left biblioblography

Thursday, February 08, 2007

MY LETTER TO KAREN HUNTER

As most of you are probably aware, there's quite a furor over the CNN segment about 'Why do atheists inspire so much hatred?"

The two segments can be viewed here.

I have just sent off a letter to Ms. Karen Hunter, journalism professor at Hunter College in New York as well as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.

Here is my letter to her:

"Dear Ms. Hunter:

I imagine that by now you are inundated by outraged emails from atheists, some of them no doubt quite shrill, in re: your appearance on Paula Zahn’s discussion panel.

I, too, am an atheist. I ask that you read this calmly, with some detachment, as I’ve no doubt you may be frazzled by what seems to be an onslaught.

I watched the segment, and I have some serious issues. One, is that there was no representation of atheists on the panel of three. Two, that a great many stereotypical misconceptions were bandied about, apparently there was little or no research vested: it struck me as a rather thrown-together affair.

School prayer. By now, you’ve probably heard: that of the five families that engaged in Engel v. Vitale, only one of the families was atheist. The fact of the matter is, that school prayer is an anachronism from back in the day when segregation was enforced, and the public schools weren’t the havens of diversity they are now. As to the efficacy of prayer, there is no proof whatsoever that it works, outside of comforting the supplicant, and as to morality? Well, I mislike saying this, but I have no doubts whatsoever that Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph probably prayed before they attacked those doctors, and I am sure the Inquisitors prayed quite a bit before they applied the hot tongs to an accused witch. There is little evidence to show that prayer in any way encourages an individual to be more moral in any way.

I understand that some atheists have confronted you with the concept that atheism is the default: that is to say, we are born atheistic. I also understand that your reply is that we are all tabula rasa. I give to you this, then: there can be no purer state of atheism, than the blank slate itself, waiting to be written upon, grooves carved in the gray matter via the stimulus of the world outside.

I also understand that you consider the concept of discrimination against an ideology as opposed to color, is a non-sequitur. I respectfully must disagree: discrimination is that, no matter how nuanced. The insinuation here is that since you can simply change your mind if discriminated against, while you can’t change your skin color, one should just exchange ideologies in order to avoid mistreatment. In some ways, this is a worse consideration. Discrimination on such a level is reminiscent of the McCarthy era: it flenses the individual of independent thought through fear; it is a subtler version of the thought police.

As to Mr. Newdow: it was well within his rights to take his protest to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether anyone regards his case(s) to be of merit. A redress of grievances is granted to each individual, as well as each group.

I cannot stress this enough: atheists are by no means ‘forcing’ their belief system (or lack thereof) on anyone else. What we request (what we have requested all along) is a seat at the table: a right to be heard; that we be given an equal say in this great country of ours; that we not be silenced by the strident voice of a majority, any majority; that no one else (ourselves included) be given special privileges.

Christians have multiple special privileges in this country, as well you may agree. There are churches everywhere. There are entire channels devoted to it. They can wear symbols expressing their faith freely. Their temples are tax-exempt. There are many, many of their representatives in our Federal and State governments.

Of these items I list, I have only a problem with some: we have no representatives of our ‘non-faith’ in government. I dislike (as James Madison did) the fact that their temples are tax-exempt. But they are entitled to the rest, as I have no desire to infringe on their rights, as dictated in our own Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment is bi-directional: make no mistake. Our requests are for the most part, reasonable. Because this country is not just for the religious: it is for everyone born or naturalized here (as per the 14th amendment). It is not their country: this is a country built on the rights of the individual, as well as the rights of the majority. So no one group gets more special privileges than another. While I realize that reality differs from concept, I firmly believe that we should continously strive towards that concept on a daily basis – until it is reached. Until each reasonable and rational person is on an even playing field, where no one is elevated above another.

I leave you with these words:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791)

I look forward to your reply. "

I kept it as respectful as I possibly could, and hopefully, she'll respond in kind.

I will update this as it transpires, so stay tuned.

