

Frank Turek, here - again, zilch.

Notified on comments form - for this post - got a response some months later (posted on their comments in September - got a response in February. Guess the Mother Ship dropped that clown off recently).

I shipped off an email to the Raelians recently, in regards my critique in my post here.

Stephen Quayle, here.

Value Voters, here.

These folks all got an email, and the link was provided.

I responded to an anonymous person at Aaron Kinney's Kill the Afterlife, after said person waxed on and on about one Samael Au Wor - it became quite heated, and crossed blogs (here) back and forth, and said 'spiritual' adherent went bipolar on occasion, alternately hinting at astral sex and calling me a coward and a 'mutha sucker'. What a joy that was. Not really cogent here, but felt like sharing.

The following people weren't challenged:

Mike Janitch, I criticized his 'left wing conspiracy' theory here - but I didn't bother to drop anything off on his site. Idiots like that don't listen anyways.

Ron Rhodes - I poked fun at his 'Cloned Christ' web page here.

And so here I wait, hiding in plain sight.

Read More...

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

MORE NORRIS NONSENSE - TISSUE HAS INTRINSIC VALUE TOO!

Man, do I get fed up with these people.

Chuck Norris is at it again, bleating out a bunch of nauseating Neo-con neologisms. Article is dated January 22nd 2007.

"On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided (via Roe v. Wade) existing laws against abortion (at both federal and state levels) violated a constitutional right to privacy and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

As a result all national laws prohibiting or limiting abortion were reverted. The primacy of a woman's rights prevailed and the rights of the unborn were not only abandoned, but their nature legally reduced to nonhuman. "

As I've amply demonstrated before, in my post titled The Quickening, abortion's been with us since the time of Aristotle, even the 7th century church fathers rated it as a lesser sin than oral sex, and Aquinas didn't consider the fetus to be human until the quickening. And indeed, Judaic custom dictates the child is a 'person' upon the crowning of the head from the vulva.

So there's plenty of historic precedent. From their own theology, no less. But nooooo...select things have changed.

I find this next set of statements somewhat...amusing:

"A history of justifications

Both Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist strongly dissented the 7-2 majority decision on that winter day 34 years ago. In fact Rehnquist jeered their justification, ''To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.''

Why am I amused by this? Because, not long ago, Mr. Norris was carrying on about how we need to stick to the letter of the law as outlined by the Founding Fathers! (see this post - it's vague, but the wisps of 'Original Intent' are there to be found.)

Onwards:

"We've continued to cloak the truths about abortion with a vast network of ethical justifications, inconsistencies and avoidances. ''The child will not be taken care of properly,'' ''She's too young to have children,'' ''Aborting unwanted children reduces the number of abused children,'' ''Nobody can tell me right from wrong,'' ''It's a woman's right to choose,'' ''If abortion is outlawed women will return to back-alley abortion clinics,'' etc."

These are all valid reasons.

"And guilt and accountability are often subsided by an interchange in language: instead of baby we say fetus; instead of killing we say aborting; instead of dissect we say research; instead of extermination chambers we say abortion clinics – ad nauseam. Who could ever imagine the aftermath of three decades of legalized abortions?"

Wait: what? More word-juggling. A baby can be a synonym for fetus - but when I hear the word, I think of a pink, wiggling little bundle of joy. But the word fetus is used properly, as in: "

  1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
  2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo."

The phrase 'extermination chambers' is of course used to conjure up the Holocaust - a thoroughly inappropriate equivocation. In short, weasel wordage.

And of course, the old tried 'n true: blame evolution for it:

"What is human? And what's its worth?

"In an evolutionary, self-centered world, in which man is nothing more than a glorified ape aimlessly shooting for stars of deification, it's not difficult to understand how the slippery slope of human degradation has led from fetal devaluing to discarding. "

Say like, throwing away valuable stem cells because they have intrinsic value? Puh-LEASE.

I have no problem being an evolved primate. Human degradation? Isn't that the forte of religion? We're all sinners, born as spiritual Thalidomide babies, incapable of lifting ourselves from the mire imposed on us? Why, yes it is.

