Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person

PartyPlayFairDemo

Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.

And…

Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

Theocratic Reformation from Judaism to Islam – Christians 4: Jews 5: Muslims: 0

jesusgunnedOk, we can all agree that Pat Robertson was a dork of stellar magnitude, and the Phelps Family are supernovae in that particular area called theocracy.

 That said, before we submerge a crucifix in urine let’s give the Abrahamic tree a second look, and examine the fruit it has borne.

The Jews never had a drive to spread over the Earth. Their scriptures taught them that certain lands were given them by God; so they took them, enough said, this was 6,000 years ago after all. But after that they lost any territorial ambitions. But, the Persians and Romans proceeded to push them this way and that; being rather fanatical, they pushed back. After the destruction of the 2nd Temple and the Judean Diaspora the centuries have seen Judaism become a religion withdrawn into itself. Having lost the arrogance of the Temple but retained the Love of God and intellectual tradition they became a creative yeast in their host cultures.

gotjewsb

The Jews never expected to take over the world; at most they expected, and some maybe still expect that the world will join them. Not by the sword, but by the Love of God. One of the best aspects of the Jewish religion is its focus on the Love of God and a Love for God in each moment of a person’s life.

But along came Jayzus!

Things started out ok, Yesuah merely echoed and extended the teachings and philosophy of Hillel. It expanded organically and gently; converting mostly people otherwise considered “unworthy” of membership in one of the more respectable religions, then into the idle upper-class (often by way of religiously adventurous wives discontent with being the ornament on a rich man’s arm.

 But then Paul and Constantine came to deal the Judaic Chrestians, and then, later, the mild original “Greek”, a double death-blow of politicization.

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre

St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre

After several centuries of defending themselves from the fanatically imperialistic Islam Christianity began to model all sorts of the worst of the Islamic “innovations” in religion and took on an expansionist, aggressive attitude of its own.

But, it is inherent in a religion mostly based on the teachings of Jesus that every now and then people would remember what their religion was supposed to be about. Christianity may have done much more good during those periods than it did evil during its more cognitively-dissonant times.

Since the Enlightenment the swings of the pendulum between arrogant fanaticism on one hand, and humble servitude to God on the other seem to have gotten gentler. Christianity also seem centered more and more toward the liberal side of the equation; i.e. Fred Phelps, not Qaradawi.

Christianity may one day even manage to have more people who follow it for the right reasons than fools-in-lambs-clothing who use religion in unhealthy ways, or merely for social reasons.

Christianity has a core in its teachings and scripture that is there for all to see; one of Love. It today can be, and always has been, a potentially dangerous religion (I.e. Fred Phelps, Torquemada) but is not inherently so by the structure and teachings of its chief scriptures.

I do think that, despite the quantum jump that The Enlightenment enabled in society’s evolution, Christianity has shown a definite tendency to speed humanity’s growth due to the focus of many of the faithful being on Jesus’ ministry rather than the “died for your sins” part.

buddy_jesus

Now, about Islam.

tolerantislamIslam teaches much about peace and love. There are verses equal to any in the other Abrahamic writings. I will not comment here about those who feel it was the work of someone passingly familiar with both religions. But Pat Robertson did get one thing right; Islamic theology IS inherently aggressive.

The Islamic scriptures consist of three parts:

The Qur’an, the Sunnah –basically a biography of Mohammed’s life, and the ahadith – stories about Mohammed from people who knew him. If you read it all it is clear that there can only be peace when everyone has submitted to Allah.

Even the most fanatical religion tends to mellow over the years; people are basically families, people who want to live and work and laugh and have the space to find God before they die. Even individuals attracted to a “religious” life for evil reasons can be shocked to learn that Love of God and Love BY God can blossom in their hearts; that is the core of any religion.signe

Islam unfortunately is working uphill in the all so human battle against hubris while trying to find truth. But, by having such an aggressive set scriptures; by having so much to draw from that feeds the darker hungers of man, Islam will, I believe spend more time orbiting around radical aggression before submitting finally to that peace and love that is God, is Allah.

Islam is inherently dedicated by its self-declared scriptural doctrine to naturally one day  rule the world by TAKING control of it and forcing Dar al-Harb(‘House of War’) (Non-Muslim controlled regions) into Dar al-Islam(‘House of Islam); then all people will be free, in the Islamic view, to “choose” the “right” religion.

Sadly, it is not hard to justify all sorts of atrocities on infidels (non-Muslims) with the Qur’an; by contrast there are very few Samaritans or Philistines around for Jews or Christians to use their scripture as an excuse to start a pogrom against.

In Islam it does not matter that reformist Imams do not support something. In fact it is literally forbidden in Islam to use your ‘conscience’ as a guide in a religious dilemma; the only proper way to get an answer is to ask the proper authority, and then submit to the “truth.”

In Christianity, the violent books and verses are all somewhat shielded by being in the OT and considered to be superseded by the Love of Jesus when any conflict occurs. Islam does not have a NT to mellow its hard edges, though it does recognize the concept of abrogation (what a prophet says later is ‘rock’ to the ‘scissors’ of any earlier pronouncements or doctrines).

lil-kim-burqa

This makes “insulting” Islam dangerous at times in the modern world of high tech, and horrific weapons that you can make in your garage.

Solutions

butcherinnameofislamI mostly find it sad that the bulk of Muslims are not more vocal about denouncing their radical Brethren in both the private and the public arena. It is every person in the world’s duty to restrain the fundies of all aggressive religions until they grow up. Until a religion’s devout – highest clergy to clueless souls just born in it – recognize to their core’s that it is ok to DIE because of your religion but, that it is NEVER anything but evil to use religion as an excuse to KILL, that religion should be watched, and kept on a leash in polite company.

Islam has yet to show that it can stay grown up. They are younger though, lets give them time…but, keep the rolled up newspaper ready to smack their noses if they sh*t on the rug. We have too many permanent stains from Christianity and its messes; AND the Islam’s’ earlier messes. Of course Christianity STILL pees on the floor now and then. We just have to be patient and rub their noses PROMPTLY in their messes; but, we don’t have to worry about them eating the neighbor’s cat anymore.

I am not too PC to call a club a club (well, I can’t say spade anymore can I?); religion can be very wonderful but, people need to get over their BS and realize that the basic code of ethics that most religions have can also be formulated by simple common sense and an understanding of psychology and social dynamics. Go read a little about Neuro-Linguistic Programming and such. Real secular morality is what the world needs, not the Fascist pretend kind, only then can religion truly flourish; when we get over all this bickering on who is actually the only ones in touch with the “ONLY source of Morality™”; which they cannot even prove exists.

Faith is the problem; submission to something you do not feel yourself is the problem. Beliefs have reasons, sometimes bad ones but, reasons that can be ‘reasoned with’; faith has no reason therefore the most reasonable argument does no good, your head still rolls on the floor.

Have faith in Jesus of Mohammed; I will Believe in Bugs Bunny!bugslastsupper1

He Said, She Said.

DSCN1468

She stood at the kitchen counter slicing food for dinner while he watched her from his perch on an old wooden stool with green legs that he took with him wherever he went. He smiled as he watched her and played with some magnetic balls on the table with one hand while the other rubbed his neck.

He was dressed in his usual comfortable jeans with an old, homey t-shirt with an out-of date political slogan emblazoned on the front. His socks were rather loud, an argyle in fact, but warm and comfy on his tired old feet. Freshly bathed and groomed, as groomed as a naturally almost hairless man need be, he seemed cheerful but troubled.

She noticed his hand on his neck, a sure sign of tension, and asked “Is something bothering you Dear?” in a voice that left no doubt in a hearers mind that she felt nothing but affection for the old man before her.

“I am not bothered.” He replied, “…just don’t get it.”

Long training at keeping a perfect poker-face kept the hitch fro her voice, this conversation had been repeated many times before; she prayed, as much as it hurt her, that it would be repeated many more… or something like that.

