Apple of Doubt

We Have Moved!

2009-01-27T01:04:00.003-06:00

We Have Moved to:

http://appleofdoubt.com

Please update your bookmarks, links, and blogrolls.

No new updates will appear on this site.

New Website Coming Soon!

2009-01-22T01:57:00.000-06:00

The Apple of Doubt will be moving.

I am in the final stages of choosing a theme for my new hosted wordpress blog. After I make that decision I will begin adding over services like entrecard and others. Then it will be ready for prime time. I hope that my dedicated readers will make the leap and that this new blog venue will prove a boon for the new year. Maybe the knoledge that I'm wasting moeny by not blogging will kick me into high gear.

Any and all suggestions for a new wordpress are appreciated. Leave a comment and tell me what you would like to see at the new site.

www.appleofdoubt.com coming soon!

A Few Thoughts On Civility

2009-01-15T14:42:00.001-06:00

Treat people as if they were what they ought to be, and you help them to become what they are capable of being.

- - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Earlier this week PZ Meyers of Pharyngula fame wrote a post about the limits of civility declaring, "There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion". Indeed I agree that condemnation and even ridicule can be powerful tools in combating harmful ideas. And there are those who hide behind a false front of offense and congeniality using manufactured instances of rudeness to deflect genuine criticism of ideas. We shouldn't humor them, it is no breach of civility to point our mistakes and to say you believe their ideas are wrong. Yet we should also not mistake PZ's words as a universal denunciation of civility or a call for rudeness as a standard.

Contrary to Meyers I would say that civility has a great deal of virtue when dealing with those who are ignorant. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge and a person is more likely to give consideration and credence to an argument that comes free from invectives and insults. Willful ignorance on the other hand often deserves to be met with derision. Yet incivility, when not used judiciously, has a tendency to reduce an argument down to a personal emotional battle rather than one focused on ideas. Incivility often lacks virtue when dealing with honest doubters. When it is used as a cudgel, as is sadly the case with many who would use incivility, it immediately pushes the opponent to a distance making them an "other" to be feared or hated and falls back on the same absurd absolutism that is anathema to freethinking.

Yes arguments should be about the ideas but I think a measure of civility actually helps to propagate arguments by making them more palatable to the opposition. The virtue of a method lies in it's ability to convey the meaning and while well bred insolence can be powerful when used sparingly and timely; too much mockery drown out the ideas and make others unwilling to listen. So that is why I believe the best path to open discourse is civility and encourage it as often as I can. I do not encourage incivility as a method but I can understand and even approve of the occasional verbal tongue lashing which can be just as effective and often the determining when it's appropriate can be a challenge unto itself.

Is homosexuality a choice?

2009-01-13T09:03:00.000-06:00

This video is taken from the documentary For the Bible Tells Me So.

Ideology, Pragmatism, & Virtue

2009-01-08T09:15:00.004-06:00

I was going to write about about the great deal of political hay that had been made over the appropriation of of the term pragmatist by the pundity but I've come too late to the party. This is one of the challenges of not being a four-post-a-day hardcore blogger. You get scooped. Of course with the holiday season and the inevitable flu which followed I was out of commission for longer than normal so not only was I scooped but the story has already long since been buried and forgot. This is especially true in light of the recent escalations in the Israel/Palestine conflict. So instead of repeating old talking points why not just give you a nice round-up of what some of my favorite bloggers have already said.

The initial spark for this issue came from an article at The Nation by Christopher Hayes entitled "The Pragmatist".

In a postelection essay on Obama, George Packer noted these two strains of his campaign rhetoric and dubbed them the "'progressive' Obama" and "the 'post-partisan' Obama."

In Washington "pragmatic" is a kind of code word for the latter, and it's that Obama the Beltway establishment is happily embracing.

My first thought was how ideology here was used to mean ideologue or dogma rather than foundational ideas or basic principles. A thought shared by Larry Hamelin, the Barefoot Bum.

There are two senses of "ideology": The first sense (ideology) just denotes a set of ideas consciously and intentionally expressed, related and somehow bounded. The second sense (dogmatism) denotes a set of ideas adhered to dogmatically or inflexibly. You cannot have dogmatism without ideology, something specific and bounded to be dogmatic about, so these two senses get confused.

As principle becomes vilified as dogma, so pragmatism becomes the new byword for centrism. And Ezra Klein agrees.

Chris Hayes has a nice essay on the resurgence of "pragmatism" as the highest of political virtues. It's no coincidence, Hayes implies, that this occurs exactly as liberals take power. Indeed, it's the result of a concerted effort to frame the Bush administration's failures as the fault of "ideology" in its manifestation as a character trait -- think of the mental image when you hear the word ideologue" -- rather than "ideology" as it refers to the specific beliefs and policies Bush pursued.

Ron Chusid of the Liberal Values Blog defends the renewed use of pragmatism as well as the rich definition of ideology and reaches the same conclusion I did.

The concept of pragmatism is currently being embraced because of the manner in which the Republicans failed due to ignoring reality when it conflicted with their ideology. Current praise for the concept of pragmatism does not mean a rejection of all principle. In fact, the opposite is true as both a different ideology was desired along with greater respect for pragmatism by many who voted Democratic in 2008.

And for fun you can see some philosophical analysis of pragmatism and what the terms roots mean for this resurgence of pragmatists. Both Undeserved Confidence at The Opposite of Jim Bunning and Henry Farrell at Crooked Timber look at the philosophical history of pragmatism.

The "Get a Life" Meme

2009-01-06T09:00:00.003-06:00

I recently picked up a meme from The Atheist Blogger (who got it from ChickenGirl who got it from the Radula). This meme questions the quality of my social life; according to it if you've seen over 85 movies from the below list you have no life. There are 219 movies on this list and the ones I've seen are marked with an "x". My score was 104, so obviously I have no life. Interestingly I beat out all previous takers. The Atheist Blogger got 77, ChickenGirl 37, and Radula had seen 88 of them. I don't know whether to feel triumphant or ashamed. Take the challenge for yourself and see how you measure up.

Here's the list of movies:

(x) Rocky Horror Picture Show
( ) Grease
(x) Pirates of the Caribbean
(x) Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man’s Chest
(x) Boondock Saints
(x) Fight Club
( ) Starsky and Hutch
(x) Neverending Story
(x) Blazing Saddles
(x) Universal Soldier
( ) Lemony Snicket: A Series Of Unfortunate Events
( ) Along Came Polly
(x) Joe Dirt
(x) KING KONG
( ) A Cinderella Story
( ) The Terminal
( ) The Lizzie McGuire Movie
( ) Passport to Paris
( ) Dumb & Dumber
( ) Dumber & Dumberer
(x) Final Destination
( ) Final Destination 2
( ) Final Destination 3
( ) Halloween
(x) The Ring
( ) The Ring 2
( ) Surviving -MAS
( ) Flubber (Orignial)
(x) Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle
( ) Practical Magic
( ) Chicago
( ) Ghost Ship
(x) From Hell
(x) Hellboy
(x) Secret Window
( ) I Am Sam
( ) The Whole Nine Yards
( ) The Whole Ten Yards
( ) The Day After Tomorrow
(x) Child’s Play
( ) Seed of Chucky
( ) Bride of Chucky
( ) Ten Things I Hate About You
( ) Just Married
( ) Gothika
(x) Nightmare on Elm Street
(x) Sixteen Candles
(x) Remember the Titans
( ) Coach Carter
( ) The Grudge
( ) The Grudge 2
(x) The Mask
( ) Son Of The Mask
( ) Bad Boys
( ) Bad Boys 2
( ) Joy Ride
(x) Lucky Number Sleven
(x) Ocean’s Eleven
(x) Ocean’s Twelve
(x) Bourne Identity
( ) Bourne Supremacy
( ) Lone Star
( ) Bedazzled
(x) Predator I
(x) Predator II
( ) The Fog
( ) Ice Age
( ) Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
( ) Curious George
(x) Independence Day
(x) Cujo
( ) A Bron Tale
( ) Darkness Falls
( ) Christine
(x) ET
(x) Children of the Corn
( ) My Bosses Daughter
( ) Maid in Manhattan
( ) War of the Worlds
(x) Rush Hour
( ) Rush Hour 2
( ) Best Bet
( ) How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
( ) She’s All That
( ) Calendar Girls
( ) Sideways
(x) Mars Attacks
(x) Event Horizon
( ) Ever After
(x) Wizard of Oz
(x) Forrest Gump
(x) Big Trouble in Little China
(x) The Terminator
(x) The Terminator 2
(x) The Terminator 3
(x) x-Men
(x) x2
(x) x-3
(x) Spider-Man
(x) Spider-Man 2
(x) Sky High
(x) Jeepers Creepers
( ) Jeepers Creepers 2
( ) Catch Me If You Can
(x) The Little Mermaid
( ) Freaky Friday
(x) Reign of Fire
( ) The Skulls
( ) Cruel Intentions
( ) Cruel Intentions 2
( ) The Hot Chick
(x) Shrek
(x) Shrek 2
( ) Swimfan
( ) Miracle on 34th street
( ) Old School
( ) The Notebook
( ) K-Pax
( ) Kippendorf’s Tribe
( ) A Walk to Remember
( ) Ice Castles
( ) Boogeyman
( ) The 40-year-old-virgin
(x) Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring
(x) Lord of the Rings The Two Towers
(x) Lord of the Rings Return Of the King
(x) Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
(x) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
(x) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
( ) Baseketball
( ) Hostel
( ) Waiting for Guffman
( ) House of 1000 Corpses
( ) Devils Rejects
( ) Elf
(x) Highlander
(x) Mothman Prophecies
(x) American History X
( ) Three
( ) The Jacket
(x) Kung Fu Hustle
(x) Shaolin Soccer
( ) Night Watch
(x) Monsters Inc.
( ) Titanic
(x) Monty Python and the Holy Grail
(x) Shaun Of the Dead
( ) Willard
( ) High Tension
( ) Club Dread
(x) Hulk
(x) Dawn Of the Dead
(x) Hook
(x) Chronicle Of Narnia The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
(x) 28 days later
( ) Orgazmo
( ) Phantasm
(x) Waterworld
(x) Kill Bill vol 1
(x) Kill Bill vol 2
(x) Mortal Kombat
( ) Wolf Creek
(x) Kingdom of Heaven
( ) the Hills Have Eyes
( ) I Spit on Your Grave aka the Day of the Woman
( ) The Last House on the Left
(x) Re-Animator
(x) Army of Darkness
(x) Star Wars Ep. I The Phantom Menace
(x) Star Wars Ep. II Attack of the Clones
(x) Star Wars Ep. III Revenge of the Sith
(x) Star Wars Ep. IV A New Hope
(x) Star Wars Ep. V The Empire Strikes Back
(x) Star Wars Ep. VI Return of the Jedi
( ) Ewoks Caravan Of Courage
( ) Ewoks The Battle For Endor
(x) The Matrix
(x) The Matrix Reloaded
(x) The Matrix Revolutions
(x) Animatrix
(x) Evil Dead
(x) Evil Dead 2
( ) Team America: World Police
(x) Red Dragon
(x) Silence of the Lambs
( ) Hannibal
( ) Battle Royale
( ) Battle Royale 2
( ) Brazil
(x) Contact
(x) Cube
(x) Dr. Strangelove
( ) Enlightenment Guaranteed
( ) Four Rooms
( ) Memento
(x) Pi
( ) Requiem for a Dream
(x) Pulp Fiction
(x) Reservoir Dogs
( ) Run Lola Run
( ) Russian Ark
(x) Serenity
(x) Sin City
(x) Snatch
( ) Spider
(x) The Sixth Sense
(x) The Village
( ) Waking Life
(x) Zatoichi
( ) Ikiru
(x) The Seven Samurai
( ) Brick
(x) Akira