FURTHER ADDENDUM:

I received this today from the lady in question:

How many emails do you think I've received? Is there a way to make your point more succinctly. I take the time to respond to everyone, but come on. An email this long is really quite selfish.

To which I replied:

I'm sorry if it's somewhat verbose. But this is a far more complex situation than most people realize. I ask you to read it again: I could very easily have gone on for several more pages, Ms. Hunter. This isn't a soundbite, nor is it a segment on CNN. I'd think a person of your caliber would be able to read this in less than few minutes time, no?
I'm making an effort to point out that atheists are subjected to a great # of stereotypical pronouncements, all of which are staggeringly incorrect.
Pardon me, but I'd presumed that you would be more empathetic and open to reasoned discourse. So do excuse me for my presumption.

At this juncture, I'm not holding out too much hope for a response.

February 8th, 6:30 PM, PDT: I received a response. Pathetic.

Well, well, Ms. Hunter. So you chose a canned response. Your response to someone IN THIS FORMAT was posted here, at http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2007/02/06/ready-to-vomit/

Here is how I feel: I am a follower of Christ and I believe in God. You may not and that's your right. I don't hate you, I wouldn't burn a cross on your lawn, nor would I engage in an argument with you, telling you you're wrong. You're no more wrong to not believe in God as I am to believe. Now I would not impose my views or will on you, please don't impose yours on me.

No one is imposing any views on anyone else. The fact that you can't see that tells me that you've made zero effort to even listen.

Atheism is a choice, unlike race and ethnicity. You cannot be stopped from holding a job, living in a neighborhood, going to certain clubs, etc. because no one would know you are an atheist unless YOU made an issue of it. As far as living in a Judeo-Christian society, which this is (and it is far more accepting than living in a Muslim society), you say you are subjected to things like the Pledge of Allegiance, our money, Christmas, etc. But none of that infringes on your ability to be an atheist. You can choose not say the "under God" part, you can refuse to pray when everyone else is praying. You can simply not do it.

So you say, 'suffer in silence' then? Yes, you CAN be stopped from holding a job, living in a specific neighborhood, and going to certain clubs. Especially in Red States.
YOU can keep your religion, and your prayer, firmly ensconced in your HOME, thank you very much. My taxes won't go to something I don't believe in.

Question: How many atheist had to drink from an Atheist Only water fountain, or have been hung from a tree for their beliefs? How many have been dragged behind a truck until his limbs fell off or shot at 50 times by police, simply because of his beliefs? How many had to sit at the back of the bus or have been denied access to a school? Please don't mix apples and oranges. Yours is not a civil rights issue.

Oh, really? Looks like apples and apples to me, missy. Hiding behind the race card, are we?
Read here: “In fact, Volokh identifies 18 states where custody has recently been decided based partly or entirely on the judge's personal religious preferences: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.”
Seems to be catching. Read the entire link.

You're remarkably ignorant of the state of things in this country. Did you even BOTHER to do any research?
Some journalist you are.

Thanks for your email. I do appreciate your perspective. PS: I didn't book the show, nor did I direct it. Instead of taking me to task for my views, you should direct your comments toward CNN for not having an atheist defend yours. I will never be on the side of an atheist and I should not be expected to.

What a load of bullshit. You shot your big mouth off, in an ignorant manner, about a subject you clearly know NOTHING ABOUT. I have indeed complained to CNN, but I approached you in a civil manner, as one concerned citizen to another.
That you would even mouth the words 'I will never be on the side of [substitute ideology of choice] and I should not be expected to' exposes you for the religious bigot that you truly are.

Just because you are a minority, and your minority defined the civil rights movement of this country, doesn't mean that that minority gets to define what a civil right is in this country. I advise you go and look up the term: it's about discrimination in all it's forms, regardless of race, creed, or sexuality.
But thanks, you've confirmed a suspicion I had: that CNN used three minorities to criticize another unrepresented minority, in hopes that no one would DARE speak up about it.
In summation: no, I will NOT keep my mouth 'shut about it'. The 1st amendment GUARANTEES my freedom of speech JUST AS MUCH AS IT DOES YOURS.
Telling a minority, whether it's ideological or not, to be silent is about as unpatriotic and un-American as you can get.
Get this straight: this isn't your country, it isn't my country, it's our country, and you have just as many rights as I do, and I have as many as you do.
Welcome to a level playing field. You religious folks want special privileges? You're out of luck.
Welcome to America.