"At the heart of these issues, however, are a couple of questions we all must answer: What is human? Is a fetus human, even in its embryonic stage? And does human life have any intrinsic worth?"

Answer number one: looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. No, a fetus doesn't qualify for personhood. Yes, the life extant does: but I will not elevate the life potential above that.

"Our contemporary world has indoctrinated us to believe humanness cannot be uniquely defined, a fetus is nothing more than a cellular mass, and there is no special value to being human."

Let's see - crapola on the first, yes on the second, horse manure on the third. Like all wingnuts, he mixes 'n matches freely.

"Before our embryonic twins were surgically placed into my wife Gena, the nurse told her, ''I want to show you something.'' She wheeled Gena to the incubator where they were kept and gently opened the door. The incubator was bathed in warm light and soft classical music. Gena later told me it was the most incredible sight she had ever seen. ''It was like looking at something from heaven,'' she explained. That was only 2 days after conception! Whether or not Gena had become pregnant, we were fully convinced at that moment that life begins at conception. Thirty-two weeks later our twins were born."

It's a wonderful story. Touching, really. Problem is, how do you know it's something from Heaven if you've never been there? I do wonder where they received the...tissue that was surgically placed. No disrespect intended.

Sentimentality is fine and dandy on a personal level, but you sure as hell can't legislate based on it.

"A creed that needs to be cloned

From our Founding Fathers forward, there were some basic creeds by which most Americans lived, and I believe we should go back to if we are to restore civility in our land. Here are three:

  1. I believe human life is made in the image of God and as such has intrinsic value, worthy to save.

    And, as human beings, all zygotes are ''created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' (Preamble of the Declaration of Independence).

  2. I believe aborting or destroying human life is morally wrong and goes against God's law.
  3. I believe ours and others' mistakes can be forgiven and even turned around for the good."

Waitaminnit: didn't he say something earlier about the Founding Fathers? Let's see: right here - In fact Rehnquist jeered their justification, ''To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.''

So much for the strict constructionist viewpoint. Apparently, it only applies when it's convenient.

Let's take a look at the 14th amendment while we're at it, shall we?

"Section 1 of the amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens and citizens of their state of residence; the citizenship of African Americans was thereby established and the effect of the Dred Scott Case was overcome. The section forbids the states to abridge the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens, to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (a similar provision restraining the federal government is in the Fifth Amendment), and to deny any person the equal protection of the laws."

Of course, it's an amendment, and as such, can be changed to include the unborn, but then, what would the Founders do? Can we alternately cherry-pick that we wish to keep, and stay within the boundaries of 'original intent'?

From here:

"Harris v. McRae
Dissenting opinion by Thurgood Marshall
"The consequences of today’s opinion—consequences to which the Court seems oblivious—are not difficult to predict. Pregnant women denied the funding necessary to procure abortions will be restricted to two alternatives. First, they can carry the fetus to term—even though that route may result in severe injury or death to the mother, the fetus, or both. If that course appears intolerable, they can resort to self-induced abortions or attempt to obtain illegal abortions—not because bearing a child would be inconvenient, but because it is necessary in order to protect their health. {Footnote: Of course, some poor women will attempt to raise the funds necessary to obtain a lawful abortion. A court recently found that those who were fortunate enough to do so had to resort to "not paying rent or utility bills, pawning household goods, diverting food and clothing money, or journeying to another state to obtain lower rates or fraudulently use a relative’s insurance policy…. [S]ome patients were driven to theft." Women’s Health Services, Inc. v. Maher, 482 F. Supp. 725.} The result will not be to protect what the Court describes as "the legitimate governmental objective of protecting potential life," but to ensure the destruction of both fetal and maternal life. "There is another world ’out there,’ the existence of which the Court …either chooses to ignore or fears to recognize." Beal v. Doe (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). In my view, it is only by blinding itself to that other world that the Court can reach the result it announces today."
A little further down:
"In this case, the Federal Government has taken upon itself the burden of financing practically all medically necessary expenditures. One category of medically necessary expenditure has been singled out for exclusion, and the sole basis for the exclusion is a premise repudiated for purposes of constitutional law in Roe v. Wade. The consequence is a devastating impact on the lives and health of poor women. I do not believe that a Constitution committed to the equal protection of the laws can tolerate this result. I dissent."