“Do you need to get it?” she asked, trying a new approach.

“Well, no, I guess I don’t.” He re-lied, “I mean it is not like it is something bad I want to get, I like that you take such good care of me, treat me so nice.” He smiled at her, “Just don’t get it. It is not like I help you, I like it here but I don’t understand why I don’t have to work like the people on the television.” He shrugged, guess if I don’t get it I might stop doing what I am doing to deserve it.” He paused for so long she thought he had drifted into other thoughts. “ I wouldn’t like that.” He finally said softly, and went back to smiling and playing with the Buckey balls as she fought back sudden tears.

She tried, but she could not leave him in uncertainty, not because it might build up into a “bad day”, but because she loved him, and wanted the rest of his life as happy as possible, he deserved that much. “You have already earned it!” she said with warmth, you … used to be a person who helped many people understand things, you gave to others, and you wanted nothing but to love them all.” She faltered, “You ‘did that which you should have done and you did not that which you should not have done’. Don’t let it worry you; it makes me happy to make you happy, period, o.k.?”

He smiled brightly, “okay!” he said. There was a short silence, then, “But, why are you crying now?” he asked with his eyes welling up in sympathetic response. “Because I am sad I cannot give you back what it was that earned all this for you.” She said waving at the home around them. “And why I am here with you; I always will be.”

He said with a smile in his eyes, “I am happy, and I love you ‘Baby Girl’.”

He paused.” why do you like that name, anyway? You are an old woman, well, 60 at least!” He pondered. “Maybe, I say it because it tastes right in my mouth, ‘Baby Girl’!”

“But,” he said, “If I did good things, and we have all this because of it, isn’t that a good thing?” “And I don’t want to be that again if it means having to make my head hurt and worry, like you do.” He looked uncertain. “I really did all that stuff that you do… and real good?” He grinned, ‘Oh, the horror’ he said in a mocking voice,” I am the lucky one. I like simple. I must have won a prize or something”

Rinsing some glasses to cover her emotions she then turned and smiled at him. “Don’t worry about ‘getting it’ anymore, that is my job now, your job is to be my husband, and to be loved.”

She wiped her hands on the dish towel. “If you can wait a few minutes on dinner I need to go to the ladies room, I will be right back.” He nodded brightly, engrossed in whether a fly would find the escape of an open window; without seeming to look he swatted her on the bottom as she passed, and her pace quickened though she smiled; he began making bets with himself about the fly in different accents, his worries gone.

She made it to the bathroom and managed to lock the door and even run some water in the sink to cover the noise before she began to cry, but dinner was late that evening; he did not mind, he had found a re-run of Dancing with the Stars to critique.

CNN Cheers on Hamas as They Make Their Own Children Bleed!

We All Saved! CNN has put out a FAQ on Hamas and Israel and their conflict! World Peace is IMMANENT!

Problem:

That FAQ was actually almost MOSTLY objective; but boy is that ‘mostly’ a big one!

Did you notice Virginia, that the author left out the fact that after Hamas won enough of the Gazan elections to control the Strip they violently and illegally ejected all non-Hamas persons of authority from their positions and made Gaza a virtually independent HAMAS territory; while the West Bank remains controlled by a somewhat pseudo-democratic mix of Fatah and Hamas and others?

Their violent conversion of political dominance into dictatorial control in Gaza puts a very different spin on a lot of things that have happened since then!

The author might as well put on a sweater declaring “Hamas, Hamas! RAH! RAH! RAH!”

The tone of the language used about the Palestinians is very neutral, objective and non-judgmental while the language used to describe the actions of Israelis is full of prejudice and filtered through a bigoted lens.

Some Examples

Four years after the last major conflict in the region, Israel and Hamas are once again on the brink of war in Gaza. So what is the group, and what does it hope to achieve by its rocket attacks on Israeli targets?

A psychologist might find it amusing to note that usually, when insider describes something like their political, criminal, or terrorist group for the most part they refer to them with terms like “the group” rather than the more formal names used by outsiders such as “the Catholics” or “the Smith’s” or “the Bronco’s.

Terms like “the Church, “the family” or “the team” are reserved (mostly) for group’s with which the speaker likely self-identifies. Yet here Hamas is referred to as “the group.” It is as though a member of a new Christian cult explaining to you what “the group” was about as opposed to someone telling you about “the Moonies” –  a term that a non-Moonie would use to explain “that group” as opposed to “The Group“; just saying.

After failing to mention any of Hamas’ more ‘unsavory’ activities in the years since its founding the author goes on to say:

Hamas’s refusal to recognize the state of Israel is one reason why it’s been excluded from peace talks. In 1993…

Then it never mentions the bombings, rocket attacks, and relentless television propagandizing on the Palestinian people by Fatah and Hamas; the “FAQ” even fails to notice the recent Palestinian government dedication of a public square in celebration of the mother of several suicide bombers. A woman who expressed the wish that all of her sons would die killing as many Israeli civilians as possible; that occurred in the “moderate: West Bank

Later on we have this gem, remember Virginia that virtually all of the Muslims you see on TV declare that ‘Jihad’ and ‘Holy War’ are not at all the same thing!

However, the founding charter of Hamas, published in 1988, called for jihad, or holy war, and marked a decisive split with the Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophy of nonviolence.

After the FAQ gives paragraph after paragraph of “facts” simply stated regarding Hamas’ actions (All reported in the most neutral tones, whether good or heinous but focused almost solely on the positive) we get this kind of tone about the Israelis:

Israel also accuses Hamas of using civilians in Gaza as a “human shield,” and the territory’s schools and hospitals as a cover for military hardware…”They bury their military infrastructure inside civilian areas,””

Given that everything in the sentence above is an established fact about the tactics Hamas uses regarding civilians, hospitals and children it is hard to understand the sudden change in tone from the Hamas description earlier in the ‘FAQ‘:

Hamas has sections dedicated to religious, military, political and security activities. It runs a social welfare program, and operates a number of schools, hospitals and religious institutions. It also has about 12,500 security personnel.

The FAQ reads like it was written half by an actual moderate seeking to explain facts on the ground and half by an actual member of Hamas; then some utterly clueless CNN suit chose which to include in the limited of space they had for this piece; this FAQ explains nothing but the need for people to go out and look at information for themselves to decided who did what to whom in each case.

GO ISRAEL!

 

If this Koran gets burnt it could only be because – You Made Me Do It!

…Mohammad, the pedophile warlord with submissive and transvestite tendencies, met up with Jesus, the gay, black, communist right-man-in-the-wrong-place to engage in illicit sex with unclean animals… I pause here to look around; no-one seems to be bleeding, nothing seems to be burning, nobody’s pocket has been picked nor has their leg been broken; all that happened was that I wrote a sophomoric and idiotic series of statements about two religious figures, neither of whom has sent me any kind of complaint for my actions. My question to the blasphemy law proponents is this: What is WRONG with you guys?

 Human religious history reads like the development of a self-aware and , mostly, responsible young adult from a completely ignorant and self-centered infant. It is a story of tribes of humanity moving from stage to stage in our comprehension of just WHAT reality IS and WHO the hell WE are, and how do we relate to all the rest of it. IT is a story full of amazing examples of how primitive peoples can have grasped truths while too ignorant to even know why what they have written can still be said, even by science to be, on some level at least, true. We have also seen horrific examples of human wishes for things to be the “way they are SUPPOSED to be” ignoring all trace of the voice of God from within and causing misery upon misery in the name of “the Love of God“; it’s been a long, strange trip indeed.

In normal times and places people would describe me as a bit of a character and definitely of liberal views.In the areas of racial equality, sexual equality and the freedom of speech and religion I have always been on the quote ‘Liberal’ side of things. But as for the extremes of the leaders and their sheep – don’t put their words in my mouth, I am quite capable of putting my own foot there should the occasion arise!