Resolutions for the New Year

2009-01-01T09:00:00.000-06:00

We two have paddled in the stream, from morning sun till dine;
But seas between us broad have roared since auld lang syne.

Robert Burns

I've never been one for New Year's resolutions. I just never got on board with that tradition. This year is going to be an exception. Exciting things are happening and the chance for real change in my life is spurring me to set goals and meet them. My first resolution I announce with rather irrational timidity. Irrational because I am driven by an old instinct to withhold good news until it's confirmed, for fear of "jinxing it". So the details will be a little sketchy for the time being. I have applied and am waiting for confirmation of my admission to college. I'm an academic late bloomer. Instead of going straight to college after high school I got a job. I made the wrong decisions and it cost me many years of frustration. Now I am trying to set that right by applying to and, hopefully, attending college this year. My plans as they stand now are to attain a degree in philosophy with the ultimate ambition of becoming a philosophy professor. If this becomes a reality then you can expect a new wave of themed material and lulls in blogging. The difference being these lulls will be honestly earned.

Attending college will open up a whole new world of social interaction that has been closed to me living in rural Kentucky. I want to take full advantage of that. In order to do so and, I believe, in order to do the best I can at my studies I need to lose weight. Whoa, whoa, don't leave the page just yet. I know this is a cliched resolution and similar ones will be made throughout american media but for me this is different. I am substantially overweight due to a recklessly sybaritic diet. Beginning in the first few weeks of January I will begin to document a strict regimen of caloric restraint and exercise. However I know well that blind weight loss loses focus and collapses back into an orgy of unhealthy food, so I am setting a goal. My goal is to lose fifty pounds by August of this year. I may lose less or more but the goal I am working toward is fifty pounds.

I'll be sure to keep you up to date on these developments. Welcome to the new year.

It's an Atheist Christmas

2008-12-23T09:00:00.005-06:00

Well it's that time of year again and every atheist blogger has got something to say on the subject. So rather than bore you with my own holiday thoughts I thought I would share with you the christmas wishes from across the atheosphere.

Ebonmuse's Solstice Sermon over at Daylight Atheism

The date of the solstice was no small thing to the agrarian societies of the past, where understanding the cycle of the seasons and knowing when to plant crops was a matter of life or death. Today, a fossil-fuel-powered global economy can grow food wherever it's warm and ship it wherever it's needed, buffering us First Worlders from the vicissitudes of climate. Nevertheless, there are millions of people even today for whom getting enough food is a very real and pressing dilemma.

Debunking Christianity's Marlene Winelle asks What Child is This?

This is not the Christ child or just a symbol of hope. This is the Child we all know is still present but may be lost or buried. Our life patterns, our “personalities,” our many roles, our anxieties, our regrets, our plans, our endless thoughts, all conspire to distance us from who we once were – infants with magical capability for presence and joy.

VJack of Atheist Revolution shares his thoughts on an Atheist Christmas

Some atheists seem to have developed a complex around their participation in Christmas. They try to justify their participation by claiming that Christmas has become thoroughly secularized in the U.S., promoting Winter Solstice, or even referring to themselves as "cultural Christians." I'm not sure if these efforts are directed at other atheists, Christians, or themselves, but I have my suspicions. In any case, they strike me as completely unnecessary.

Greta Christina sits us down for a talk on The True Meaning of Christmas

Let's sing. Let's decorate. Let's eat and drink. Let's light candles and put up electric lights. Let's have parties. Let's visit our families and our friends. Let's give each other presents. Let's spend time together that's specifically devoted to enjoying each other's company, and take part in activities -- like gift- giving and parties and big group dinners -- that strengthen social bonds.
Let's remind ourselves that life is worth living, and that the cold and dark won't be here forever. Let's remind ourselves that we care about each other, and remind ourselves of why.

That's what this holiday means to me.

Hemant Mehta the Friendly Atheist encourages us to give the gift of Freethought this year

For everyone who comments on sites like this and others, it is often said it’s all talk and not enough action.

One way to take action is to support the myriad groups who work to spread rational thought and church/state separation.

Consider making it a New Year’s Resolution this year to donate to one or more of these organizations. I do it. I give to a number of freethought groups. It’s not because I have the money to throw around — I don’t — but I’d rather my money go to these non-profits than so many other places where my donation would go virtually unnoticed.

ExChristian.net explores the Mythic Origins of Christmas

Most Americans know how Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25: The Emperor Constantine chose the date because it was winter solstice in the Julian Calendar, the birthday of dying and rising gods like Mithra and Sol. Some people also know that our delightful melange of Christmas festivities originated in ancient Norse, Sumerian, Roman and Druid traditions - or, in the case of Rudolph, on Madison Avenue.

But where does the Christmas story itself come from: Jesus in the manger, the angels and wise men?

And finally there's the Newtonmass Edition of the Carnival of the Godless at Skeptico.

That’s all very well, but recently I’ve become aware of the war on Newtonmass (TWON). Apparently many Christians, not content with appropriating the Winter solstice celebrations that take place today (Happy Solstice to any pagans reading), and the celebrations and customs of other religions, now want to appropriate the Newtonmass holiday too. They are even calling TWON, “the war on Christmas.” How dumb is that? So I’m going to start with several posts that comment on this absurd “war.” Here goes…

Until the next war on christmas, Happy Holidays.

New Schedule

2008-12-20T00:43:00.001-06:00

Sorry folks, no posting this weekend. After consulting with top voodoo economists and SEO specialists I have decided to move the posting schedule to Thursdays. This is temporary until I get more data on the optimal day to post. So until then I'm going to give you a taste of blog posts I have in the works. As my more seasoned readers will know this is no guarantee that any of these posts will ever see the light of day, but it's a bone to those of you who came so far for so little.

Why I Enjoy the West Wing

A look at the virtues of this show and why it so appeals to me.

The Legislating Thought Objection

I want to examine the objection to hate crimes legislation which claims such laws are legislating thought.

The State as Other

This one's going to be a little controversial so I'll just leave you with the cryptic title and this enigmatic description. Yes, I know, I'm a master of suspense.

Moral Defeatism

Some go beyond realism and pragmatism about what is and what ought. They take the is to be so intractable as to make the ought meaningless. This is moral defeatism and it can only serve to impede ethical progress.

In Defense of Ideology

A great deal of hay has been made over the evils of ideology and the virtues of pragmatism. Is my conception of ideology different from those being maligned or is ideology getting a bad name to score some political points?

Political News from Around the Web

2008-12-16T14:27:00.008-06:00

There have been so many good articles out lately I had to share.

Ezra Klein examines the state of the progressive tax system and finds:

In 1979, the top one percent brought home 9.3 percent of the national income -- which is to say, for every $100 paid in wages, $9.30 went to the top one percent -- and paid 15.4 percent of federal taxes. The ratio of tax share to income share was 1.65. Their tax burden was 1.65 times larger than their income share. In 2005, they brought home 18.1 percent of the national income -- it had doubled -- and paid 27.6 percent of federal taxes. The ration was 1.52. In other words, it has gone down. The rich pay less taxes as a share of their income than they did in the 1970s, and they control much more of the nation's wealth.

ThinkProgress reports on a new conservative meme, "The Iraqis are Ungrateful for everyhting we've done for them". Or is it to them?

Even President Bush is confused about Iraqis’ frustration, telling Bob Woodward, “I don’t understand that the Iraqis are not appreciative of what we’ve done for them.” Woodward explained, “He thinks we’ve done this magnificent thing for them. I think he still holds to that position.”

The American Prospect takes a critical look at the claim that the housing bubble was the direct result of liberal policies toward minority home owners.

This is classic rhetoric of conservative reaction. (For fans of welfare policy, it is Charles Murray meets the mortgage mess.) Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure. Believing the bubble would never pop, lenders approved risky adjustable-rate mortgages, often without considering whether borrowers could afford them; families took on those loans; investors bought them in securitized form; and, all the while, regulators sat on their hands.

Matthew Yglesias asks why southern republicans fought so hard against the bailout and wonder whether it had something to do with their relationship to foreign car companies.

This is, of course, but a small slice of the larger southern politics tradition which has always insisted since the end of the Civil War that cheap labor and a low-tax, low-service, high-inequality social and economic system are the key to prosperity. This approach left the South perennially poorer than the rest of the country, but over the past couple of decades this made-in-dixie failed approach to economic development has come to dominate national policy. Not coincidentally, during this period the United States has begun to fall behind high-wage, high-service, low-inequality northern European countries in terms of average living standards.

Empty Wheel points out the lack of coverage of UAW's repeated sacrifices at the bargaining table.

And here's what the AP didn't report (I'm sure it was just an oversight, really).

In its contract last year, the UAW made painful concessions, adopting a two-tier wage structure, such that new employees make just $12 to $15 an hour. The move is projected to bring the American manufacturers in line with their Japanese rivals' non-union labor costs in the near future.