For the record, I'm both pro-choice and pro-life. But it's standard fare for the Neocons - they go after the symptoms, rather than the disease. So do us all a favor, Herr Norris, and the rest of you - focus more on the reasons behind the problem.

Or as Traditional Chinese Medicine tends to view it - go to the root of the illness, and fix that first. Till then, it needs to stay safe, legal and rare.

I'd be willing to wager, that if these people spent half the money they splooge on anti-evolution propaganda and gay marriage on reducing poverty, it would save a helluva lot more unborn children.

So stop spending all your dough on some fringe-theory scientific community that produces absolutely nothing in the way of contributions, and start taking care of the people that are forced to do this, via financial hardship.

And that's the way of it. You want change? Fix poverty, or at the very least, address it in a manner that reduces the need to seek out this procedure.

In short: fix the problem, not the blame. Stop judging from a distance.

Now get to it.

Read More...

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

AMONG THE FOUNDING FATHERS, WHO WOULD THE REPUBLICANS ELECT AS PRESIDENT?

The answer is surprising.

I chanced across this article which appears to be extremely well-researched. So brain-cells, they were a-percolatin'. I got extremely incensed a little earlier about this Norris noise where only 'Godborgs' need apply for public office. (Lately, the phrase 'Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated' has sorta lost all its funny for me.)

Let's do this then: subtract the obvious sexism and racism that all of them were heir to (to different extents), and let's examine the religious undertones of each of these gentlemen, and see who the Neocons would vote for, shall we? [Author's note: for the sake of brevity, I will only address five out of the list - but they were the BMOC's of Constitutional history, no doubt.]

First up - Benjamin Franklin:

"Benjamin Franklin was a leading disciple of the European Enlightenment and America's first Renaissance man. He was a person of complete versatility, who made original contributions in many areas of science and humanities. As to matters of religion, Franklin was America's first great liberal. Preferring to study on Sundays, he seldom went to church. When he did attend, he was generally disappointed, because, as he observed in his Autobiography, the preachers seemed more intent upon making people good Calvinists than good citizens.

In the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, there were clauses concerning religion to which Franklin took strong exception. The document contained a general statement of religious freedom and tolerance, but it was the specific qualifications for office holders that angered Franklin. An official was compelled to "acknowledge the being of God," and to affirm the following: "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked; and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."(13) Franklin lost this battle at the convention and had to be content with a compromise over the status of Roman Catholics."

Let's add, that he and the French had a wonderful relationship, so much so that he borrowed money to aid America in its revolution. So let's see, rubbed shoulders with the French, objected to religious oaths, completely utterly liberal in his viewpoints?

BWWANNNK!! Disqualified.

Next up - Thomas Paine:

"Although not a native American, Thomas Paine did more for the success of the American Revolution than any other thinker. As Lafayette once said, "Free America without Thomas Paine is unthinkable."(18) Practically every literate American read Paine's "Common Sense." The illiterate, among whom were many of Washington's soldiers, were indirectly inspired by it. Paine was truly revolutionary America's vox populi.

A later book by Paine, Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology, was also widely read in America, but this time Americans, in an incredible display of religious intolerance, turned against the great patriot. Paine quickly realized that, contrary to his prediction, the revolution for complete religious liberty and freedom of thought had not followed upon the heels of the political revolution. Even a religious liberal like John Adams rejected him; the sponsor for his return to America, Thomas Jefferson, shunned him out of political expediency; and his own Quakers refused to bury him. Paine's reputation did not improve as Americans, who knew Age of Reason, looked back in retrospect. Theodore Roosevelt called Paine "that dirty little atheist" and provided this additional description: "There are infidels and infidels, but Paine belonged to the variety ... that apparently esteems a bladder of dirty water as the proper weapon with which to assail Christianity."(19) "

Let's see, intolerant of Christianity, not to mention highly spoken of by a famous Frenchman?

BWWANNNK!! Disqualified.