My response to the latest assault on free speech by so-called Muslim people who have never had it, are uninterested in understanding it (which culd be said as equally about them regarding Islam as about free speech (religion for humans is supposed to be like the Pirate Code, less a set of rules than… guidlines) is simple. Let me wipe my feet on this book that used to be a Qur’an until you defiled it with your idolatry and then toss it on the fire to toast my kosher hot dogs.

Normally I would have no reason on the Earth to think of doing such a thing; it is the Islamist rioter’s idolatry that demands it to remind them that Allah has proscribed treating anything as though it is “the same” as Allah. To the beloved of God (Allah by your calling) it is not your holy book I spurn here, I “offend” against a stack of paper made trash by the actions of men who call themselves your fellow Muslims.

I have a policy of always being polite, except to those who demand it. The people who are easily offended and use their offense as a means to control others are usually the ones most in need of being “offended“, that they might have a chance to grow up and control their inner two year old. Especially since those are inner two-year old adults capable of building, and using, all sorts of weapons in order to “get their way“!

The Islamst rioters around the world are behaving like pre-Reformation Christians did but, without the built-in “leash” of Christianity’s  central text, narrative and central figure being all about love, peace and the humility and brotherhood of all humans before God… and about staying OUT of the unholy games of money and politics. Instead Islam has allowed itself to replace any feeling of human love and justice with the simple formula that what is commanded by Allah is mandatory if you wish to avoid committing a crime against God at the same time anything that is seen by the authoritative scholars (all long dead) to have be forbidden by the Islamic texts is forbidden. It is forbidden at any time, in any place and regardless of the humanly defined “moral” situation – unless, in some branches of Islam, the forbidden thing is done with a sincere desire in the heart of the otherwise, sinning Muslim to promote or protect Islam, Allah or the name of Mohammad. This holy principal was used to great effect by the atheistic Communists for their redefinition of the meaning of Pravda (truth) to “that which promotes the world Communist revolution.”

Islam is a rather un-unique religion in that it has been its heretics who have ‘enlightened‘ Islam over the course of the years, while Islamic fundamentalism has only acted to destroy the unity and harmony of societies of humans with differeing views in favor of primitive superstitions about God that have been abandoned long ago by virtually the rest of the religious world, barring a cult here and there.

My opinion? The only true prophet is the voice of God in your own heart; how well you are listeing in your life shows in your life and in your fruits. Not because you are “rewarded:” for “obedience” but because your understanding from God changes you into someone who does not need to ask what is right and what is wrong when they know the facts, it comes from within, not from the memory of a priest or Imam’s sermon.

Oh, Virginia, you will like this bit; In the pre-70 CE Judaism you would have still found a tendency toward the same sort of Shari’ah type system that the modern Islamsts seem to be clamouring for; but by 70 CE that tendency had already mellowed considerably; to the point where Pilate chided the Sadducee dominated alternate Sanhedrin for being lax in the enforcement in their world-famously harsh code of law. The Jews, LIke the Christians later and the Muslims soon (we all hope),  had mellowed over 4 thousand years or so as gloss after gloss, commentary after commentary and, yes, interpolation and insertion after interpolation and insertion changed their tribal superstition into a reflection of the shape of God within us all; they followed the trail of their central tenet: God IS Love/Love of God is All.

It started with Abraham and his using a wonderfully bald-faced baloney about rams and bushes and the ‘Voice of God ™‘ to explain his realization that to kill his son HOPING it MIGHT please God was simply not a ‘Godly‘ thing to do; but as he supposedly smashed the idols of his father’s shop, not because they were “evil things” but because they had come to be seen by the people as BEING the Gods instead of merely being a focus for a person’s attention on Godly thoughts. Idolatry is to act as though an idol IS a God in all ways. Surely it is a small step from there to see that this attitude obliterates the view of GOD from the “idolator’s” path? The Jews, the first ‘Judaic‘ Christians, Protestants (what do you think one of the main things they were ‘protesting‘ was?) Christians all have no argument with the basic idea that to place too much reverence in an image of a person (even Jesus) is ‘religiously-unhealthy’. At the same time all of these religions and sects have engaged in idolatry freely on one level or another, time after time.

In fundamentalist Islam we see a completely theocratic and intolerant, indeed by any other World Religion’s standard’s, a primitive tribal faith; structured not around a seaking of the Will of God but instead based around an almost pathological defense of Islam’s freedom from every other human religions’ burden: to constantly question and test its own faiths; to SHUT UP long enough for the small voice of God within us to tell their clergy what is faithful to the God of their worship, the one of their soul instead of the one that only lives in their scripture, and what is only their human failing to be more true to their own selfish desire than to what is right!

However, it is not all bad Virginia, all religions have the strength, as well as the weakness, of being the product of the human mind and soul; science has found that truth is not a possession you can keep to yourself, anyone with a sincere heart and mind can find it if they search with passion and humility.

It is all about how we use it. One of my earliest quibbles with the Christian Bible regarded the notion that a so called ‘perfect being’ was even capable of making a “wrong” choice (unless they were error about their actual data and the very trustworthyness of the source of that data; since Adam and Eve are also described as totally ‘innocent’ this would mean that they lacked all capacity for what we would call judgement and unable to label anything as “willfull mis-information provided by a source not sanctioned by authority as trustwrothy or untrustworthy.” Eve simply accepted the Serpent’s correction of Adam’s recollection of God’s warning, Adam could not judge between the two data sets and was going to fall back on procedure; why would a ‘perfect being’ of human intelligence accept the authority of the Serpent unless it were through mere ignorance that ANY voiced being that spoke to them might fail to speak the truth. It follows that God had either not warned them about the Serpent’s influence or, that they were at that time already “imperfect“. Either way I failed to see how they could have been ‘guilty‘ of anything!

What is the meaning of perfect if a perfect being cannot see that she should not be arguing the side of some random critter with a voice that has been hanging around, regardless of whether or not God had specificallly told her not to trust it; and a ‘perfect‘ Adam would know better than to let his mate’s opinion be the deciding factor when he himself rememberered God’s warnings; it should be noted though that God lied about the effects of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil since as the rest of the text makes clear that it is the SERPENT’s version that actually occurs (or is feared to be about to occur) by… but, oh my… this is another article in itself. It seems that it seems that the effect of Adam and Eve eating not only the Fruit of Knowlege of Good and Evil but also the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, by which Holy Combo-Smoothie they might live forever and Be As “WE” Are.

The point is that the God portrayed in the earliest parts of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions is either a liar or, far from the omnipotent, oniscient, omnibenevolent being humans conceived of 2,000 years ago; nor the individualized “entity” called the “creator” of the universe Who is also immanent and omnipresent that most faiths ascribe so form of to the word “Deity” today. The worst news though is for non-Monist religions: Quantum physics points to proof that All is One. Yes Virginia, people in white coats with huge intelects and no social lives have proven in repeatable experiments that …

“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together“! – John Lennon

The nature of time as well defeats those who see God, or Allah or whomever as ‘outside‘ the universe; affecting but unaffected, indeed the very source of effect. If this were so then they would be unable to intervene, change, react or in anyway interact with their created universe for its entire internal “existence.” A God that is within the universe is therefore of the universe and so, if you believe in a God the can relate to you in any way then in the universe you belive in all that is, is inextricably part of God!

When you start to let this all sink in the very ideas of “blasphemy” or “heresy” become ludicrsrous. It hardly takes the wise observation of the ancients that if the Gods exist then it is for Them to decide what is blasphemy, and what fails to make the grade; it is also traditional in such religion’s for the Deity to identify the guilty, and to assign their punishement/retribution. It certainly is not the usual scriptural practice for it to to be the job of any random fool who calls themselves “faithful” to make God responsible for the “working out” of said un-annointed human being’s most personal, and often twisted, inner “issues” in the guise of “protecting” God’s honor!