In addition, the union has taken responsibility for providing retiree healthcare, thereby eliminating one of the last remaining competitive disadvantages for the American manufacturers' unionized workforce as compared to their Japanese rivals.

With these agreements, the UAW has managed to save jobs, while still providing the superior labor force that leads most segments (big PDF, see page 10-11) in terms of the most efficient plants measured in hours per vehicle.

The UAW's workers have made deep concessions to ensure American-owned auto industry remains competitive with its foreign competitors. Now that the American-owned manufacturers have eliminated some of the structural disadvantages that gave foreign competitors a market advantage, it would be a terrible waste for its country not to do what's necessary to sustain American manufacturing though this tough financial period.

Then there's Nobel Laureate in Economics Joseph Stiglitz piece in Vanity Faire entitled "Capitalist Fools" in which he lays out what he has deduced to be the cause of our financial meltdown.

The truth is most of the individual mistakes boil down to just one: a belief that markets are self-adjusting and that the role of government should be minimal. Looking back at that belief during hearings this fall on Capitol Hill, Alan Greenspan said out loud, "I have found a flaw." Congressman Henry Waxman pushed him, responding, "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right; it was not working." "Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan said. The embrace by America--and much of the rest of the world--of this flawed economic philosophy made it inevitable that we would eventually arrive at the place we are today.

And just for fun, don't forget to check out Tom Tommorow's This Modern World with "The Attack of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market" from Salon.com.

Introducing a New Voice

2008-12-13T13:28:00.004-06:00

A wise man's kingdom is his own breast: or, if he ever looks farther, it will only be to the judgment of a select few, who are free from prejudices, and capable of examining his work.
-- David Hume

Perhaps I should have done this first but there is a new voice here at the apple of doubt. Eris Totle is an IT professional who works in programming and is a certified instructor as well. Trained in rhetoric and biblical studies he's a former minister who has rejected christianity and now espouses a belief system approaching humanism. On top of all that he's my brother, in the literal sense. We grew up several years apart so we have enough similarities to argue for days with enough differences that our viewpoints are markedly different. His addition to the blog will, I believe, bring a new balance to the blog as he's moderate in many areas, especially those in which I find myself radical. All his posts will be categorized as normal but with an additional label of "Eris Totle". We'll consider this a an open-thread for any questions for or about him. Welcome, bro.

The Right to Take - Guest Post

2008-12-07T11:43:00.008-06:00

Why are we consistently so ready to throw away the rights of others to make us feel more comfortable? Today is Pearl Harbor day. In response to what was a legitimate and horrific tragedy, one of the responses of the United States was to round up everyone we could find who was Japanese or of Japanese heritage and throw them into internment camps. To make the rest of America feel safer, we decided to take an entire segment of the US population and lock them away. We withdrew the rights of some to protect the rights of others.

Though this had been widely recognized as a tragedy of its own, a human rights sneak attack, we were all too ready as a country to repeat it after 9/11 by creating Guantanamo. Though many recognize it for what it is today, how sad of a chapter it will be in history to see that we keep repeating this mistake.

Unfortunately, our voracious appetite for stripping the rights of those we perceive of as enemies is not confined to those of other nationalities, other skin tones or other countries. California showed the spirit is alive and well when Proposition 8 recently passed. The voters demonstrated their willingness to strip a right that they themselves enjoy just because they disagreed with or felt wronged by those who held it.

When will we recognize that any effort we make to take away the rights of others, regardless of how justified we feel in the effort, reduces us all and will be proven by history to to be the tragedy it is?

Technorati Tags: pearl harbor, japanese internment, world war 2, rights, japanese americans, civil rights

Cold Water - Tom Waits

2008-12-01T09:00:00.001-06:00

Well I woke up this morning, with the cold water
with the cold water, with the cold water
Woke up this morning, with the cold water
with the cold water, with the cold

Police at the station, and the don´t look friendly
Well they don´t look friendly, Well they don´t look friendly
Police at the station, and they don´t look friendly
They don´t look friendly well,they don´t...

Blind or crippled, Sharp or dull
I´m reading the bible, by a 40 watt bulb
What price freedom, Dirt is my rug
Well I sleep like a baby, with the snakes and the bugs

Well the stores are open, but I ain´t got no money
well I ain´t got no money, well I ain´t got no money
Stores are open but, but I ain´t got no money
ain´t got no money, Well I ain´t...

Found an old dog a, and he seems to like me
seems to like me, Well he seems to like me
Found an old dog and he, seems to like me
seems to like me, well he seems...

See them fellows with the card board signs
scrapin up a little money to buy a bottle of wine
Pregnat women and, the Vietnam vets
I say beggin on the freeway bout as hard as it gets

Well I slept in the graveyard, it was cool and still
cool and still, it was cool and still
Slept in the graveyard, it was cool and still
cool and still and it, was cool...

Slept all night in, the Cedar grove
I was born to ramble, born yo rove
Some men are searchin for the holy grail
but there ain´t nothin sweeter than ridin the rails

I look 37 but I´m 24,
they shooed me away from here the time before,
Turned there their backs and they locked their doors,
I´m watchin T.V. in the window of a furniture store

Well I woke up this morning, with the cold water
with the cold water, with the cold water
Woke up this morning, with the cold water
with the cold water, with the cold...

Fascinating Founding Father's Filler

2008-11-15T17:27:00.003-06:00

It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union.

-- James Madison, The Federalist No. 45

Thoughts on Voting for Obama

2008-11-08T09:00:00.002-06:00

It is a rare thing for that which enters your eyes to simultaneously enter a history book.
-- Patrick Tucker

As I watched President-Elect Obama’s acceptance speech in the late hours of the night I was struck with a singular sensation; a feeling of being unstuck in time, a disorienting unreality. It was the feeling one gets from witnessing history. I felt an equally intense, though negative, feeling as I watched from a classroom as two planes flew into downtown New York on September 11th. Witnessing an event that you know will be spoken of by generations to come. The past generations have the moon landing and the death of president Kennedy, but my generation has 9/11 and the first non-white president in the industrialized west.

It doesn’t matter, as far as history’s record is concerned, whether Obama will be a great president or whether he will languish on the vine like a Carter or a Hoover. The very fact of his election creates a moment in the history books. Not a foot note, not a mention, but a new chapter of American history. Yet with the impressive electoral victory and the impressive resurgence of liberalism in america’s voting record I have genuine hope in the future president’s administration. At least in rhetoric President-Elect Obama appeals to the warmth of human brotherhood, the egalitarianism that marks this country’s liberal tradition. Though I’m certain that the old familiar cynicism will splash me in the face like cold water come January but for now I feel true hope for meaningful progressive change in America.

This leads me to the source of Obama’s success; he is a leader of men. Look at the greatest presidents in history like Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and you will see that the essence of statecraft is skillful rhetoric. Speechcraft is not simply a parlor trick for obfuscation, though obviously it can be, but an invaluable part of leadership. The great speakers from the times of Athenian democracy have used their talent to inspire those capable of making a difference and guiding those who would heed them through times of desperation. Franklin Roosevelt’s personal magnetism lead our nation through the one the most destructive wars in history. Ronald Reagan became such a beloved president through his numerous televised appeals to the American public.

George H. W. Bush was a president so far removed from the day to day of the country that to many he appeared to emerge only when announcing some unpopular piece of legislation and then slinked away off to his ranch. Dwight Eisenhower, despite the popularity from his military career, was said to have played golf more often than take meetings. Dick Cheney became famous for his “undisclosed location” and the google maps blackout of his residence at the naval observatory. Aloof presidents and vice-presidents are not leaders of men. The people need a strong voice to instill confidence and a steady figurehead to invest their hopes in.

For his leadership ability and giving strong voice to the ideals of liberalism I believe Obama has the potential to be a great president. This is the one of the two reasons why I voted for Barack Obama. The other is a subject for many blog posts to come, why I believe the left has the answer to the question of good government.

Technorati Tags: obama, president, election, speech, history

$29.00 - Tom Waits

2008-11-01T11:59:00.001-05:00

Little black girl, in a red dress, on a hot night, with a broken shoe
Little black girl, you should've never left home
There's probably someone still waitin' up for you
It's cold back in Chicago, but the Los Angeles street is worse
All you got is twenty-nine dollars and an alligator purse

See that vulture in the Fleetwood, with the chartreuse hood
Sees you're tryin' to get your bearings
Say, 'Hey baby, which way's the main stem?'
Wherever you say you're from, he'll say he grew up there himself
He gonna come on and make you feel
like you grew up right next door to him
'Take a left on Central', he gonna throw it in reverse
All you got is twenty-nine dollars and an alligator purse

He gonna come on just like a gentleman
And oh baby, you're gonna be a little shy
You say your ex-old man was a sax player
He says, 'Baby, I used to play bass with Sly
And you say you like his Cadillac
Says 'Honey, I got two or three
Sweetheart, you're sure fortunate that you ran into me'
You've done a dime in the joint, you figure nothin' could be worse
than twenty-nine dollars and an alligator purse

Got Pharoh on 8-track, you start smokin' a little boo
Thinkin' gettin' out of Chicago was just about
the best thing that's ever happened to you
You startin' to like it already, this cat seems to be cool
He says, 'Baby, I know a good hotel out in West-Hollywood
that's just right for you'
He ain't no good Samaritan, he gonna make sure he's reimbursed
A lot more than twenty-nine dollars and an alligator purse

When the streets get hungry baby you can almost hear 'em growl
Someone's savin' a place for you, when the dogs begin to howl
Wehn the streets are dead,
they creep up and take whatever's left on the bone
And remember suckers always make mistakes
that far away from home
Chicken in the pot, whoever gets there first, is gonna get themselves
twenty-nine dollars and an alligator purse

The siren's just an epilogue, the cops here always get there too late
They always stop for coffee on their way to the scene of the crime
They always try so hard to look just like movie stars
But they couldn't catch a cold
Baby, don't waste your dime
'She's lucky to be alive', the doctor whispered to the nurse,
'She only lost half a pint of blood twenty-nine dollars and an alligator purse'

The Times Journal - Democrats Rally to the Cause

2008-10-31T09:00:00.000-05:00

The following is the local newspaper article concerning the democratic rally I wrote of in my previous blog post. I am paraphrased with some accuracy and I thought it wise to include another local perspective on the event. So here is the article courtesy of the Times Journal and reporter Derek Aaron.