Next up - George Washington:

(Snip)"Washington was not an intellectual but a man of action. He was not naturally given to deep reflection or detailed analysis of thought or belief. While Adams and Jefferson spent their last years reading philosophy and theology, and frequently writing to each other about it, Washington retired to the country and occupied himself with strictly non-intellectual pursuits. It was James Madison's opinion that Washington never "attended to the arguments for Christianity, and for the different systems of religion, [n]or in fact ... [had he] formed definite opinions on the subject."(24)

"There is virtually no evidence in Washington's writings to indicate a firm commitment to the Christian religion. He always I has something positive to say about religion in general. But there are a few remarks in his private correspondence and diaries, which have a touch of cynicism. He once wrote in his diary that he would have liked to have collected his rents on Sundays, but he declined because the people living on his land were "apparently very religious."(25) Writing to Lafayette with regard to religious toleration, he states: "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church with that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest, and least liable to exception."(26) (Snip)

(Snip)"Dr. Benjamin Rush, medical scientist and friend of Franklin, reported to Thomas Jefferson that upon leaving office Washington met with a group of clergy who submitted a number of questions for Washington to answer. Since he had never made any public affirmation of Christianity, one of their questions was whether or not he was a Christian. Washington very kindly answered all of the questions except that crucial one.(31)

The tolerance that Washington showed for all Christian denominations was another sign of his religious liberalism. There is the famous incident when Washington prevented his soldiers from burning the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Day. When once looking for new servants, Washington emphasized that any good workmen would be acceptable, be they "Mohametans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or. . . atheists."(32) (End Snip)

Let's see - no firm commitment on his religious beliefs, and a decidedly liberal bent towards education - wishy-washy flip-flopper.

BWWANNNK!! Disqualified.

Next up - Thomas Jefferson:

(Snip)"Thomas Jefferson was one of the most outstanding minds in American history. He was a consummate statesman and thinker. His intellectual prowess could have easily qualified him for a professorship in classics, political science, philosophy, or theology. Judging from the emphasis in his writings, it is conceivable that he might have chosen theology and Biblical studies if he had followed an academic career. Paul Blanshard, in God and Man in Washington, states that "although he was not a church member, Jefferson was probably more interested in religion than any of our other presidents."(40) It is highly ironic then to find that Jefferson was criticized in the election of 1800 as "an atheist and leveler from Virginia." Again we find the religiously orthodox completely unable to understand or to respect religious liberalism.

"In 1787 Jefferson wrote a fatherly letter of advice to his nephew Peter Carr. This provides a valuable insight into the critical method Jefferson himself might have used to come to his own views on religion. The first and principal rule concerns the role of reason: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God."(41) The second rule concerns the Bible and follows from the first rule. Using reason, one should examine the Bible critically. If one considers it a human creation, it will then contain both truth and error. For example, the critical eye will come across events that seem contrary to nature's laws. Reason, says Jefferson, will exclude those as myth.

"Jefferson came out of this critical investigation with a belief in God intact, but with a disbelief in most, if not all, Christian doctrine. He did not believe that Jesus was God; Jesus claimed only "human excellence." He did not believe in the virgin birth or the Trinity. Jefferson found the Trinity especially unintelligible. In a letter to James Smith in 1822 he states: "The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it. . . ."(42) He tells Smith to keep this rejection of the Trinity confidential, so that his reputation would not be further defamed by those who thought that strict compliance to Christian doctrine was the mark of a religious person.

"Jefferson still claimed to be a "real" Christian, because he maintained that the major emphasis of Jesus' message was good deeds and not unintelligible creeds. He still thought that Christianity was the best possible religion because of its ethics and its celebration of the human mind. In a letter to Moses Robinson in 1801, he affirms: ". . . the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent instructor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."(43)

"Jefferson attempted to distill the "original purity and simplicity" of the philosophy of Jesus in a book called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly known as the "Jeffersonian Bible." Jefferson selected those verses which showed Jesus as a man and a great moral teacher. Carefully excised were any verses that supported the traditional doctrines, Christ's divinity, the virgin birth, the Trinity, and Hell. These doctrines were the political additions by priestly men who wished to increase the power of themselves and the church. "The greatest enemies of the doctrines of Jesus," Jefferson wrote to John Adams, "are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy, absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words."(44) After all, Jefferson might well have argued, it is not necessary to believe in the divinity of Jesus in order to love one's neighbor. "(Snip)