If my actions offend God then I am sure that God will be fully capable of making my own life, and after-life, conform to God’s, not my own, idea of ‘justice’; anyone else can stay out of my face unless I get up in their’s!

If your relationship with God is threatened by someone else not holding your faith then you have no relationship with God, or Allah, or anything, you have put God in a box and attempted to control your Deity like a pair of shoes. If you think that God (or Allah) is somehow harmed by my words or actions, or that my words or actions could hinder God’s (or Allah’s) plan for humanity and the Earth one jot or tittle (biblical language: sorry but, confidentially Virginia, I am hoping it addds a sage-like air to this piece that might even survive my irreverent sarcasm) then it is they who are the ones commiting blasphemy by putting their own judgement before their Lord’s will for each moment of Creation!

Causing harm to property, people and livelighoods because you think Allah (or God), or Marx for that matter, is hurt and wants you to act like a spoiled two-year old with a machinegun is not a return to fundamentalism, nor is it an expression of the radical fringe of a religion. It is nothing more or less than a social/cultural version of having a disease like rabies in the family dogs.

When are the civilized Muslims in America and around the world going to stop waiting for a new scripture  (forbidden by Islam for anyone ever to write and that most Muslims do not even want) to come along and reform the social diseases within their religion and do it themselves? Can we be sure they want to? If they did then the Ahmadiyya, Sihk and Ba’hai would be thriving and growing faiths all across the Muslim world. In the real world all of them are subject to persecutions and pogroms in many Muslim nations, and are attacked secpond only to Jews by Muslims in the West (Christian are attacked too, just not as frequently or consistently).

A book is a book; holy books should be treated with great respect but, reacting with ANY kind of retaliation on the part of God blashphemes against any ‘holiness‘ you felt the book held if you take that path. If I burn a Qur’an or put dung on a Crucifix or use a statuue of Kali as a coatrack it will be because I used an object in a maner I saw fit that harmed no-one; in I say things about your God or Allah or Mohammed or Jesus or Hitler or any other deity that yo do not like then yo take that rage and give it to God, or Allah etc… You stole it from them to begin with, it is only fitting that you give it back and get on with demonstrating the positive aspects of yor fiaith to those, we might assume, you as a faithful son or daughter of whom you bloody well hope to CHOOSE to change to join your faith.

…so, as I was saying Mohammed and Jesus got out of the third bathhouse and met up with Rama and a few Clears. But I am telling you, the party didn’t get rolling until Lucifer started doing card tricks by pulling puppies out of Mohammed’s houri’s… umm, Virginia, isn’t it past your bed time?

What is the Verbal Equivalent of a Raised Middle Finger?

 Express Yourself!

On HuffPost today a wonderfully nasty piece seemingly aimed at proving that some academics have no clue when it comes to free speech.

Anti-Muslim Extremist Video Calls for Counter-narrative by Mainstream Americans 

Many Americans would agree that a video portraying a religion’s most revered prophet as a pedophile, sexual deviant, and ruthless criminal shocks the conscience.

Stop right there! According to the Sunnah, and the most reliable hadith, by today’s standard Muhammad WAS a pedophile, sexual deviant and ruthless criminal; One sanctioned by “God” but still, a pedophile, sexual deviant and ruthless criminal. The same can be said of various Biblical ‘heroes’, though not all in the same person typically speaking.

From the start we are offered an emotional rant designed to shame us into ‘being good’; Islamists can declare simple truth in a way that makes a person feel like it s the most heinous pack of lies ever told, yet it remains the simple truth!

That it was created with the express intent to malign a faith followed by over a billion people worldwide only adds insult to injury.

No, my dear, your “peaceful” co-religionists used it as an excuse, months after the facts, to add injuries to an insult! In the West’s book that makes them savage barbarians not worthy of respect out of their slave-hold nations and in the light of civilized standards. Murdering an ambassador is just one step short of assassinating a head of state, and is surely an act of war if done by a state actor!

Thus, the video created by Basseley Nakoula, an ex-felon convicted of fraud, and Steven Klein, founder of Courageous Christians United that promotes anti-Mormon, anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim literature, predictably triggered anti-American protests across the Middle East.

It is only “predictable” in that your “offended” co-religionists are so immature that they cannot understand that when any human life is placed next to “insulting the ‘Prophet’” a moral human will stamp a picture of Mohammed nude into pig shit before they would let that human die; any human, Muslim, non-Muslim, Pagan, gay or straight! Get It?

Media coverage of the protests shortsightedly focuses on formalistic arguments defending unpopular speech. Instead, Americans should do what the First Amendment intended — offer a counter narrative in the market place of ideas that showcases America’s tolerance, pluralism, and rich diversity.

Media coverage of the savage idiocy? The coverage of the evil dogs who pretend religious outrage in order to outrage the lives and bodies of those whom God created?

I say that coverage is right on track. There is only one answer to an extortionate thug – it is a two part answer and the second part goes like this, “…and the Horse You Rode In On!”

Many Americans fail to appreciate that this inflammatory video is not viewed by Muslims abroad in a vacuum. Indeed, it follows on the heels of a Quran-burning by a radical Christian pastor in Florida, urination on Qurans by U.S. troops, opposition to mosque building across the United States, police surveillance of Muslim students and mosque-goers across the East Coast, and offensive campaign rhetoric accusing American Muslims en masse of disloyalty — all of which contradict America’s proclaimed values of religious freedom, equal protection, and respect for diversity.

Most Muslims outside the U.S. fail to appreciate that your ‘inflammations’ are not our problem; your buddies desperate need to learn how to “let the god’s revenge themselves” they are making our problem!

If your pet theory on American values were correct it would have been an evil act to out Nazis in the 1930’s for subversive actions. Case dismissed with prejudice.

Thus, Muslims abroad do not view the American-made hate film as merely an expressive act by a lone actor protected by the First Amendment. Rather it is part of a broader American assault on the Islamic faith wherein Muslims are expected to take it on the chin and smile.

As if the West should care! The only way Islamists, groups or nations, can cause trouble is by using the West’s technology and tactics against us; And as Iraq showed us twice; using the weapons is a far cry from knowing how to fight!

The only reason there is a problem at all is that the West has the mercy not to pave over every Islamist-supporting country as soon as they make it clear which side – humanity or Islam – they have chosen. Face it, you are an instrument of the ‘non-Islam’aphobia’ industry!

Coupled with the dearth of videos, speeches, and public acts by average Americans proclaiming their respect for Islam and their acceptance of Muslims as equal compatriots, Muslims abroad are left questioning whether defense of free speech is pretext for condoning bigotry. For if all you hear and see from America is hateful speech, selective targeting and counterterrorism enforcement against Muslims, and shameless Muslim-bashing by politicians, then calls to protect freedom of speech unsurprisingly fall on deaf ears.

Oh, blow it out your MemriTV! Anyone can go to this site, MemriTV.com and see Middle Eastern TV translated; it is an eye-opener to be sure! The worst of the worst of the worst of Fred Phelps’ hateful drivel would be tame by the standards of many of the commentators, Imams and children speaking for themselves and not as characters in a show. One Saudi boy speaking of how evil the Jews are reminded me frighteningly of that freaky blond kid from the Jesus Camp movie; frightening because this was a mainstream kid-show there!!!

By harping on protecting unpopular speech as a constitutional right, we are missing an opportunity to show the world that despite our bigots and crazies, which exist in every nation and religion, America is in fact a tolerant, pluralistic society that celebrates its diversity. Indeed this is the very reason immigrants continue to flock to our shores.

Then they better cash in their tickets, someone sold them the wrong bill of goods! People do not come here to be left alone to be just the way they were back home; they come to become what they can when the old patterns are no longer forced on them, and other people are willing to let them assimilate; all things that do not exist in the Muslim world by the way.