Currently there are 3,124 registered Democrats in Russell County, and Russell County Democratic Chair Lou Ann Flanagan is urging all of them to make their voice heard come Nov. 4.

That was the theme of the night at the Russell County Democrat Fall Rally Tuesday as more than 50 county Democrats joined together to talk about the upcoming election.

"We've had a lot of dissension in this party, we had a lot of people in Kentucky that were for Hillary Clinton," Flanagan said. "But Obama is our candidate."

Flanagan said that the party must unite and people must get out and vote in order for Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden to take control of the White House.

Two ladies in attendance, Kimberly Taylor and Gail Taylor, were adamant about getting Obama elected and supplied the rallly with Obama-Biden signs and stickers.

"I believe (Obama) is capable and brilliant and I think he is going to change the country," Kimberly said. She said she has followed Obama for four years and predicted in a college speech class in 2004 that he would one day be president.

Kimberly said that she believed Obama could have made a better choice for a running mate but that Biden may bring to the table some things that Obama may be lacking, such as his foreign policy experience in the Senate.

"Every day we become more of a global society and I think electing these two will not only change America, it will change the world," Gail Taylor said.

Kimberly Taylor said she spent more than $200 over the last few weeks ordering merchandise from www.barackobama.com to give to her Democrat friends to try and urge all of them to come out and support the Illinois senator on Election Day.

"People wanted stuff so I volunteered to go online and order stuff, to pay the $50 extra for express shipping to get it here before the election," she said.

Taylor said the she believed Obama appealed to the 30 and under age group because as a younger generation they didn't grow up with the same ideologies and views that previous generations had.

"I think they're more accepting of people, in general," she said. "They are more capable at looking at the candidate for who he is versus anything else."

Both said they respected Obama's Republican opponent, John McCain, and what he has done for his country, both in the military and in the U.S. Senate, but that they felt it was time for a change.

"He's been in the Washington culture for way too long," she said of McCain. "I think his choice of someone as unseasoned as (Alaska Gov.) Sarah Palin as a vice president shows his judgment, period."

The Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's largest newspaper, endorsed Obama last weekend after saying that Gov. Sarah Palin was "too risky" to be the nation's vice president. Taylor pointed to that as a key strike against McCain in the election's final days.

Two more attendees, Casey Tucker, 24, and Derrick Ping, 21, both said Obama was closest to their political ideologies.

Tucker said he believed there had always been a liberal youth movement and that he thought it would show itself come Election Day. He pointed to Obama as being a young, energetic candidate with fresh ideas as to why he appealed to voters in his age range.

Ping said he liked Obama's healthcare plans and that he was going to focus on getting the struggling economy back on track.

Flanagan also spoke on the upcoming U.S. Senate race between Sen. Mitch McConnell and his Democrat opponent, Bruce Lunsford, and how important it was for state Democrats to "retire" McConnell.

Colmon Elridge, an executive assistant to Gov. Steve Beshear, spoke to those in attendance after the meal was served.

"Where do you want to be in four years?" he asked. "That's what this election is all about."

After a 30-minute speech to the Democratic crowd which included much support to Lunsford and Obama, Elridge closed by saying "When we wake up on Nov. 5th, I hope we don't have to ask 'What if?'"

Before the rally closed, Flanagan also recognized Russell County's outgoing property valuation administrator, Rodney Owens, who is retiring this week after more than 30 years of service in the courthouse.

Democrat Rally in the Bible Belt

2008-10-30T09:00:00.003-05:00

Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen.
-- Dwight Eisenhower

A little more than two weeks before the election the Republican party of Kentucky held a rally at the courthouse steps in my little hometown. It was surprising, because Mitch McConnell himself showed up to campaign in a county so heavily republican that save for the national races was uncontested. So in inevitable response the democratic party decided to hold a rally a week or so afterward.

It was held on a chilly October night at our counties middle school (that’s Jr. High for my more cosmopolitan readers). I arrived with a few members of my family a little early and was struck by the extensive remodeling that had been done to the middle school since my time. It was transformed. I was also struck by the prominent ten commandments plaque hanging on a wall a few feet inside the cafeteria’s entrance way. I could have sworn that multiple federal judges had struck down such displays, but I’ll leave that matter to our local branch of the ACLU whom I contacted shortly thereafter. This should have been my first clue that tonight would drive home a topic that has been bantered about in the atheosphere for sometime.

The crowd was sizeable, considering the redness of the county, with forty or so people not counting a few organizers. It was the standard county demographics, mostly grey haired couples with a smattering of lower-middle class families and a few teenagers. I even met an elderly woman who spoke to me and others about her childhood memories of hoovervilles and depression era poverty. It was not the edges of society nor the ivory tower intellectuals of republican myth but the rank and file of my bible belt community.

In the past the atheist community online have brought attention to the increasing Christianization of the democratic party. I saw it first hand at the rally. It opened with a sectarian prayer heralded with the pronouncement, “We are democrats but we are also christians”. It was this sectarian prayer that prompted a fellow godless attendee to say, “So I suppose this means I’m not a democrat”. I suppose that it could be wracked up to a Progressive Christian attempt to reclaim their “moral high ground” from American fundamentalism but I think instead it is just a symptom of the deeply engrained southern culture. It is, after all, the bible belt.

A free meal was offered to the attendees, nothing fancy, during which I was approached by a reporter from the local paper who was snapping pictures and asking questions. Apparently I was recognized from high school days by this reporter who had a few questions for me. I was asked why I support Barack Obama, a question I plan to devote a larger blog post to. My answer was that he was the best of limited options, the major candidate who comes closest to my personal political ideology. And further he questioned why it is that Obama appeals to a younger generation. As I told him we are in war time with a failing economy and it brings back flashes of the hippy generation. There has always been an undertone of liberal youth that surges up from apathy from time to time. This phenomena is triggered this time around by Obama’s relative youth and a better job at energizing the base than the democrats have done in the past eight years. I will post the article when it is available.

The speaker for the event was not a candidate even though the local Republican Party featured a United States Senator. Instead the crowd was treated to a speech by political operative for Governor Beshear. While he was seemingly unprepared his public speaking skills were above average and he had a good sense of humor. The topic of the talk was two-fold. Bruce Lundsford was the focus of many of these talking points, to the exclusion of Barack Obama. At first this puzzled me until during his speech the presenter of the evening made a call for unity in the party. I was reminded that Kentucky was a Clinton state in the primary. An ardent Clinton supporter (both of them) the presenter urged on the crowd to vote for the principles of the democratic party over

Of course the standard slogans and talking points were thrown out. The economic elite are profiting at the expense of the working man. We need to invest in education. We need jobs that worth having and not just more minimum wage seat fillers. The republican politician’s are a friend of Wall Street and not main street and so forth. It’s fascinating the melding of southern small-town communitarianism with American liberal’s pseudo-collectivism. There can be no denying that socialism and its related schools of thought have had an impact on the progression of liberal theory. If nothing else it has had a profound impact on the advertisement of liberal ideals.

There was noting spectacular about this rally save for a more complete look into bible belt liberalism. My county is deeply red and antagonistically fundamentalist. The democratic minority is at once both committed and respectful. Yet despite their progressive politics I still received disgusted looks at the mention of my atheism and no doubt any mention of homosexuality would have received equally disdainful gazes. It is, after all, the bible belt. Despite it’s failings this meeting gave me hope that despite a growing culture of partisanship and anti-intellectualism even a small town American can come to accept ideals I hold in esteem.

Technorati Tags: democrat, rally, bible belt, kentucky, secular values, secular politics, politics and religion

Mother Night - Film Review

2008-10-25T11:38:00.003-05:00

Mother Night is the film version of Kurt Vonnegut’s novel of the same name which follows the life, and death, of Howard W. Campbell Jr.(played gloriously by Nick Nolte). Campbell is an American whose family moved to pre-world war two Germany where he made a name for himself as a playwright and eventually a propagandist in Hitler’s government. From there he is recruited to be a double agent for the allies during the war. The movie itself however begins at the end with Campbell held in an Israeli prison on charges of war crimes and asked to write his memoirs.

The film, I cannot speak for the book as I regrettably have not read it, is a study into the fragility of personality. The moral of the story, we are told, is that, “You must be careful who you pretend to be because in the end you are what you pretend to be”. Campbell is first presented as an idealist bourgeois artist whose tie to Germany is his intense love of Helga (played by Sheryl Lee), his wife and star actress in his plays. When he is presented with the opportunity to spy for the Americans under the guise of a Nazi propagandist it is not out of any sense of nationalism that he is won over but by his own overdeveloped sense of adventure, for lack of a better word. After being confronted by a war department agent (played by John Goodman) Campbell says, “It was every playwright’s secret dream, to create the most challenging role I could imagine and then play the part myself”.

Of course Howard Campbell dives headlong into his role as double agent by becoming a radio personality in war time Germany. His dedication to his role becomes ceaseless until even his unguarded reactions are those of Nazi. ...Because in the end you are what you pretend to be. This is seen most strikingly at the end of the film where his older haggard self views archival footage of his mad rants. Yet despite this the one place where he retains who he is, is in his proclaimed “nation of two”. His love for his wife becomes an anchor to sanity. Yet out of his love for her he hides the truth of his spying; hiding, he says, his true self from her. So when he loses Helga to the ravages of war his hold on sanity weakens.

As the war comes to a close Campbell is captured and released to a life of solitude and anonymity in New York City. He dines every night with the memory of his departed wife and listens to war surplus copies of White Christmas. In time he decides to take up a hobby and he finds himself whittling a chess set, as he says, “In my solitude I created something that could only be used in concert with another human being”. And so Campbell seeks out a neighbor for a game of chess and a friendship is formed with one George Kraft (played excellently by Alan Arkin). The two bond over the loss of their wives and in time Campbell reveals his true self to his new found friend, and discovers a surprising level of acceptance and companionship.

After rebuilding his sanity through friendship a group of over the top, and strangely comedic, white supremacists track him down in order to show their admiration and present a gift. Campbell is presented with Resi, posing as her deceased older sister Helga, and the anchor of romanticism, the nation of two, that kept him sane these long years is made even stronger despite the initial deception. In time Campbell comes to love Resi even if that love is only a manifestation of his longing for Helga. Resi, who does reveal her true identity, still tries so hard to be live up to Campbells vision of who Helga was. Yet even this newfound happiness is disrupted when Campbell’s existence is broadcast in the media and for his own protection he is secreted away by the white supremacists. There he is confronted one last time by his “Blue Fairy Godmother”, the almost spectral war department agent that recruited him.