At this point, it doesn't look promising. Not at all.

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...

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

PROFILES IN ATHEISM - THE LAUGHING PHILOSOPHER

Democritus 460 BCE - 370 BCE

Legend has it that Democritus was supposed to be mad, because he laughed at everything, and was sent to Hippocrates to be cured. The physician pointed out that he wasn't mad, just the possessor of a happy disposition. He is referred to as the 'laughing philosopher'.

Already, I like this guy.

Life and times:
"The original sources for Democritus' life are regarded as untrustworthy, so the following account may contain fictional elements. It is fairly certain that Democritus was born in Abdera, about 460 BCE. His father was from a rich noble family and gave large contributions towards funding the entertainment of the army of Xerxes. Democritus was instructed by Magi in astronomy and theology. After the death of his father, he traveled in search of wisdom. He devoted his inheritance, one hundred talents, to this search. He supposedly visited Egypt, Ethiopia, Persia, and India. During part of his life, he was instructed in Pythagoreanism and was a disciple of Leucippus. After several years of traveling, Democritus returned penniless to Abdera. His brother Damosis took him in. According to the law of Abdera, whoever wasted his riches would be deprived of the rites of burial. Democritus, hoping to avoid this disgrace, gave public lectures. He acquired fame with his knowledge of natural phenomena and his ability to predict changes in the weather. He used this ability to make people believe that he could predict the future. They not only viewed him as something more than mortal but even proposed to put him in control of their public affairs. He declined the offer because he preferred a quiet life and so passed the remainder of his days in solitude. He was said to have lived to a great age and to have produced seventy-three major works. (Unfortunately, all that remains is about a hundred fragments.)"

And, oh wow, did he ever make an impact.

"The world

"What was real to Democritus consists of the atoms and the "nothing," that is, the void. According to Democritus's beliefs, atoms are indestructible, eternal, and in constant motion. They are not all the same, as they differ in shape and position. When the atoms move they come into contact with other atoms and form bodies. A thing comes into being when the atoms that make it up are appropriately associated, and it passes away when these parts disperse. The idea of atoms was controversial to others at the time, but became more amenable with the studies of Aristotle."

"The soul

"Although intelligence is not allowed to explain the organization of the world, according to Democritus, he does give place for the existence of a soul, which he contends is composed of exceedingly fine and spherical atoms. He holds that, "spherical atoms move because it is their nature never to be still, and that as they move they draw the whole body along with them, and set it in motion." In this way, he viewed soul-atoms as being similar to fire-atoms: small, spherical, capable of penetrating solid bodies and good examples of spontaneous motion.

"Democritus explained senses along these lines, as well. He hypothesized that different tastes were a result of differently shaped atoms in contact with the tongue. Smells and sounds could be explained similarly. Vision works by the eye receiving "images" or "effluences" of bodies that are emanated. He stated that, "Sweet exists by convention, bitter by convention, color by convention; but in reality atoms and the void alone exist." This means that senses could not provide a direct or certain knowledge of the world. In his words, "It is necessary to realize that by this principle man is cut off from the real." Later philosophers use this to assert that any reliable knowledge can be obtained, but Democritus felt differently:

There are two forms of knowledge: one legitimate, one bastard. To the bastard sort belong all the following: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. The legitimate is quite distinct from this. When the bastard form cannot see more minutely, nor hear nor smell nor taste nor perceive through the touch, then another finer form must be employed. - Democritus, Fragment 11, The Symmetry of Life

This finer form is reasoning, although Democritus does not explain reason's place in the atomistic view."