While some Americans may take offense at having to prove they are not racists or bigots simply because a small number of Americans are, they do not hesitate to demand the same of Muslims every time a handful of Muslims commit a violent or offensive act. When a Muslim terrorist attempts to harm Americans or burns an American flag, should Muslims in America publicly condemn such acts or can they assume that the guilt of one will not be imputed onto the entire religion? If a few thousand Muslims, out of hundreds of millions, in Middle Eastern countries attack U.S. Embassies, must Muslims in America issue press releases condemning these acts of violence and proclaiming their commitment to American values? And if they don’t, will their loyalty to the United States be questioned?

When a co-religionist commits a heinous act in the name of your mutual faith then you should feel a deep up-welling of shame and horror, and absolutely need to show everyone you can that your faith, your truth, is coming from somewhere more holy than that!!! You should not have the breath to spare to worry about what we want you to do or not do about it, you should be feeling your faith demanding proof – instead you shame non-Muslims for crying when humans are bleeding.

If the answer is yes, then it is incumbent upon all of us to question why we are willing to impose on Muslims the obligation to individually prove their innocence from bad acts of other Muslims, whether here or abroad, but yet refuse to impose the same obligation on ourselves when American hate groups and Christian extremists rhetorically and physically attack Muslims.

Personally, I expect every person who claims to be ‘devout’ to walk the walk, talk the talk and to always have the fruit of their faith, whatever it may be, taste sweet to living souls.

Most Americans do not support desecrating holy books, portraying others’ prophets as pedophiles and sadists, and preaching hate. But unless Americans of diverse backgrounds speak up to accurately represent our country; Muslims abroad are exposed only to our vilest citizens.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me just which scenes in that trailer, other than the bit about someone else making up the Qur’an and feeding it to Mohammed, are distortions or inserts into the actual text of the Qur’an, Sunnah and Bukhari and Muslim hadith!

We should not allow bigots like Nakoula and Klein to be America’s spokespersons to the world. The best way to protect free speech is to proffer an accurate counter-narrative into the marketplace of ideas.

Otherwise our silence will be interpreted as condoning hate.

In places without free speech, they won’t get it, and places where they do have it, we don’t have to explain; chill out.

Now Virginia, here is the really scary part; the place where you find out what this crazy woman does for a living:

Sahar Aziz is an associate professor at Texas Wesleyan School of Law where she teaches national security and constitutional litigation. She is a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Her scholarship can be found at: http://ssrn.com/author=1459001 S

Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed All Wept

How Dumb are Creationists?

Whose Side Were You On Again?

Just when it seems that the Right is getting its act together by nominating a truly original candidate for president, one that has a chance of moving our republic in more healthful direction, we get a resurgence of conservative-embarrassing silliness from their theocratic fringe.

Why is it so much trouble for the Republican party to step back from one of their more idiotic platform positions? Is it all merely the result of decades of defending traditional ideals against the worst idiotic of the ideas of non-Republicans, and not a few good ideas just because they come from “liberals”? Is tribalistic partisanship the only culprit?

Personally I doubt this; the Right has too many of its own people caught up in ‘magical thinking’. Case in point would be this article, or sermon I should say, targeting Bill Nye for having the temerity to lecture parents about programing their children to believe nonsense instead of science.

‘Creationists’ run the gamut from ‘theistic evolution’ believers so “unitarian” about the subject that they might as well be Deists, their God does not interfere once the Big Bang has the ball rolling, to full on Young Earth Creationists who believe that the Earth, and the entire universe for that matter are barely more than 6,000 years old!

The anti-evolution brand of Creationists have been a long time in building their base, God knows no-one else will give them the time of day once the theistic underpinnings of their “science” is exposed. Unfortunately they have long tuned their message to appeal to uninformed ears. Using “common-sense” arguments and misrepresenting real science the peddlers of YECH (Young Earth Creationist Hokum) depend on the complexity of the subject to prevent anyone in their audience from being able to refute them convincingly.

Creationist presentations are aimed at their target audience’s emotional and religious prejudices, and tailored to the blind spots in their understanding of science and mathematics. There is nothing random about biological evolution when you look at the species level; there is certainly nothing random in the progression of gene-evolution resulting from natural processes!

I could not pass up this opportunity to high-light the manipulative lack of real reason or real science in the apologetics of the creationist creed, this time it is the Right that is in the hot seat. Get your pencil and be ready to take notes Virginia!

Bill Nye the Pseudoscience Guy

By Terry L. Mirll

In a recent YouTube video, former children’s TV host Bill Nye weighs in on evolutionary biology by telling the rest of us how to raise our children.  If we want to deny evolution, he says, that’s our business, “but don’t make your kids do it.”  Presuming that what we teach our children is any of his business, a more fundamental question presents itself: how do we presume to teach our kids something that may or may not be true, particularly when we don’t really seem to understand it?”

I sometimes wonder if Creationist writers moonlight as speech-writers for radical Leftists or Islamist apologists; those are the only people I know of that use this blatantly disingenuous style of bull crap. It is all there – from the insulting headline to the bending and twisting of other people’s words, to the all-pervading unfounded assumptions that are meant to lull the ignorant into accepting, instead of questioning, the outrageous.

Let us be charitable and Leave aside the idea that someone who has long been thought of as “America’s Science Teacher” is not the person to publically call out parents for deliberately programing their kids to believe theistic creationism is a science and that tools used every day are unreal simply because those kids parents’ pastors fail to understand BS level science.

No offense but, the conservative Protestant sects have not been known for producing cutting edge biological scientists; for that matter no heavily partisan sect or nation has done well in that regard – think Lysenkoism under the political religion of Stalin.

But what about the last bit? Does our outraged Mr. Mirll have a point here:

“how do we presume to teach our kids something that may or may not be true, particularly when we don’t really seem to understand it?”

Nope, not even close! If it were a valid argument then it would be wrong to teach psychology, sociology, neurology, micro-biology, quantum physics, electronics, climatology (as a SCIENCE, not just the politicized version), metallurgy, all meditation, relaxation or visualization techniques… the list is endless. Being unable to explain in detail all aspects of a phenomena is hardly uncontestable evidence of fallacy; that is why testing is part of the process.

There is a tendency in the economy of belief to oversimplify.  Generally speaking, this is a good thing — or if not good, at least practical.  One hardly needs to understand how an internal combustion engine works in order to drive a car.

However, oversimplification is anathema to maintaining a robust and rigorous science.  As Einstein famously put it, make it simple, but not simpler.  He meant that any theory, if it is to be a scientific one, needs to be reduced to its fundamental elements, without omitting any elements necessary to make the theory workable.”

That last bit was apparently included so that the author could have a nice, high pseudo-scientific platform from which to pronounce the next bit of data-free character assassination.

In Nye’s mindset, there are two basic positions concerning evolution: 1. You believe in it, or 2. You’re just a big fat doody-head.

This, I would argue, is an oversimplification.”

Without a doubt I agree; Mr. Mirll’s characterization of Dr. Nye’s inner mental functions as supposedly revealed in his video is an oversimplification; after having viewed the video in question, rather than an article about it, I also think it is an insult.

The pattern of demagoguery continues with three paragraphs showing supposed objectivity in the “Science vs. God” debate followed with a flat-out declaration that science, in the person of Dr. Nye, is simply wrong.

“What is most remarkable is that Nye is hardly alone in his asseveration.  In fact, the vast majority of people — among those who believe in evolution wholeheartedly, as well as those who see evolution as just so much nonsense — seem to hold the same view.  Either we believe in evolution, or we believe in God.

Unfortunately, however, those who hold this view fail to understand what it implies about science and religion, setting up what philosophers of science call the Conflict Thesis — that science and religion are mutually exclusive domains (that is, with no overlap) and are thus at odds with each other.  But the Conflict Thesis is incorrect, offering up a false choice: science or religion.  What, then, are we to make of Stephen C. Meyer’s claim that “[s]cience, done right, leads to God”?