Campbell is confronted with the awful truth that his best friend Kraft and the new love of his life are actually Russian spies sent to lure him into their grasp. This final blow strikes especially hard as the last anchor to sanity he has, his love of Helga now transferred to Resi, is broken. No longer willing to live and die for his “nation of two” Campbell destroys the façade that Resi has constructed. She pleads with him to give her something new to live for but after all hope has been taken from him so he leaves her with nothing but a shattered illusion. The truth of it all it too much for poor Resi and she takes her own life as American agents raid their hiding place.

Campbell is captured and released, deposited back on the streets of New York with nothing left to live for. All that he is has been destroyed yet again, for the last time. He stands frozen, empty, with nothing left of his own personality. So in a despondent haze he returns to his old vandalized apartment and surrenders to his jewish neighbors in order to be taken to stand trial for his actions. Intermittently throughout the film he is shown commiserating with other prisoners and even guards and the weight of guilt, guilt he claims he taught himself not to feel, bares down on him. The final straw, heaped among so many others, is a letter from his “Blue Fairy Godmother” promising to testify on his behalf. This reprieve of sorts, this glimmer of hope, is too much for Campbell. Fearing his own freedom he dispenses poetic justice, hanging himself with the spools of his typewriter.

This film is truly amazing with Nolte’s performance through it all heartbreaking. From his attempt to comfort Helga’s young sister about her nihilistic wait for death at the hands of the coming Russians to his slow rebuilding of his life from the grip of solitude. Throughout the action is narrated from the perspective of the memoir with moody reflections of a fractured past. The supporting cast prove an excellent foil to Nolte’s sad lost soul. The cast as a whole is phenomenal save for the out of place, seemingly satirical, white supremacists that appear toward the end of the film. Music and lighting drive home the tone of every scene. A whole experience is created for the viewer.

Mother Night is an incredible study of self-deception and the destruction of self-image under the weight of tragedy, loneliness, and guilt. Throughout it all Campbell anchors his sanity to his love for Helga and this is eventually his undoing. Romance and tragedy, very Shakespearean save for the occasional bits of dark comedy and the incredibly introspective tone of the whole picture. The story is powerful and the acting is top notch. So much falls outside of my short two-page description and must be experienced to be appreciated and so I must thoroughly recommend this film.

I give it a letter grade of: A

Technorati Tags: film reviews, Kurt Vonnegut, mother night

Diary of the Dead - Film Review

2008-10-18T11:30:00.003-05:00

Diary of the Dead is a zombie film that follows the exploits and misadventures of a handful of film students and their professor as they trek across back roads trying to hunt down family and eventually shelter. The fifth entry in the waning George Romero “Dead” series is presented as a film within a film. Every scene and piece of dialogue takes place within the context of a student video journal that captures those old familiar horrors of the zombie apocalypse. This is certainly a departure from Romero’s previous work and it shows. The main idea is that everything you are seeing was shot first hand by survivors in this world of the dead rising.

However one can’t help but notice how the lighting is just too perfect and how, despite the supposed spontaneous filming and the hard grungy trek in a broken down Winnebago, all the characters seem to be wearing a lot of make-up. The first day I could understand make-up on the females and maybe one or two males but not the other four male characters and certainly not after so seemingly arduous a journey. The special effects stand out with arrows flying through skulls, heads melting colorfully after being exposed to acid (although the victim’s shirt is somehow immune), and the general gore effects are all just a bit too jarring. In a standard motion picture one can more easily suspend their disbelief since they are not being told that each frame is meant to be a true testament or if the obviously cgi blood wasn’t captured on a handi-cam.

Aside from the amateur documentarian feel the film doesn’t break any new ground. The media is lying, citizens are banding together, the military runs amok, humanity becomes brutalized by exposure to the mayhem, and the survivors must confront the horrible reality of having to shoot friends and family members. My, I do have a thing for lists today. So does this film though, it’s like Romero took out a checklist of zombie apocalypse themes and checked them off one at a time making sure to give each one a little screen time. The story is not a bad one per say but it’s nothing that stands out to, what has become, standard zombie fare. It does stand out however when compared with Romero’s previous work.

The first three films of the “Dead” series were one part horror to two parts angst and they worked well, exploring the shock and disgust of the survivors and then their eventual acceptance and loss of all hope. The theme of suicide in Dawn of the Dead was both shocking and intense, but in Diary it feels as if these themes are thrown in haphazardly over the character interaction. A suicide attempt is made but it’s unexpected, almost tacked on. Taking one’s own life isn’t discussed or even fretted over but instead is just a excuse to go to the hospital and check “have character kill former friend” off the list. The initial three films explored social reaction to the horror but in Diary the reaction is one of muted acceptance. There is only the smallest of initial panic and the grief vanishes from the topic of conversation quickly. Where is the emotional depth of the classic “Dead” series?

The characters range from tired old clichés to nameless faceless seat fillers. The male lead is behind the camera for ninety percent of the film only appearing to give a speech about the need for journalism and to be killed. His girlfriend, the narrator, is irrationally furious at the fact that her boyfriend is documenting the horror. There is also the professor who appears at the start of the film with a horrendously clichéd drunken accent but who later is revealed to be a shockingly good athlete and war veteran not only capable of doing what must be done but also of philosophically consoling his pupils. This change is rather sudden and unexpected by the characters and audience alike. Unless you’re making a slasher flick your audience shouldn’t be surprised, they should have their fears or hopes confirmed. The rest of the cast is hardly there. We have the sarcastic friend, the frat boy who dies after about five minutes of screen time, the clichéd Texas girl, the emotionally fragile driver of the Winnebago who has just slightly less screen time than the jock, and an oddly effeminate nerd who meets a homoerotic end. As you can see some of these characters were almost added as an afterthought without any real investment in them.

The acting is generally mediocre with low moments such as the hammy introduction and the cold lifeless fights over filming. However there are good pieces of acting, especially the speech given by the professor in the hospital. Otherwise there is not much to tell save for the fact that due to a slightly flat delivery and poor writing it is difficult to care for any of the characters. There is not much depth given to them by the script or the actors save, again, for the professor who pours so much emotion into his character at certain points you wish that the story actually gave him more than a single minor soliloquy. One sure signs that the characters were not likeable enough is that I cannot remember a single name, but instead have them categorized in my head by archetype.

What stands out are the rather odd scenes and pieces of self-reference. Two parts of the film in particular felt so out of step with what it wanted to accomplish the rest of the time. The opening scene where the male lead is filming a horror movie for his class. Repeated self-references are made to Romero’s movies. The “mummy” is instructed to shamble, not run, referring to the difference in how undead are portrayed in classic versus modern zombie films. The Texan girl asks why women in horror movies always fall and lose their shoes, taking a feminist jab at the portrayal of Barabara in Night of the Living Dead. When the lead is mocked for his choice of horror film the professor defends him saying that it is actually finely tuned social commentary, lampooning the symbolism often read into Romero’s films. Far too self-referential and meta, it takes one out of the story instead of aiding the viewer to suspend their disbelief. Add to the list of oddities the oddball deaf amish man, the clichéd black leader, and the bizarre chase scene at the end of the film.

Overall the film is a must see by Romero fans if for no other reason than to confirm your fears that he has lost that mojo that made the “Dead” series so good. Otherwise rent it if you are in the mood for shaky-cam horror and you’ve already seen the blair witch project and cloverfield.

I give the movie a letter grade of: C

Technorati Tags: film review, zombies, horror

Conservative Victimhood

2008-10-03T11:59:00.002-05:00

All claims of the right, in other words, advance from victimhood. Even though republicans legislate in the interests of society’s most powerful, and even though conservative social critics typically enjoy cushy sinecures at places like the American Enterprise Institute and the Wall Street Journal, they rarely claim to speak on behalf of the wealthy of the winners in the social Darwinist struggle. Just like the leftists of the early twentieth century, they see themselves in revolt against a genteel tradition, rising up against a bankrupt establishment that will tolerate no backtalk. Conservatism, on the other hand, can never be powerful or successful, and backlashers revel in fantasies of their own marginality and persecution.
-- Thomas Frank

It is the traditional canard of modern conservatism that liberals are in the business of making people into victims. According to the a.m. radio shock jocks American democrats have created an election strategy that involves making voters feel like victims in order for liberalism to save them. Conservative bloggers are fond of highlighting race relations, feminism, poverty, and GLBT rights as topics under which democrats create a “victim culture”. It’s a common call from pundits and malcontents that liberals want to make people feel like victims that need help while conservatives want to empower people to be independent. Yet conservatives also employ this tactic for getting out the vote.

Religious conservatives are enamored with Matthew 5:11 which speaks of the holiness of those that are persecuted for their faith. In modern Christian right literature we see this obsession with persecution manifest again and again. Cultural conservatives decry the victim-culture of minority groups while holding up the white male as persecuted minority. Jonah Goldberg, editor of the conservative opinion magazine National Review, wrote in his infamous book that, “The white male is the Jew of liberal fascism”. Economic conservatives use the language of the common man being oppressed by fat-cat bureaucrats and special interests. Modern conservatives play the so called “victim card” as often as liberals. While presenting your ideology as a solution to a problem is not an underhanded approach but to do so while attacking your opponent for using the same rhetorical device is simply hypocritical. While certainly not all conservatives are guilty of this, an alarming number of public proponents have waded hip deep into hypocrisy.

This accusation of victim culture rings hollow considering the hypocrisy and even more so considering what is being attacked. Every political activist frames their position as a solution to a given problem. The problem is presented as a malignant social force. For some it’s poverty, sin, hate, or fascism. And the activist presents his ideology as the solution to that problem. Religious conservatives present secularism as the problem and institutionalized religion as the solution. Civil rights activists present discrimination as the problem and legislation as the solution. Even libertarians regularly make use of the image of the oppressed individual yearning for their concept of liberty. This is a common rhetorical device to advance your position.

The cries of victimhood and dependence are often little more than rhetoric. Every ideology cries out that the world is a horrible place and that only through their wisdom can you bring about utopia. Victimhood is not only the wrong term for this style of argumentation but it’s a misleading term, the sole purpose of which is to paint political enemies as leeches and deceivers. Calls of victim-culture may be qualified for some instances but the constant waving of this ad-hominem makes the term near useless for serious discussion. So remember the next time you see liberals decried, as victim-makers and victim fetishists just look and see if what’s really being attacked isn’t just the old slogan, “You have a problem and we have the solution”.