More interesting still, is his view on atoms and the void:

"Atoms and the void

Democritus agreed that everything which is must be eternal, but denied that "the void" can be equated with nothing. This makes him the first thinker on record to argue for the existence of an entirely empty "void". In order to explain the change around us from basic, unchangeable substance he argued that there are various basic elements which always existed but can be rearranged into many different forms. He argued that atoms only had several properties, particularly size, shape, and (perhaps) weight; all other properties that we attribute to matter, such as color and taste, are but the result of complex interactions between the atoms in our bodies and the atoms of the matter that we are examining. Furthermore, he believed that the real properties of atoms determine the perceived properties of matter--for example, something that tastes sharp is made of small, pointy atoms, while something sweet is made of large, round atoms; the interactions of those atoms with the atoms of the tongue give the impression of taste. Some types of matter are particularly solid because their atoms have hooks to attach to each other; some are oily because they are made of very fine, small atoms which can easily slip past each other. In Democritus' own words, "By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention colour: but in reality atoms and void."

Most of the surviving fragments of his work involve Ethics (just a taste, to whet the palate):

  • "Disease occurs in a household, or in a life, just as it does in a body."
  • "Medicine cures the diseases of the body; wisdom, on the other hand, relieves the soul of its sufferings."
  • "The needy animal knows how much it needs, but the needy man does not."
  • "It is hard to fight with desire; but to overcome it is the mark of a rational man."
  • "Moderation increases enjoyment, and makes pleasure even greater."
  • "It is childish, not manly, to have immoderate desires."
  • "The good things of life are produced by learning with hard work; the bad are reaped of their own accord, without hard work."
  • "The brave man is he who overcomes not only his enemies but his pleasures. There are some men who are masters of cities but slaves to women."
  • "In cattle excellence is displayed in strength of body; but in men it lies in strength of character."
  • "I would rather discover a single cause than become king of the Persians."
  • "There is no poetry without madness.

  • Read More...

    Sunday, February 04, 2007

    THE PERILS OF PAULINE (PRESUPPOSITIONALISM)

    As apologists plod the paths of presuppositionalism, most are unaware of the surreptitiously circular silliness of the epiphany of their epilogic epistemology.

    Say that three times fast, I dare ya.

    The dictionary define a presupposition as "Something taken for granted."

    It's worthy of a peek inside this monolithic miasma. Presuppositional apologetics is, "a school of Christian apologetics, a field of Christian theology that attempts to (1) present a rational basis for the Christian faith, (2) defend the faith against objections, and (3) expose the perceived flaws of other worldviews. Presuppositional apologetics is especially concerned with the third aspect of this discipline, though it generally sees the trifold distinction as a difference in emphasis rather than as delineating three separate endeavors. Presuppositional apologetics developed in and is most commonly advocated within Reformed circles of Christianity."

    The main problem is the root from which they spring: the bible is all, it contains all that is needed, and supernatural revelation is the be-all and end-all on this bank and shoal of time. To extend the Bard's words a little further, it commends the poisoned chalice to their own lips.

    With each passing year, this book is torn down. Page by page, its historical accuracy is diminished. Piecemeal, it is refuted. Soon, its veracity will be put on the same level as Doctor Seuss' The Cat in the Hat.

    That it contains some historical events is undeniable: but it is so wildly inaccurate on so many points, it beggars the imagination, hoists its own petard, and makes a laughing stock of the house that is built on sand. I will expound at length upon this at another time.

    It is the fallacy of the excluded middle writ large, a "tertium non datur" so to speak. Rather than approach it from an angle of 'let's see', presupposition stipulates that it is a matter of 'either/or'. From there, the battle line is drawn. 'Prove to me that god exists' is met with 'prove to me that god doesn't exist' (and why no one can see the logical disconnect of having to disprove a hypothesis that can't be proven is a mystery to me). Either the data adds up to the sum hypothesis, or it doesn't.