(Snip)"Jefferson's opinion on prayer in public schools was very similar to the views of our own liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Following the principles of religious liberty which he and Madison had fought for, he concluded that prayer in the schools should be strictly voluntary and there should be a separate room for that purpose. Justice Douglas' own proposal is similar, but with the proviso that the worship facility be financed from non-tax sources.(46)

"Jefferson believed in the separation of church and state so strongly that he and Andrew Jackson are the only presidents who declined to make the traditional presidential proclamation to celebrate Thanksgiving Day.(47) Washington had started the tradition during his first term. He thought that the proclamation was only a "recommendation"; therefore he had felt that he had not violated the principle. Jefferson argued, however, that the state should not officiate in anything religious, including a day of thanksgiving and prayer.

"In many places in his writings, Jefferson suggests that we judge a religion not on the basis of its scripture or its doctrine, but on the ethical result of its practice. In a letter to Miles King, Jefferson states: "I must ever believe that religion substantially good which produces an honest life. ... "(48) Jefferson's utilitarianism is not of the same theoretical purity as that of Bentham or Mill, as he believed that God endowed all men with a moral sense of judging right from wrong. But as Adrienne Koch has observed: "Jefferson held the theory of moral sense in an unorthodox form, giving ground to historical change and social 'refinement' of our moral judgments."(49) In true utilitarian style, Jefferson extols the "social advantages" of the moral-sense theory. There are conceivably many exceptions to any moral rule and when such "is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation ... [e.g.] demonstrations by sound calculation that honesty promotes interest in the long run."(50) Koch concludes that, with some qualifications, Jefferson emerges as "a full-fledged altruistic utilitarian."(51)

"Perhaps the ultimate test for such a utilitarian would be the question: Can the atheist be moral? In at least two passages in Jefferson's writings the answer is clearly affirmative. The first is found in the letter to Thomas Law cited above. Here Jefferson respects the atheism and firmly defends the morality of the French philosophes, Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, who "are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue then must have had some other foundation than the love of God." The second reference is in the letter to his nephew Peter Carr which was mentioned above. Jefferson quite frankly suggests the possibility that the young Carr, using the critical method he proposed, might become an atheist. The following is Jefferson's advice: "If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you."(52) "(End Snip)

So let's see: modified the bible, rejected the Old Testament (called it barbaric trash, if memory serves), rejected Jesus' divinity.

BWWANNNK!! Disqualified.

Next up - John Adams:

(Snip)"A first impression of our second president may lead us to conclude that he does not belong with the religious liberals discussed in this essay. The Adams family had a strong Calvinistic background, and John Adams was a regular churchgoer and Bible reader. As a student at Harvard, Adams faithfully attended daily prayers in the campus chapel. As an adult he regularly attended Sunday services, sometimes three times in one day. Adams' favorite texts were the Bible and Cicero and he studied the Bible on Thursday through Sunday mornings every week.  

"After seeing Franklin in action in Paris, Adams stated that Franklin "has no religion ... [and] all the atheists, deists, and libertines as well as philosophers and ladies are in his train."(53) Furthermore, Adams reacted violently to Paine's Age of Reason and scolded him in person for stating such "ridiculous" things about the Old Testament. Although he would come to agree more and more with Jefferson in later years, the younger Adams simply could not understand Jefferson's objection to federally approved fast day that came before the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.  Why, wrote Adams to Benjamin Rush, was he making himself out to be an enemy of Christianity? (53a)

"Adams held a firm belief in God and contended that such a belief was necessary for morality. He also recognized the role of human reason in morality, but in contrast to Jefferson and Franklin, he deemphasized human perfectibility through reason alone. He believed in God's providence and in miracles, and he thought that the Bible contained "the most perfect philosophy, the most perfect morality, and the most refined policy."(54) Adams explicitly stated that the principles of the American Revolution were the same as the general principles of Christianity.(55)