Technorati Tags: conservative, victimhood, politics

All The World Is Green - Tom Waits

2008-10-01T10:00:00.001-05:00

This is the first in a series of posts partly as filler and partly as a way to express my intense fandom of Tom Waits. On the first of every month (schedule subject to change) I will put up either a video or audio sample of a Waits song and include the lyrics below. Sure, this stuff is available elsewhere but it's my blog and I get to put whatever interests me at the time up on it. So to start off with we have a slow melodic tune which contains the beat-era come bukowski style of poetry with which Tom writes his lyrics. Enjoy.

I fell into the ocean
When you became my wife
I risked it all against the sea
To have a better life

Marie you're the wild blue sky
And men do foolish things
You turn kings into beggars
And beggars into kings

Pretend that you owe me nothing
And all the world is green
We can bring back the old days again
And all the world is green

The face forgives the mirror
The worm forgives the plow
The questions begs the answer
Can you forgive me somehow

Maybe when our story's over
We'll go where it's always spring
The band is playing our song again
And all the world is green

Pretend that you owe me nothing
And all the world is green
We can bring back the old days again
And all the world is green

The moon is yellow silver
Oh the things that summer brings
It's a love you'd kill for
And all the world is green

He is balancing a diamond
On a blade of grass
The dew will settle on our grave(s)
When all the world is green

It's Travel Time, It's Carnival Time

2008-09-13T13:00:00.001-05:00

I'm hitting the road this weekend to help my brother move and look for a place to live in Louisville. That's right folks, soon I hope to be back amongst civilization and fresh from the tap alcohol, which amount to the same thing. I have big plans for life in the city, big plans but I won't jinx myself just yet by revealing them here. Instead I have some traditional filler.

It's carnival time and the blogosphere is littered with beads, beer, and anonymous sex. Or maybe not. Still, it's that time of the month when all the great carnivals are posting their newest entries and nothing fills the space like a barrage of linkage. So without further stalling here's this month's great carnivals.

Carnival of the Godless #99
Humanist Symposium #24
Philosopher's Carnival #77
Skeptic's Circle #95
Carnival of the Liberals #73
The Tangled Bank #113

And that's not all. I'm a big fan of the comics and rants of Tim Kreider, a syndicated political cartoonist and web cartoonist. The webcomic version of his work, The Pain When Will it End, is simply hilarious. Recently he posted a comic with a panel that just struck me the right way so I thought I'd share. Remember, all images presented here are copyright Tim Kreider. Don't forget to check out the full comic.

Doubt and Trepidation

2008-09-06T13:00:00.001-05:00

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.
-- Francis Bacon

It appears, and undoubtedly for good reason, that I have devoted much of my recent time to blogging about not blogging. Very existential, but also due to two powerful emotions that assail me whenever I attempt to put my thoughts to paper. In order to write about a topic it is often necessary to take a strong editorial tone. This tone impresses onto the reader not only a sense of confidence but also of wit and identity. Some of the best writers, of both journalism and fiction, are known more for how they say a thing then the words and phrases they actually say. This editorial tone comes not just from experience but also from a basic confidence in your own writings. When you are confident in your arguments and familiar with likely rebuttals your authorial voice is stronger presenting your readers with a more authoritative mental image. Common sense intuitions agree that you are more likely to believe a man confident of his words then one who doubts what he’s saying.

In the past few days and weeks my mind has been occupied with the ideas of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Both of which I currently reject. What has kept me from writing out loud? Well of course I hold each post to a certain standard but the reputation that libertarianism has in the blogosphere puts additional pressure on my editorial zeal. Bryan Caplan, pundit for the econlog blog, once wrote, “...a sure-fire cure for loneliness is to attack Austrian economics...once you argue with the Austrians, you'll never be ignored again!” It is this rather infamous reputation of the libertarian tradition that makes me extremely cautious, no doubt overcautious, as to me blogging.

Doubt. I never understood those who write with the zeal of the prophets, loudly proclaiming the absolute truth of their position. While you’ll find this style most commonly practiced in the fields of religion and political philosophy there are those in every field of study that adopt this editorial voice to argue their position. My inner optimist tells me that these people are of noble intent who honestly believe they’ve stumbled upon the truth. However my outer pessimist has a different theory. He hypothesizes that there are two approaches when dealing with doubt, the neurotic approach by which you are so self-conscious of you ideas you may fail to come to a determination. The other approach is that of the preacher, who acts almost with faith that what he believes is the inalienable truth all the while acting as if no doubt existed. Now obviously there is room between these extremes but you the point is made.

Doubt is universal. Even the greatest thinkers in the realm of epistemology accept doubt as an inescapable aspect of knowledge. Doubt will always exist so long as omniscience is beyond our reach. All of our decisions and beliefs are based on probabilities and incomplete evidence so there is always doubt. Doubt is one thing that makes me reticent to blog about libertarianism. Doubt is ubiquitous, there is doubt concerning other subjects of mine. So what makes my doubt here different? My doubt is deeper and more substantive here then it has been in the past. The issues of moral philosophy and political philosophy intersect with concepts of justice, desert, the state, and so on. Moral philosophy however is an area of great doubts for me. While I have argued for and against these concepts (debate is education, even without actual belief) my conclusions are incomplete.

So for the foreseeable future libertarianism will not be the subject of my blog posts. Until I can garner more knowledge and experience I have great trepidation about my ability to fully defend premises and conclusions. This is by no means a declaration of defeat or incompetence but rather me thinking out loud about my own doubts. These doubts grow sharper the more my lack of knowledge comes into focus. They say beware of those who too openly discuss their modesty, but I feel strongly that this universal sense of doubt I possess is a key to my search for truth. Another reason I am writing this is to further expound on my lack of blogging. I don’t like to blog on something until I am confident in my arguments to the best of my limited intelligence. Now obviously I won’t always meet this goal, but I can try.

So until next time don’t forget to doubt.

Strengthening the Atheist Community

2008-08-13T16:30:00.001-05:00

I think it is the duty of every atheist/agnostic/freethinker/humanist to lift up those among us who present a positive image for our movement and to marginalize those who would serve as a bad example. It would be hypocritical to demand moderate christians to deal with the fundamentalists in their movement but not do the same with the malcontents in our own.

Inspired by a post by Matt Nisbet, a post by the Friendly Atheist, and an episode of the Atheist Experience. This little tidbit is also a prelude to a blog post I am working on regarding the group dynamic that drives people to protect their own.

Netiquette as Social Dysfunction

2008-08-09T11:59:00.003-05:00

Have you ever read a blog where the author repeatedly insults those who disagree with him? Have you ever read a forum in which a poster only references counter arguments, instead using rhetoric and self-aggrandizing assertions? Have you ever read through a site’s comments and found bullies that don’t actually talk to anyone, rather they stand like street preachers screaming their ideology across a crowded street? I’m almost certain you have. Why so sure? Because these problems happen everywhere across the internet. Bile and venom have become the new standards of netiquette.

This new social dysfunction is part and parcel of my disillusionment with debate. Instead of humans interacting with respect and courtesy it’s a bloodbath of back-biting ideologues. Even decent people with whom you share a respectful conversation with over the phone or around the water cooler become socially retarded once their fingers hit the keys. At times there appears no intentional malice. Someone unloads a spiteful bitter rant and when someone takes exception the author stands befuddled. A man yelling a screed against an idea or organization will be ashen faced to see a similar work aimed at his own thoughts.

If you want to see the worst excesses of social idiocy I invite you to examine religion and politics. Let’s take a stroll to any of the top five conservative websites. Libtard, traitor, stalinist. Instead of treating internet discussion like an actual social encounter we have people using this as an excuse to make themselves appear superior and all knowing. Let’s jaunt on down to any of the top five liberal blogs. Nazi, oppressor, greedy. Instead of reasoned disagreement we have primal rage. Rarely can you find a website that truthfully presents the opposition’s viewpoint, endeavors to understand the reasoning, and then disagrees without devolving into poo slinging. It has reached such endemic levels that sites which cater this kind of content have traffic that dwarfs those with tolerant cum-academic presentation. Such a culture of loathing has grown so extensively that a new language of group epithets has sprung up.

Politics and Religion. The two things you’re never supposed to talk about. It seems most Americans are exposed to political dog fights on an almost daily basis through a.m. radio and 24 hour political news. So when some naïve soul goes looking for deeper truths in the series of tubes instead of dense academic treatises, what do they find? Christians are accused by atheists of being cultish and irrational. While atheists are accused of being dogmatic and angry. Their both right, and their both wrong. Again and again I see the xenophobic reactionary Christian with logical fallacies and appeals to emotion. However I also see again and again atheists who don’t construct arguments anymore, they label their opponent with schoolyard names and declare themselves the victor. I see Christians who are willing to believe anything that supports their faith and see atheists who are latching onto ideas without discussion. Atheist sites cry out about bigotry, and they have a point, but then go on to rant about how all Christians are necessarily insane or stupid. There are dogmatic non-believers and angry bitter atheists just as there are bigoted irrational Christians . You can find the bad eggs I’m talking about in the atheosphere and a short trip down to a preaching ministry will show you the bad eggs in the christian blogosphere. I will say that I am not accusing either community as a whole of misconduct, but pointing out a social phenomena that neither group is immune to.

Is this intellectual laziness? Is our thought process so helplessly self-reinforcing that no matter our airs we are sucked back in to slogans and soundbites as truth and arguments just as attempts to justify our preconceive notions? Or is it something else? Is it that the internet is so new and alien that our brains can’t quite make the connection that we’re speaking to real people instead of straw-men of our own subconscious? Maybe it’s worse still. Maybe this is who we really are untempered by custom and the awkward self-restraint that comes with the face to face. Maybe this is our impersonal selves, with such fragile ego that we must lash out at anyone with a different concept of truth than our own, lest we be shown incorrect and have our intelligence questioned. Perhaps it is learned behavior. We see those preening self-righteous kings-of-the-hill in forums and comments to be the ones that shout down the competition, who out stubborn, who think of the better insults. People often leave sites they feel this animosity from, concentrating opinion into cliques of like minds. When someone leaves it’s a victory of your ideology, when you’re the majority you feel the thrill of others believing you to be right, and with each new self-reinforcing voice a clique becomes more like a cult. Cults of ideology where orthodoxy is rewarded with the praise of the mass and heterodoxy is punished with excommunication or segregation.