Additionally, this already overly simplistic notion is further exacerbated by another oversimplification — that science is a rational proposition based on reason, while religion is a spiritual proposition based on faith.  Thus, scientific formulations are reliable, based as they are on the Scientific Method of observation, hypothesis, theorization, testing, and reformulation; religion, in contrast, is antithetical to the Scientific Method, akin to fairy tales and superstition.  Framed in this way, we can understand the essence of Nye’s concern for what we teach our children: assuming that evolution is scientific, for any parent to teach his child to deny evolution is thus to teach him to deny reason.

And Nye would be right but for the inconvenient fact that he is wholly and utterly wrong, in his basic assumptions as well as his understanding of evolution.””

Now, our defender of parental dignity-in-ignorance marshals his forces of misstatement, misdirection and mischaracterization to defeat the forces of evil reality!

“When we examine the underlying assumptions of Nye’s position, we find:

§ Science is not “based” on reason,

§ Religion is not “based” on faith,

§ There’s no such thing as “the” Scientific Method,

§ Religion is no fairy tale, and

§ Evolution is not what Nye thinks it is.””

Now then, stop giggling Virginia, show respect to older people, even if their heads are spinning slowly widdershins; I am sure Mr. Mirll will “explain” his “logic” in each case.

“First, though reason is certainly a component of scientific inquiry, it is not the only component.”

That was slick; he says ‘not ‘”based in reason”’, then refutes a totally different concept –  the idea of reason as the only component of science!

“There are, for instance, any number of scientific assumptions that cannot be proved and thus must be accepted on faith.  First and foremost among these is the assumption of uniformity — that what applies to our corner of the universe applies to all corners.  (This, after all, is what makes a universe a universe and not, say, a polyverse.)  Imagine the caterwauling among physicists if we discover that light travels at a uniform speed within the confines of the Milky Way, but at a variable speed in the galaxy Andromeda.”

This is a willful distortion of science, the assumptions science makes are ones for which we have virtually no negative evidence; if solid evidence of variance is found the assumption is abandoned; such as the very idea that the speed of light can be exceeded by material particles.

To address the non-proof above: if the speed of light were different in Andromeda we would either a. see the difference or b. there would have to be mechanisms built into the universe essentially ‘reformatting’ the light as it traveled to us so that we would see only effects compatible with our speed of light… sounds dumb doesn’t it?

“Nor is reason relegated only to science.  Religion, too, has its rational component, with pronouncements based on observation and empirical knowledge.  The Buddhist considers the Buddha, studies his life, hears his message of compassion and service to others, and makes the rational decision to emulate him.  The Christian hears the story of the resurrected Christ, an event that is claimed to have occurred in real time and witnessed by some five hundred, and chooses to follow him.  These are not simply matters of faith.”

He now doubles down on the same strategy with religion; he states one thing then refutes something else but, the fact remains – ‘based in’  is not the same as ‘excluding everything else’

“Instead of “the” scientific method, we find any number of methodologies that share various features but which cannot be said to demonstrate anything akin to a single, uniform method.  Consider, for instance, the notion that science is based on observation.  If this is a necessary prerequisite to a scientific theory, what are we to make of the claim that our universe may be only one of a series of universes?  Has anyone ever observed one of these extra universes?  How can such an observation be possible, even in theory?  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the multiverse.  And what do we call “the evidence of things not seen”?”

The above armchair physics comes courtesy of someone who obviously never bothered to incorporate quantum physics into their version of reality; isn’t this the guy who was so concerned about over-simplification a while back in this very same piece?

All he does is make all of science’s shades of color into a 320dpi black and white line-scan, and then complain that it does not represent the real world accurately. If he bothered to learn the subject he would find that it was the evidence, the results of observation and experiment, that made people see the cracks in the classical view of reality!

The multiverse theories Mr. Mirll disparages are based solely in observational science. To put it succinctly, quantum physics is the most un-refuted theory/world-view in the history of science. It has been held valid in its most bizarre predictions every time those predictions have been tested; I am sorry you don’t understand it, the entire industry involving things we call ‘electronic’ from can-diodes to micro chips is nothing but quantum physics-based engineering.

And the entirety of micro-biology is based in evolution, not as a theory, but, as a tool!

“Those who equate religion with fairy tales fail to understand what the word means.  “Religion” comes from the Latin religio, which means “to bind or constrict” and thus entails a twofold meaning.  First, it identifies a body of adherents to the religion itself.  These need not be adherents of any particular religion; it is sufficient that they identify themselves as members of the group, whatever the group.  Second, it is in some way normative; that is, it prescribes what the members of the group ought to believe, though it does not necessarily imply that the members will adhere to their beliefs at all times.  In other words, though a Christian will on occasion do things that are demonstrably un-Christian, this does not stop him from being a Christian altogether.  Neither aspect of religio has anything to do with fairy tales.”

That is nice. What does this have to do with the myths that form the foundation of almost all religions so adhered to? How does it prove that any religion’s myths that cannot be substantiated by objective historians are on a par with ‘fairy-tales’?

Answer: Nothing, and it doesn’t; moving on…

“In fact, Nye’s own understanding of evolution is itself a kind of fairy tale.  For him, it is akin to biological magic, to be believed for its own sake.  (Woe unto you, ye unbelievers!)  Evolution, he says, “is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.  It’s like, it’s very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates.”

Other than a handful of multi-doctorate polymath geniuses who understand first-hand and in detail more than a simplified, cartoon version of what really happens in any of the sciences? That is why science demands theories be testable, and the test be repeatable.

Actually, it’s like, it’s not like that.  For one, geologists operated for centuries without believing in tectonic plates.  As nifty as plate theory may be, it’s hardly fundamental to the idea of geology; rather, it’s derived from geology, based on current scientific understanding of the earth’s structure. 

Virginia, it is not attractive when you cross your eyes like that; stop pretending to be a zombie columnist stalking the brains of gummi-republican.!

I do see your point though; it is hard to know where to begin deconstructing that mass of congealed steer-residue!

Unless you are reading your history while standing on your head the early geologists’ whole purpose in “operating” was to learn what was happening in the way of a dynamic Earth; what exactly does he mean saying that they “operated” in ignorance of most of the how’s, what’s and why’s of the Earth’s structure? Is this how doctors “operated” in medicine before the advent of germ theory?

Did they find gold? Yes, sometimes. Did they know why it formed and where it might be found absent surface clues? Error, faulty, faulty!

And please take note of the lovely all-but-lying way he claims plate tectonics is a nifty theory when the basic notion that the plates exists and move in certain ways is an observed fact. The plates move, have moved and still move.

Young Earth creationists believe that The Flood produced virtually all of the erosion and sedimentation etc. that science understands to be the result of uniform processes over time. They have to go to all sorts of lengths to deny reality though refuting evidence is everywhere to see.

In Southern California is a desert park that has often been used by the movie and TV folks for interesting outdoor locations because of its unique rock formations and convenient distance from Hollywood. It is called Vasquez Rocks and has formations familiar to the entire movie and TV watching world. I mention it because there are several places within the area of a suburban lot that give lie to every Young Earth fairy tale ever told.

There you will find pebbles of metamorphic rock  made by sedimentary rock being compressed and distorted and then rounded by water mixed into a sedimentary sandstone, and the whole mess folded over with igneous formations from volcanic eruptions from AFTER the formation of all of the above, AND major water and wind worn patterns in all of the above that are continuous over the different materials; explain to me, Virginia, how all that happened in a forty day flood!

That the movement of the plates explains events organically and phenomena that the creationists have to pretend are still mysteries surely produces the most amazing mental gymnastics given that lasers from satellites in space have for a long time watched and measured the motion of the plates; which in no way deviate from the expectations of the “theory” that Mr. Pseudo-Reason finds so controversial.