"But this same man signed the Treaty of Tripoli with its notorious Article Eleven which began: "As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. . . ." Is this not a direct contradiction to the views expressed above? If we understand clearly what Adams meant by general Christian principles, the contradiction dissolves. Like the religious liberals of his time, Adams believed that the essential message of Jesus was ethical, not doctrinal. Truth, justice, liberty, and brotherhood are the principles of Christianity, and it is these which Adams felt coincided with the principles of the American Revolution. The American Revolution was certainly not fought on the basis of Christ's divinity, the Trinity, or the Virgin Birth. Therefore, to return to the Treaty of Tripoli, it would have been perfectly legitimate to state that the U.S. government is founded on Christian principles of liberty and justice, but not on the dogmas of orthodox religion."

(Snip)"Adams believed firmly in the first principle of religious liberalism: that Christian morality is separate and distinct from Christian doctrine. Like Jefferson, Adams was convinced that in the Bible one can find ethics only. As he states: "Where do we find a precept in the Gospel for ... Creeds, Confessions, Oaths ... and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"(58) Adams was a solid intellectual and enjoyed exchanges with people like Benjamin Rush and, later on, with Thomas Jefferson. He read the classics, philosophy, and theology voraciously and initiated studies in the areas of the sociology of religion and comparative religion. He thought that we should study the other religions of the world thoroughly and accept these other views if they could prove themselves in the court of reason and common sense.(59) He concluded that anyone practicing Christian morality should be called a Christian, even though that person may not believe in Christ's deity or the Trinity. In a letter to Jefferson in 1813, he puts it very simply: "Yet I believe all the honest men among you are Christians, in my sense of the word."(60)"

Omigosh, a Christian liberal with an open mind? Allowing extra-curricular corrections from other religions? Horrors! Didn't care if a Christian strictly followed scripture? Oh, the humanity!

BWWANNNK!! Disqualified. Oh wait: the Democrats might let him in.

Next up - James Madison:

(Snip)"Our fourth president, along with Thomas Jefferson, did more than any other American to promote the principles of complete religious liberty. The problem of religious intolerance vexed Madison "the worst of anything whatever." Madison believed that one owns one's thoughts and conscience in the same way that one owns private property. Following the philosophy of John Locke, our founding fathers believed that by mixing labor with things, by making or buying, a person has a natural right to hold those things as private property. Madison concluded that the same holds for a person's thoughts and opinions, be they political, economic, or religious. As Madison stated in 1792: "As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."(63) An American would have the right to believe in a king, or to disbelieve in God. Madison seems to imply that a person even has the right to hold the false belief that private property is not a natural right.

"The state constitutions of Revolutionary America contained many clauses that did not conform to the Madison formula. Many states had provisions that discriminated against Roman Catholics. Many states had "established" churches, that is, one denomination that was state-supported. In the Franklin section we saw that Pennsylvania required office-holders to be orthodox Christians. Similar religious tests for officials were found in New Jersey, Delaware, North and South Carolina.(64) In contrast, the federal Constitution (as amended) expressly forbade the establishment of religion and the use of religious tests for office-holders. Many states, however, continued with established churches and religious tests.

"In Virginia, where Madison and Jefferson were to make their great contribution, the Episcopal Church was established. During 1744 Baptists and other sectarian Christians were being persecuted and arrested. With regard to this situation, Madison wrote: "That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some; and to their eternal infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such business. This vexes me the worst of anything whatever. There are at this time in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments . . . . "(65)(Snip)

(Snip)"During his presidency, Madison stood firm on his principles, including the principle of the separation of church and state. Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress, and to the exemption of churches from taxation.(69) Both traditions have persisted until the present despite Madison's criticisms. Oddly enough. President Madison did give official sanction to Thanksgiving Day, something which President Jefferson declined to do. In February of 1811, Madison vetoed a federal land grant to a Baptist church and a bill which would have established an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia.(70) In each veto message there is a stern reminder about the Constitution's explicit provision that the "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."

In his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance," Madison argues that the establishment of Christianity "is a contradiction to the Christian religion itself; for every page of it disavows dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them."(71) Throughout history we have found that where politics and religion intermingle, there has always been trouble. And both politics and religion have suffered because of it. In a letter of July, 1822, Madison states that "such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against . . . religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."(72)

So let's see - big proponent of separation of Church and State? Objected to church chaplains in Congress? Against church tax-exemption?