Of course, this is not a universal problem. In jovial matters like games and television we often find communities built on laughing and respectful communication. In local groups and mutual-aide societies we find a tone of inclusion and amenability. Those who become disenchanted with this cage match style of socialization or those who have more formal training in academic discussion often seek out communities based on respect of differing opinion. To me an example of model behavior is to be seen in the best skeptics going about their work. When presented with a claim that seems irrational and even foolish at first they do not call the person stupid or dismiss them. No, they state their opinion with consideration but then test the phenomena. They explain to them their reasons for disbelief and disagreement without invoking epithets or a venomous tone. It is that style of honorable discourse that I’m trying to promote, not only to avoid the closed off citadels of opinion but to foster better communication and a more hospitable online environment for those of us who disagree or have disagreeable ideas.

Respectful tone in blogging is also not a lost art, but I fear it is a minority one. I’m no saint in this either. I have lost my composure and tact before and regretted it every time. I’ve deleted several entries from the early days of this blog because they were partisan attacks and didn’t reflect the image I wanted to project. I try to be watchful of my tone so as to avoid, as much as I can, the appearance of self-righteousness or acidic disdain. This post alone could be said to contain both those things, but at least I am trying. That is the most I can offer and the most I ask of anyone. My point here has been to remind all those who wander the blogosphere to think twice before you dismiss someone with some pithy barb and to check for a calm tolerant tone in your blogs instead of flinging mud and howling insults. Be mindful of these things and don’t congratulate or praise those who use unsavory devices to attract a crowd. Set an example that others seek to emulate.

And never forget, that’s a human being just like you on the other side of those ones and zeroes.

Why I Blog, and Often Don't

2008-07-26T11:59:00.004-05:00

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

-- Albert Einstein

I have, of late, been often of the mind to ask myself what the hell it is I think I’m doing. In other words, why do I have a blog? At first I thought of myself as the greatest mind of my generation, youthful exuberance and a touch of inferiority complex gives one an ego that outmatches one’s hat size. This is not my first blog, but I started this one with the idea of joining the pool of atheist bloggers. However that community has become polluted with cookie cutter counter-apologetics with a few choice sites. Look at a few of my atheist posts, I can show you a dozen like them on a dozen other blogs. For every Pharyngula and Daylight Atheism there are dozens of one note teenagers ready to spit back quotes they picked up from the God Delusion. No, the atheist blogosphere is not a place for aspirations.

At one time I pondered working out a niche in the political blogosphere. However I invite you to read any of the top 10 political blogs. What do you see? The exact same layout with an intro, a news article as reported in the main stream media, and then a party line about how this relates to a victory for their ideology. I played with that a little but it was not only tedious but repetitive. What was the point of adding my voice if it sounded like everyone else’s. Of course I’m not saying I will never blog about politics, only that I will do so when I feel I have something unique to add to the conversation.

The problem with any blogosphere community is that it requires extensive commenting and online networking. This elicits either pointless back slapping or a fruitless argument. Now we come to the meat of the matter. As I have said before public debate is unproductive with rhetorical tricks and personal attacks instead of detached reasoning. What happens when you comment to disagree with a blog post? Pointless public argument. I can name a few choice blogs with fairly good content and an awful public persona when responding to comments. Let’s keep some of those names between us, lest they come barking in my backyard.

Even when discussing argument itself I have yet to encounter anyone who believes argument will change the mind of the opponent. Most reply that it is for the betterment of the peanut gallery, a few say it “plants the seed of doubt”. Of course if they wanted to look at the opponent’s argument all they had to do was go online and check out a blog or an article supporting said view. Blogs are the death of argument, perhaps for the best. The only reason left to have an argument online is when you want to make a name for yourself (rational response squad comes to mind) or to hone your arguments. I must admit I have recently engaged in a couple of private arguments using pseudonyms purely for this reason, to write better arguments. Maybe that is the one saving grace of debate.

What does this really have to do with blogging? I feel all too often that I have nothing original to offer on many fronts. Certainly I have opinions but they have been covered before in part or in full elsewhere. So why blog? I have seen professionals and academics who have made points both contrary and in line with my opinions. They have the structure and discipline of education compared to my raw gumption. So why blog? No matter how niche my opinion or outlook is there are those who espouse it, sometimes far better then I can. So why blog? If I’m wrong, make a mistake, or make enemies then I’m screwed. This is my one true online persona through which I have been involved in a number of communities. Even if I come up with a better argument I could be known forever as the guy who made that absurd argument. So why blog?

So why blog? That question helped me step back and take a look at what I can do and what I want to do. I need to abandon any vestigial notion of becoming a “professional” blogger. I won’t win any awards, my views are niche enough not to form a following, and my writing skills need honing. What good is a blog then? Well, it’s a place for me to write out loud. I have a handful of subscribers and no commenters but writing gives me a chance to put my thoughts on paper where they can be more easily deciphered and edited. But what of the danger of thinking out loud? I am working on becoming more comfortable with being disliked. My views are going to be seen by some to be irrational and wrong. I was ready for that with my atheism because of my feeling of certainty. However there is little else I feel as certain about. Recently I watched the film Revolver, by Guy Ritchie, and it contained a line in regards to chess that felt like just the advice I needed. Consider this my new comment policy...

The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent.

My Atheist Thirteen

2008-06-15T17:11:00.012-05:00

It was originally thought up by a man name Nullifidian, but since it's inception this meme has spread like wildfire. Originally created to allow the atheist blogging community to get to know one another it also helps me add a little content to the page while I work on getting my mojo back.

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?
A lack of belief in a god. It is not necessarily the belief that there is no god and it certainly doesn't mean absolute knowledge of the universe. It is the rejection of the magical thinking that is produced when you substitute any biological or philosophical reasoning with a Deity, thus answering a mystery with an even bigger mystery.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
I was raised in the southern protestant tradition where gays are evil, women shouldn't wear attractive clothing, and men are instantly defiled by a drop of alcohol. Is it any wonder that I was a teenage hedonist?

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?
Pseudoscience. The evidence and validity to their claims is no greater than the claims of astrologists, acupuncturists, or psychics. It's all just more magical thinking.

Q4. What scientific endeavor really excites you?
Physics! I especially enjoy space science. If you really want to get a feel for what I mean then head on over to The Atomic Rocket. It is a great breakdown on the realistic science of a future interplanetary age.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?
I would get rid of the Rational Response Squad. They have popularized mean-spirited evangelism and through their almost cult-like internal organization they put a bad public face on the modern movement. I would have atheism associated with people like Dawkins or Harris or the Skeptics movement who can eloquently highlight empiricism and atheism without resorting to name calling.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?
Well I don't have a child, nor do I plan on ever having one, but if I did he would be exposed to competing worldviews and my opinion as he matures. If, after all that, he chooses to join the clergy of some religion I would express disappointment and disapproval, but I wouldn't disown him. I would explain that he shouldn't try and convert me and that I wouldn't attend religious functions. I think there is more between people than religion, so I don't think it would ruin a relationship like father and son.

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
Normally I would say my favorite argument to is the Liar, Lunatic, Lord trilemma; simply because it's so laughably absurd and yet common. However I have recently been involved in a discussion with a christian who said that his entire faith rested on the fact that if Jesus didn't come back from the dead then he wouldn't have had a following. The argument ad populum by any other name. I of course asked if he thought Heracles was a real person and a demi-god. I asked if Krishna was. I asked if Elvis were alive, if UFOs made crop-circles, and so on. The reply was invariably to say, "well I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe". Indeed.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
I generally don't have a problem with religious iconography on public land. As long as tax money isn't going to religion I have no problem with a ten commandments monument donated by the local Freemasons or what have you sitting on the court lawn. I realize the issues with religious entanglement and the slippery slope arguments, but I don't think simple iconography is that big of a problem, so long as public funds are not involved. I think we should focus on school proselytizing, government subsidized religious charities, and the pledge/coinage problem.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
I'm going to have to say Dennett.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
William Lane Craig. I think would be beneficial to the movement and people in general to have a prolific and public apologist to de-convert to atheism. I don't think he is the ultimate example of rationality or critical thinking, far from it, but he is big in the Christian community, and that's what I hope will get people questioning just a little bit.

At this point Nullifidian directs you to tag three atheist blogs you would like to see take up this meme. Instead of doing this I will instead encourage you to take a random spin on the atheist blogroll, you never know when you're going to strike gold.

This I Believe - - R. A. Heinlein

2008-06-01T04:00:00.002-05:00

What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
--Robert A. Heinlein

Courtesy of The Heinlein Society: Robert Heinlein wrote these words in 1952 and delivered them to a national radio audience in a broadcast interview by Edward R. Murrow.

I am not going to talk about religious beliefs, but about matters so obvious that it has gone out of style to mention them.

I believe in my neighbors.

I know their faults and I know that their virtues far outweigh their faults. Take Father Michael down our road a piece --I'm not of his creed, but I know the goodness and charity and lovingkindness that shine in his daily actions. I believe in Father Mike; if I'm in trouble, I'll go to him. My next-door neighbor is a veterinary doctor. Doc will get out of bed after a hard day to help a stray cat. No fee -- no prospect of a fee. I believe in Doc.

I believe in my townspeople. You can knock on any door in our town say, 'I'm hungry,' and you will be fed. Our town is no exception; I've found the same ready charity everywhere. For the one who says, 'To heck with you -- I got mine,' there are a hundred, a thousand, who will say, 'Sure, pal, sit down.'

I know that, despite all warnings against hitchhikers, I can step to the highway, thumb for a ride and in a few minutes a car or a truck will stop and someone will say, 'Climb in, Mac. How how far you going?'

I believe in my fellow citizens. Our headlines are splashed with crime, yet for every criminal there are 10,000 honest decent kindly men. If it were not so, no child would live to grow up, business could not go on from day to day. Decency is not news; it is buried in the obituaries --but it is a force stronger than crime.

I believe in the patient gallantry of nurses...in the tedious sacrifices of teachers. I believe in the unseen and unending fight against desperate odds that goes on quietly in almost every home in the land.

I believe in the honest craft of workmen. Take a look around you. There never were enough bosses to check up on all that work. From Independence Hall to the Grand Coulee Dam, these things were built level and square by craftsmen who were honest in their bones.