Evolution, likewise, is deduced from two primary observations: the fossil record, which, so it is claimed, shows evidence that life represents a continuum of biological forms expressing a progression from the simple to the more complex; and the similarity of hypothetically related species, such as human beings and apes.

We should not be surprised by now I suppose to see this author seeming to tell outright lies, it is part of his faith apparently but, that does not mean I have to respect the lies.

Those two observations are not honestly complete, let alone the only basis for the modern understanding of evolution or for when the theory was being formulated; many different observations and types of evidence went into the mix that produced the first evolutionary theories.

But these are mere claims, not scientifically, independently verified facts.  The fossil record is stubbornly discontinuous, and human beings ultimately may only look like apes — a 1972 Chevy Malibu looks an awful lot like a 1971 Chevy Malibu, but this does not mean that the ’72 Malibu is biologically descended from the ’71 model.

It is not nice to stare at crazy people Virginia. Yes, I know that on a biological level, from micro-biology to forensic anthropology there is no genus Homo, and that humans are of the genus Pan, like our only living ‘species’ cousins, the chimps.

Someone hurry and go tell the zoo vets that all the apes in their care are really humans under the fur; think of the money saved in simplifying simian care across the board; not to mention using simian vets to fill the gap in qualified pediatricians!!

Think about it, imagine calling something a ‘canine’ when no other ‘canine’ cousins exist and it is 98% identical in its genes to the lion family of genus feline. Is that a ‘canine’ or just another feline? The pan genus has several species of chimp and we are 98% the same but, we are our own genus? Ri-i-i-ight!

Welcome to Pan Sapiens, Homo Sapiens was a fairy tale!

As far as the “incomplete fossil record” goes I do not expect that any number of ‘missing links’ will satisfy the creationists. They have been making this objection since the fossil record resembled an etch-a-sketch more than an oil painting but, today the record for many species, like birds and horses, looks more like a time-lapse YouTube video and they still  make the same objection!

“Nye’s position, then, is no acquiescence to scientific truth; it is merely a component of his belief system.  He may as well tell us not to raise our kids as Presbyterians.

And Bill Nye the Pseudoscience Guy can keep his beliefs to himself.”

Sorry, this guy is not making any points at all, now he wants to steal the credibility of the Presbyterians when most of them are comfortable with billions of years and a god that uses evolution; Jesus wept.

Methinks The L.D.* Doth Protest Too Much!

CMSASeries

The panties of Haris Tarin, DC Office Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council are in a twist over the heinous behavior of the Islamophobes running the United States’ counter-terrorism efforts. Let us look at this honorable American’s take on things, and then let us look at the facts.

Hang on Virginia, this one is pretty much a mind-f… um …you know what I mean.

Winking smile

I have added some editing advice to help improve Haris’ grasp of the concept of communication as opposed to bovine end-products intended for garden uses.

Enough is Enough: The anti-Muslim Training Tide Must Turn

May 18, 2012

The nation’s top officer, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, says to stop ‘Total War’ on Islam rhetoric

Last week, Wired.com’s Danger Room reported [that] a course repeatedly taught at the U.S. Joint Staff Forces College, [either remove the comma or add another one after the word course] included vitriolic [non-submissive] and hateful [objective] language about Islam [undisputedly mainstream Islamic theological doctrine] and Muslims [actual actions and words by Muslims and polls of Muslims]  as part of its instruction material. Sadly, this latest report shows history does indeed repeat itself, and the Muslim American community has suffered repeatedly because of it. [this makes us upset because it accurately portrays the very tactics we hope will deliver the Ummah a planet to beat into submission to our highly personal and totally human concept of God]

After that mildly spun tornado of an intro Tarin gets down to some really intense atmosphere fertilization; let’s just add a few interjections to make it a tad more ‘fair and balanced’.

In the last year alone, there have been at least five high profile instances [5 times we found great agit-prop opportunities] of anti-Muslim [that which does not contribute to the doctrinally pathological Islamic need for religious self-respect regardless of truth] training to law enforcement and military personnel sponsored and financed by the federal government.

This above tidbit alone should show that the Muslim Brotherhood style of stealth jihad really has produced a real influence that is detrimental to the security of the U.S.!

Be sure to follow the link in the article to the actual slideshow; there is almost nothing to criticize, and what little there is, is explicitly presented as being unrepresentative of any current or proposed policy and was included to incite wide-ranging discussion – just the sort of thing you want when training high-level military and law-enforcement’; these were hardly detectives and beat cops being trained, this was ‘War College’ level stuff.

Take note that the information reported so incredulously in the next paragraph is self-evidently true; this is demonstrated by the public and documented actions and writings of the very ‘civilians, juries, lawyers, media, academia and charities’ being “shielded” by the likes of our beloved “Hi, I am from MPAC & I am here to help you” representative.

First, there were reports last fall of the Department of Justice (DOJ) using training material that warn of Muslims in America engaging in “civilizational jihad”– a concept “stretching back from the dawn of Islam and waged today in the U.S. by ‘civilians, juries, lawyers, media, academia and charities’ who threaten our values.’”

I guess that I have to admit that if you are blinded by a religious doctrine that mandates your faith’s domination of the world by hook or by crook in order to ‘”save” the people from being ruled by the evil un-believers, it might be upsetting if your doctrine were openly discussed by the ‘Great Satan’. Every one of the items in scare quotes in that paragraph is supported by the repeated words and writings of groups like CAIR, MPAC, MSU and others of that ilk. Meanwhile any Muslims actually interested in reform are tarred and feathered one way or another to keep them silent and under the radar of the general public while their trained seals lead the media by the, um, hand.

In recent polls of American Muslims the overwhelming majority refused to acknowledge that the nationally known groups represented their interests. Even when all of the media-darling Muslim advocacy groups were lumped together the over-whelming majority declared that they did not represent the real American Muslims next-door and in the shopping check-out line ahead of you.

No National Muslim American Organization Represents a Large Percentage of the Community

Which national Muslim American organization, if any, do you feel most represents your interests?

ORGANIZATION

MEN

WOMEN

Council on American-Islamic Relations CAIR

12%

11%

Islamic Society of North America ISNA

4%

7%

Muslim Public Affairs Council MPAC

6%

1%

Muslim American Society

0%

2%

Imam Warith Deen Mohammed Group

3%

1%

Islamic Circle of North America

2%

0%

Other

6%

20%

None

55%

42%

Paragraph left out – I agree that Walid Shoebat is a bit of a nutcase.

As if that wasn’t enough, the New York Police Department (NYPD) decided it would be a good idea to screen for its officers “The Third Jihad,” a blatantly anti-Muslim [written honestly by an American Muslim] film that insists [shows conclusively] the “true agenda of much of Islam in America” is to infiltrate and dominate America.  According to reports, nearly 1,500 New York police officers were shown the film.

In referring to groups in the media much means almost all, when referring to real American Muslims see the poll above.

Here’s a toast to the NYPD! I have yet to see the full version but, the 30 minute cut is very honest and, by the way, it is all the project of a Muslim American!!!

In addition to the screening, NYPD’s widespread spying [legal and much lauded surveillance] on Muslims in New York and beyond also have come to light [been the topic of our hysterical misdirection]. We learned the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy financed a specific part of NYPD’s surveillance against Muslim American communities – from libraries, restaurants and markets to university student whitewater rafting trips – without any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Here MPAC’s trained poodle seems to be intentionally ignoring the fact that basic surveillance comes beforeevidence of criminal wrongdoing” in the real world; after that comes more invasive data gathering with the permission of a court, then they charge, convict and put the Psychopath-of-God away for good.

During the most recent upswing in “the Irish problem” no-one on either side ever saw anything wrong with the authorities keeping an eye on any group, religious or otherwise, that was Irish and Catholic or Irish and Protestant, or Irish and Marxist for that matter; being Muslim fails to shield you from being judged by your fruit.