BWWANNNK!! Disqualified.

Next up - Benjamin Rush:

(Snip)"Benjamin Rush was born in 1745 in Byberry, Pennsylvania, approximately twelve miles from Philadelphia, where he died in 1813. In 1761, Rush began a medical apprenticeship with a distinguished physician, Dr. John Redman in Philadelphia, and he completed his training at the University of Edinburgh, where he studied with William Cullen and was exposed to the philosophies of the Enlightenment. Upon obtaining his degree, Rush returned to Philadelphia in 1769 and became a professor of Chemistry at the College of Philadelphia's medical school, where he instructed approximately three thousand American students between 1779 and 1812. Being very determined to advance the human condition, Rush formed the first dispensary for medical relief for the poor in the United States. Later in his life, he focused on diseases of the mind. He approached mental illness as a disease as significant as those that attacked the body. While his theory of causation was representative of the limitations of medical theory of the time, his advocacy of humane facilities, his use of occupational therapy, and his belief that mental illness could be understood through systematic study have led him to become known as the father of American psychiatry.(Snip)"

Sounds good so far, doesn't it?

(Snip)

"Controversial theories

"Rush was an advocate of forced psychiatric treatment. According to psychiatry historian Thomas Szasz, one of Rush's favorite methods of treatment was to tie a patient to a board and spin it rapidly until all the blood went to the head.[5] He even placed his own son in one of his hospitals for 27 years, until he died. Rush also believed that being black was a hereditary illness, which he referred to as "negroidism"; further, he believed that, since it was merely a skin condition, slavery and racial discrimination should be abolished. He was also an advocate of bloodletting."(Snip)

Ahead of his times in some ways, still a man of his times in others.

(Snip)"Constitutional ideas

"Rush believed that Americans should enshrine the right to medical freedom in their Constitution, much as the right to freedom of religion is expressly guaranteed in that document.

Rush is reported to have argued that "Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship . . . to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic ... The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom."(Snip)

One more addendum, for good measure:

(Snip)""Religious views and vision

He is generally deemed Presbyterian, and was a founder of the Philadelphia Bible society.[6] He was an advocate for Christianity in public life and in particular in education. In line with that he advocated Scriptures as a text­book in the public schools.[7]

That stated he may have had Universalist leanings, as the following quote on education seems to imply.[8] It states, "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of the New Testament."

So, let's summarize: in favor of socialized medicine [raspberry], Christian education in public schools [DING!], but a distinct liberal open-mindedness towards other religions [raspberry] ?

BWWANNNK!! Disqualified.

In summation: holy crap! None of these guys make the grade by today's Neocon standards! Un-freaking-believable! Wow, the 'original intent' argument sure took a beating on that one, didn't it?

So feel free to use this troops, if some bibble-totin' yahoo starts yammering at ya about how we're founded as a 'Christian nation' (hey, they can't even standardize what a 'true Christian' is, and they've had how long to figure this out?), and give them a solid thwap! upside the head with it.

Except Chuck. You may want to consider moderating your tone with that guy. On the other hand, America is the land of the lawsuit...so use your own disgression.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Friday, September 08, 2006

Some clips that are funny as hell, one that isn't very funny at all...

This is one of the funniest clips from the Simpsons yet: not only does it lampoon the xtian view, it actually captures it spot on:



The next one not only spoofs xtianity, I think it EPITOMIZES the lack of knowledge the large percentage of the xtians in this country have of their own book of fables:



The next one however, saddens me to no end, as I always respected Chuck Norris (as a man, NOT as an actor, mind you):



If you watch as Mr. Norris talks, you'll note that his head wobbles, ever so slightly.

Very, very sad. Newsflash, Chuckles: no, NOT founded as an xtian nation, no, the Supreme Court has NOT okayed the bibble for use in schools, it's NOT an historical work, all in all, it's just a book, and a very poorly written one at that, full of egregious errors, contradictions, and LIES.

And the sooner everyone understands that, the better off we'll all be.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...