    And, of course, there are different schools of thought (this is no surprise, to anyone familiar with the ongoing schisms within the belief system):
    "Specifically, presuppositionalists describe Thomistic (also "Traditional" or "Classical") apologetics as concentrating on the first aspect of apologetics with its logical proofs for the existence of God. Aquinas himself insists that many crucial truths can only be known through scripture, and none of his arguments are intended to show the entire Christian picture; presuppositionalists criticize this "block house" method for failing to start at the level of the controlling beliefs of worldviews and implicitly allowing non-Christian assumptions from the start. Their goal is to argue that nonbelievers' assumptions require believing in some things about God, man and the world which nonbelievers claim they don't believe."

    Does the prior underlined sentence sound familiar? As well it should. This is heard (read) with great frequency. 'Atheists know there is a god, they just won't admit it' (the old Tu quoque fallacy). Small wonder that most of them consider atheists to be irrational. Accusals of denial pepper the air like tickertape parade confetti. St. Anselm argued that 'faith' was the necessary ingredient to all philosophical argument.

    There is also Evidential apologetics:

    "Evidential apologetics or evidentialism (not to be confused with epistemological evidentialism) is an approach to Christian apologetics emphasizing the use of evidence to demonstrate that god probably exists. The evidence is supposed to be evidence both the believer and nonbeliever share, that is to say you need not presuppose God's existence (see also Presuppositional apologetics)."

    What is interesting, is that "While presuppositionalists don't believe that classical arguments are good enough on the grounds that they don't show enough about God, they also think evidentialists simply haven't given a strong enough demonstration, and have started out by granting the assumption that human experience is intelligible without appeal to Scripture, thereby defeating their own cause. Evidentialists demur from this assessment, claiming that presuppositionalism amounts to fideism. The evidentialist's conclusion is that the Bible is most probably accurate about what it reports, and thus the whole of Biblical revelation follows."

    Again, more familiarity. How many of us have been buried in a veritable avalanche of easily disproven factoids (if done piecemeal), but as a blitzkrieg attack nearly overwhelm us? Point/counterpoint is the best. Fisking proves to be a valuable asset. Creationism falls under the third heading.

    Sources can be found here, and here, for the interested reader.

    Forewarned is forearmed.

    Till the next post, then.

    Read More...

    Saturday, February 03, 2007

    TAGGED AGAIN! DAMN, THERE GOES ANOTHER NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION DOWN THE TOILET...

    My favorite Aussie atheist, Beep!Beep!It's Me! has tagged me with yet another meme - this time a rather odd one.

    (Note: my grumblings are all faux complaints, I need to maintain my curmudgeonly status, else all five of my fans'll be demanding what I did with the real me.)

    The meme is titled - "Five Songs To Be Played At My Funeral."

    I'd kicked this around in my skull a bit - but dead is dead, and I'd prefer to be cremated. Far be it from me to deny my relatives a rite of passage/closure, though. A way of saying good-bye to those lost in the passages of time.

    So, here goes:

    1. By Dun Ringhill, by Jethro Tull

    What can I say? This song, short as it is, speaks to me. I can't but weep at the stirrings it evokes deep inside.



    2. It's A Beautiful Day - U2
    Well, there goes my curmudgeon status - hey, I can't be perpetually pissed off.



    3. Shock The Monkey - Peter Gabriel
    The title says it all.


    4. Free Will - Rush



    5. For my final offering, I've chosen this mostly out of mischievousness (in case someone INSISTS on a church service), 'Hymn to Pan'. If that's a tad much, I'd like this read, just to tick off any holy-rollers in the crowd. (Visualize Muttley's asthmatic laughter, if you can.)

    I hereby curse (errr, ummm, I mean tag)
    Mojoey at Deep Thoughts, Hermant aka the Friendly Atheist, the prettiest blogger around, Too Many Tribbles, the Hairless Monkey at manicmythos, and someone who I don't talk to often enough, Cassandra at the Atheist Mama.

    Read More...

    Friday, February 02, 2007

    GUIDE TO COMPASSION

    A few choice comics can be found here.

    (click on picture to enlarge)

    Read More...

    Thursday, February 01, 2007

    SO NOW THE JEHOVAH'S WITLESS ARE IN THE NEWS

    Canada parents fight for babies

    "A Canadian couple is protesting in court after officials briefly took custody of three premature babies in order to give them blood transfusions.