When reports surfaced last week [our buddies dug up something juicy, to us at least] of the Pentagon using training materials (read the PDF presentation for yourself) …

Yes, please do, the MPAC characterization of the document is disingenuous to say the least! Just imagine what a Nazi agent in America would write about an objective assessment of Germany’s doctrines and intentions in 1938, then fast-forward about 70 years, and watch the show start all over again.

…advocating for a “Hiroshima solution” to target the Muslim “civilian population wherever necessary,” in a “total war” against Islam, that was the final straw.
At this point, the community has had enough.

At this point so have I, that last bunch of quotes was assembled by cherry picking single words and phrases out of context for no purpose other than to demonize the entire document; I say Virginia, that is just not cricket!

Letters were sent to those officials who have blatantly violated [sought to protect and defend all American’s] civil liberties and basic moral principles, meetings [3-minute-hate’s]on Capitol Hill took place and civil society groups [reliable dupes & bought fools] have spoken out against the corrosive [creative] mishandling [strategies] of national security efforts.  Policy circles [paid-for-apologists] stressed the importance of partnerships [divisiveness] rather than confrontation [responsible co-operation] between local communities [stealth jihadists] and law enforcement agencies, but the damage [truth] has been done [disseminated]. The bridges [[barricades]  of partnership [divisiveness] that took so long to build were being challenged with walls [a spotlight] of distrust [truth] that were erected overnight [with great effort against the currents promoted by the stealth jihadists and “’progressive’ Leftists].

I for one am glad to see the wall of stupid finally cracking.

Why are our tax dollars being used to train Americans to hate other Americans?

Now then Virginia, to continue our abnormal psychology lesson, please take note that few, if any, people of a non-criminal mind-set would think of typical police training to identify and apprehend criminals as ‘”training to hate Americans”. We also find examples here of projection, where the patient “projects” their own thoughts and actions onto the recipient of their tirade; see link to the Third Jihad.

Why are our political leaders not publicly denouncing the hate-filled training materials our law enforcement and military students are receiving?

Probably because all the hate material your allies spew forth takes time to vet and dispose of; meanwhile the hydra grows two more heads.

Simply put, this is wrong, and at this point in our nation’s history, we should be above putting down any group in the name of national security.

Um, really? What about groups proven to be conspiring against national security? I would wager that if some brain-dead Christian Identity group started making noises like they were ready to give Armageddon a jump-start MPAC and CAIR would scream for them to be “put down”!

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, condemned the bigoted Pentagon training materials.

Hardly, what he did was act like the political general he is, and do all the media approved things; the only parts of the document that are questionable explicitly state that they are included as provocative discussion starters, not proposed US. policy.

While this is a positive first step, serious reforms need to be implemented into the education of the agency, and we need to hear from Secretary Leon Panetta that this type of problematic training will never happen again.

That will happen just as soon as CAIR and MPAC et. al. swear on their prophet’s honor that no more of their moderate leaders will end up convicted of terrorism related charges; deal?

While we are spending treasures in both lives and finances overseas trying to win hearts and minds, here at home we are training our young servicemen and women to fill their hearts and minds with hate.

That last sentence was one of the rare moments when a stealth-jihadist will speak the exact truth; the problem here is that the words “we” and “our” should be read as “Islam” and “Islamic”, instead of “Americans” and “America.”

Pursuing national security measures by training military and law enforcement officials to hate [objectively assess] their fellow Americans only weakens our national strength.

Again, who exactly is this “our” you are referring to?

Together we stand, divided we fall – these words have never been more appropriate.
It’s time for our political leaders to speak out publicly against anti-Muslim training taking place within their own federal agencies. Anything less than intervention and serious reform is unacceptable, given the stakes.

Well now, there again is something that we can agree upon – your political leaders must be wetting their drawers over the thought of the public becoming aware of their agenda!

(* lying dog)

Leftists and Right-wingers Conspire Against Constitutional Government

hypocrite_fish

I am a bit disappointed in the both the Left and the Right; no-one seems to know how to declare victory and move on, or realize the futility of their actions and let go.

There is a certain similarity to those who are gravitated toward the amassing of political power; for the most part their agenda is not the one they publically serve, instead it is one of ego and power, narcissism and insecurity.  The occasional sincere and talented leader that comes along is a happy accident in the purposeful insanity in pursuit of power we call politics.

On the Right we have people who do not seem to be able to accept that  how a person dresses or wears their hair, what books or films they enjoy, which adult they fall in love with, what kind of music they listen to, or which particular chemicals they choose to soothe themselves with against outrageous fortune matters little compared to issues that breaks their leg or picks their pockets.

This is principally because a conservative mindset supports the status quo against disruption from “outside; it is hard to tell who is not “one of us” if we fail to look alike and act alike.

On the Left we have those folks who simply cannot let go of the rush of having been on the side of “Truth and Light” against the monolithic “Man; if some group quacks like victims of “oppression” the Left immediately labels it a duck, turning a blind eye to any “regretful but vital temporary irregularities” committed in the pursuit of “social justice.”

Today it seem that to the new breed of “liberal” any traditional or overly familiar group is automatically suspected of evil intent and attacked; meanwhile any foreign, unfamiliar or new ideology is seen as persecuted, helpless, and in need of protection; they are not shy about shaming others into “doing the right thing“; even if they would call their actions evil if perpetrated by a non-Leftist.

The sign that makes this cognitive-dissonance the most obvious to me is the seeming inability of anyone belonging to a partisan group to see their own leaders engaging in hypocrisy or toxically self-serving politics.

Case in point Left:

Three distinguished ‘sociologists‘ having a panel discussion at a prestigious, elite university on the cumulative emotional/political scars of the “Palestinian people” who never even mention the existence of the PA, PLO, Fatah or any non-Israeli leadership, organisation or government!

Case in point Right:

Every bill that is passed by a conservative state legislature regarding abortion or the first amendment that they know will be thrown out by the Supreme Court on a “No Duh” basis; not to mention voting against humane laws only because the law might, possibly, in theory, in a Blue Moon and with a tail wind undermine their goal of passing other laws designed to eliminate the right to any abortions.

Case in point Left:

The partisan Leftie will bend their brain into a pretzel to justify and declare natural and normal any deviant behavior practiced by consenting adult homosexuals while at the same time denigrating the “un-naturally” traditional sexual tastes of more conservative folk, most of whom are not interested in regulating the homosexuals’ lifestyle beyond the usual restrictions on anyone committing rape, pedophilia or other criminal activity.

Case in point Right:

The partisan Rightie will get their panties in a twist contemplating all the heinous and disgusting sexual crimes a homosexual “could” be prone to while ignoring rampant child abuse in the home, or a culture of rape in an institution; that homosexuals in reality have a lower violent crime rate than straights seems to totally escape them.

Case in point Left:

Lefties just hate women who like the idea of having babies and being a homemaker, they simply loathe it! When you pin them to the wall, as happened recently when someone said that Mitt Romney’s wife who raised five sons and battled a deadly illness had never worked a day in her life, they mostly admit that there is nothing wrong and much that is admirable, about a “non-working” home-maker. Then a few days later they will once again say something that denigrates mothers.

Case in point Right:

Statistics show that the highest divorce rates, the highest teen STD rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates all occur in precisely the same areas where the most conservative sex-ed is the norm and sex is only supposed to happen after a person gets married. But, the lowest rates for divorce etc. are found amongst agnostics and secular Jews! I will leave as an exercise for the student the contemplation of reasons why two people with no clue whether they are socially compatible in the long term, or if they are sexually compatible at all, might be a bad risk for marrying; living together first is a  statistically proven better strategy!

Both sides seem to feel that all the worlds problems are sourced in the opposition’s intentionally perverse and stubborn need to fuck everything up for the other guy; I have more faith in my fellow man than that, but the partisanship has got to go!