    The babies were part of a group of sextuplets born 15 weeks prematurely to parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses.

    The couple, who have not been identified, say their religion forbids blood transfusions. They are seeking alternative treatment for the infants. "

    Six babies might die, thanks to some religious wackjobs. Nice.

    Italy in Jehovah's Witnesses row

    "A Catholic priest in Italy has denied a church funeral to a man he believed had links to the Jehovah's Witnesses.

    "Marino Tiberi Vipraio, 52, who lived in the central Abruzzo region of Italy, died on Wednesday of a heart attack.

    "He was buried without religious rights, despite a desperate appeal from his family to the local bishop.

    "Italy's 400,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have had legal recognition since 1976, but the Catholic Church has always opposed their teachings.

    "This may appear on the surface to be a local story of a row between a parish priest and members of his congregation, but it underlines real tensions that exist in Italy between the Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses. "

    Let's hear again, how religion unites people.

    Moscow bans Jehovah's Witnesses

    "A Russian court has barred Jehovah's Witnesses from operating in the capital, Moscow.

    "The court ruled that group's practices broke up families, encouraged suicide and threatened its members' health by not allowing blood transfusions.

    "Lawyers for the group said the ruling was a step back for democracy and was reminiscent of Soviet rule. "

    I must admit, I somewhat ambivalent about this one. On one hand, they're one more loony-toon cult with dangerous practices, on the other, I'm an avid opponent of thought police.

    Further on this:

    Jehovah's Witnesses avoid Moscow ban

    "A court in Moscow has refused to ban the local activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses, in a case presented by the religious community as a test of Russia's treatment of religious minorities.

    "Freedom of belief still exists in Russia

    Jehovah's Witnesses spokesman

    "The community had been accused of breaking up families, encouraging suicide and threatening the health of its members by not allowing blood transfusions.

    "But the Jehovah's Witnesses argued that Russia's religious law was being used to restrict religious organizations other than the long-established faiths of Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Islam.

    "A spokesman for the community welcomed the decision, saying that religious freedom had been preserved in Russia despite "pressure" from the Orthodox Church.

    "Despite all the efforts of the prosecutor, justice was victorious," Yaroslav Sivulsky told Reuters news agency. "

    I guess no one heard about this:

    Jehovah's Witnesses drop transfusion ban

    "Leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement have revoked a strict ruling that their members automatically face ex-communication if they accept blood transfusions.

    "They took the controversial decision at a secret meeting in New York, following years of recrimination from ex-members and non-Jehovah's Witnesses over the ban.

    "The religious community insists that receiving blood is still wrong.

    "But under the changes, transfusions have been relegated to "non-disfellowshipping events" - in other words you will not be thrown out of the religion if you have one.

    "That may come as cold comfort to many who have watched loved ones die because they refused blood. "

    Welcome to the 21st century, you Luddites.

    I keep finding evidence that the wholly bibble is a second-rate Necronomicon: it gives poor and alternately confusing advice about topics as perceived by a tribe that was lacking in technology and in some cases, anything resembling general knowledge of the world they lived in, let alone the one we live in now.

    We need as a local as well as a global society, to disregard this piece of trash. It's not scientific in any sense of the word - hell, it's not even historically accurate. It's a piss-poor compilation of oral tradition (read: anecdotal crap) that leads the myopically-minded down phantasmagorical bunny trails.

    I could care less how much influence it's had over the centuries (the large bulk of it was legislated anyhow) - or how it's 'enriched' people's lives (that's entirely subjective anyways: I've heard anecdotal 'evidence' from all sorts, from Gnostic nutjobs to Buddhist buttheads, about how a particular belief system has 'changed their world(s)'; the placebo effect writ large).

    If you want to hinge your entire existence on a fantasy, go to, I say, go to.

    You just leave me and mine outta your little departures from reality.

    Now excuse me: the real world awaits.

    Till the next post, then.

    Read More...