I believe that almost all politicians are honest. For every bribed alderman there are hundreds of politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true, we would never have gotten past the thirteen colonies.

I believe in Rodger Young. You and I are free today because of endless unnamed heroes from Valley Forge to the Yalu River.

I believe in -- I am proud to belong to -- the United States. Despite shortcomings, from lynchings to bad faith in high places, our nation has had the most decent and kindly internal practices and foreign policies to be found anywhere in history.

And finally, I believe in my whole race. Yellow, white, black, red, brown --in the honesty, courage, intelligence, durability....and goodness.....of the overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters everywhere on this planet. I am proud to be a human being. I believe that we have come this far by the skin of our teeth, that we always make it just by the skin of our teeth --but that we will always make it....survive....endure. I believe that this hairless embryo with the aching, oversize brain case and the opposable thumb, this animal barely up from the apes, will endure --will endure longer than his home planet, will spread out to the other planets, to the stars, and beyond, carrying with him his honesty, his insatiable curiosity, his unlimited courage --and his noble essential decency.

This I believe with all my heart.

In Memory

2008-05-16T05:00:00.001-05:00

Think where man's glory most begins and ends,
And say my glory was I had such friends.
-- William Butler Yeats

Adam Redmon
I miss you.

One of my best and oldest friends passed away a few weeks ago. Though we disagreed on religion we shared many passions and interests. He was a great man whom I was often jealous of. He was an accomplished actor and director in the sole theatre in my hometown. Adam achieved a degree in english literature and worked as teacher in our community. Though loquacious in style he created picturesque poems and fresh fantasy stories. He achieved much that I hoped to achieve and set the bar for those around him. A natural born leader, Adam had many friends of differing backgrounds and interests. He was not a social chameleon, but able to present himself openly and genuinely to others. Many things to many people he was reliable and trustwrothy, the soul of selflessness. He gave to us all one of the greatest gifts he could give; greater than time or money, he gave his love. Adam was a counselor to his friends, a guide to his community, and an ideal to me. I miss him everyday and without him my life is a colder and darker place.

In memory of Adam Redmon I present one of his poems, selected by his mother for his funeral and one that I feel gives a precious insight into the man he was.

Sailing the Sea of Life

Ebb and flow,
High tide and low,
This is the nature of life,
It pushes and pulls us to and fro.

For some life's water's are choppy,
And will forever be,
But for some the ocean calms, and thus ends the strife,
While traversing the life's stormy sea.

There are those whose journey through the great expanse seems calm,
And it would seem those folk hold life in their palms,
Count their station good luck they ought,
For they could be like those many sailors that depend on their generous alms.

In truth though, the sea of life pushes and pulls us all,
For every rise there surely is a fall,
Thus we should give thanks for all life's prods, pay heed to his thought,
For there will come a time we must answer death's call.

So let us be content with the eddies and waves of the deep,
And to truths, morals and goals keep,
For these three things are to us an anchor, compass, and sail,
And they will see us through to the end of life's sea,
When our souls cross that great vale.

Below is a comedy video created by Adam Redmon and a group of poets and actors he assembled to enlighten our small community, The Shadow Scribes.

Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow.
Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.
Walk beside me and be my friend.
-- Albert Camus

Letters to the Editor

2008-04-24T03:54:00.009-05:00

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
-- John F. Kennedy

Wow. I wrote a reply to an opinion column in the Times Journal with no wish for it to be published and they went ahead and published it with my name attached. It was about religious freedom and church-state separation, so I expect to find bricks in my window any day now. I sent it as a private correspondence between myself and the article's author and instead it was published in the opinion column. Below is the original article of an anonymous author named IC Toowell (reputed to be the editor of the paper), my reply, his rebuttal, and my counter-rebuttal. So far my counter rebuttal has not yet been published and indeed I hope it is not. While I stick firmly to my beliefs I find that attaching my name to them in this small community might make life very difficult for me.

IC Toowell's Original Article

A great day today, the temperature is to reach near 80. But wait, we just heard on the news, cold this weekend and maybe snow. Surely we did not hear correctly.

The Law is the Law

So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.

And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.

We say, "so be it," because we would like to be a law abiding US citizen.

We say, "so be it," because we would like to think that smarter people than we are in positions to make good decisions. We would like to think that those people have the American publics best interests at heart.
But,

Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, We don't believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.

We'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.

We'd like the "U.S. Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas,

Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays." After all, it's just another day.

We'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.

We're thinking that a lot of our taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."

My (now published) Response

In the most recent article by I.C. Toowell the author intimates that americans are somehow denied prayer and religion. He makes the illogical leap that the government is trying to strip religion out of everyday life and that it's all being done in the spirit of political correctness. I would like to contact him and inform him of the first amendment and the last 200 years jurisprudence. Our government cannot and should not show preference toward one religion or religion over irreligion. The ten commandments cannot be put in our schools and courthouses because that is government money endorsing a specific religion. As we have seen through even the most cursory study of history, when religion and government mix blood will flow. We already have a strong dominionist movement in this country that seeks to make it illegal to be anything other than Christian. We already have a bigoted theocratic ex-president who said that atheists should not be citizens. Does this IC really want government and religion in bed together? To put up the ten commandments is to say that the state prefers this religion. Not only that but due to the multiple versions the state will be choosing a specific sect. How would you like to live in a country that says we support this religion, and yours is evil.

Individual still, as they always have, retain the right to practice freely. Pray in school or at work, so long as you are not using a government funded office to force that prayer on others. This is what the framers had in mind. Mill and Locke were the inspiration for our Republic and were both driven by the failure of state religion and religious politics that riddled europe a few centuries ago. The establishment clause was put in place to prevent just such a thing as ten commandments and mandatory school prayer. In the letter of Thomas Jefferson we see him say that it is not the business of government, at any level, to infringe on the right to conscience. James Madison, in the federalist papers, laid out a strong case for a secular government for all Americans. American is a nation of many, a melting pot of ideas. We have christians, muslims, jews, deists, and atheists; much as we did when this nation was founded. Tell IC to read this and tell me he wants his religion branded on government land and money and I will tell him that he not only violates our constitutional rights but the wishes of the founders. To be in favor of such theocratic endorsement of religion by government is not only illegal, it is un-American.

IC's Rebuttal

A letter on this page shows that Ole I. C. really got this one fellow in hot pursuit to tell us just how wrong we were and even how un-American we were because of our references last week to having the Ten Commandments hanging in our schools.

If supporting our Christian belief justifies this gentleman to call us un-American, then in his mind, he does not know just how un-American we really are.

If we had the authority, not only would we have prayer in school and Ten Commandments on the wall, we would likely have church service in the high school gym every Monday morning, we could see every child exposed to the Ten Commandments and we would even have an officer of the court handing out Bibles at the courthouse door.

If we did these things there very likely would not be as great a need for so many jails in this country. We very likely would not see so many young people killing their parents and so disrespectful of their teachers and leaders. Perhaps there would not be so many gangs among our abandoned youths. There might not even be so many so dependent upon our government.

This gentlemen speaks of our government money. This is taxpayers money and we do not believe our framers intended to establish a system and a society such as we are witnessing today.

We so appreciate the references to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. But, we would like to introduce the words of my Ole Grandpa as we stood one early morning in the hog lot while he said, “Son, if you expect the government to lead you out of a mess like this hog pen you had better wear you hip boots because for sure the stuff will get mighty deep.”

While we strongly disagree with this gentleman that we are un-American, we do agree that he is entitled to his opinion. Plus, we will be happy to add his name to our prayer list.

My (Unpublished) Counter-Rebuttal

Nowhere did I say that being a Christian makes you un-American. I will assume for the sake of argument that was an honest mistake. What makes one un-American is to force your religious view son others. I find it hilarious that in one breath you say that we cannot rely on the government, a sentiment that is reasonable, and then say that you want that same government to not only endorse one specific religion but to force it on our young people. Government must be neutral to the question of religion or we will come right back around to the absurdity of centuries past. It is the secular philosophy of our forefathers and Europe’s reformers that saved us from the theocratic excesses we see in the Middle East.

Just imagine if you will what would happen if you had your way. First we would have to Jewish children, Hindu children, Muslim children, and atheist children forced into a religious service that they, nor their parents, approve of. Which version of the Ten Commandments will you put on the wall? What prayer will you use? Will it be a Baptists prayer, a catholic prayer, or an orthodox prayer? What will be the penalty for not praying? How long until you can’t exempt your children from this indoctrination? How long before the state religion is not your religion? How long until being a non-Christian deprives you of rights? How long until it’s illegal to be anything other than a Christian?

Religion is a private matter and one that is solely the choice of the person. We have prayer in school now the way it should be, the choice of the student. Enforcing religion does not make a person righteous and it is not the job of the government or schools to teach morality. Stop trying to blame the schools for violence and place the responsibility squarely where it belongs, on the parents whose job it is to teach right from wrong. Do you think schools should be telling children what to believe? You claim you do, but I wonder if you would be so bold if the school was teaching Islam, or scientology, or a brand of Christianity opposed to your own. The right to conscience is inviolate and to have our government not only violate that right but also our constitutional and jurisprudence in order to force your beliefs on others is un-American.

Debate is Dead

2008-04-12T15:09:00.002-05:00

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth.
-- Stephen Jay Gould

Debate is dead, or at least paralyzed from the neck down. Once upon a time I held debate as the great crucible of ideas. Put forth your arguments and see if your logic holds up. The truth will win out, I thought. At the end one man will stand triumph, his ideas enshrined as conquering for his audience. A mental joust, a game of intellectual chess, a war of logic with the stakes being truth. Hogwash. Debate is not what it used to be, if it ever was what we imagined. Debate is not a search for truth but a game of personalities, a contest of barbs and structure where nothing is accomplished but for each man to be congratulated as the winner by their constituency or supporters. Two men enter the public arena and each makes a game of attacking logical structure, inserting personal jibes, and deconstructing semantics. Truth is left at the door.

When we think of debate we imagine the great orators like Cicero and Isocrates standing before a crowd and shaping the lives of their listeners. We imagine great issues being debated by keen minds with sound arguments. Sometimes we even remember a debate as a turgid struggle of good and evil. Yet the realities are lacking. What is it that we have instead? Oneupmanship. Look at any of the recent atheist-christian debates, or any such debates in the last ten years. A Christian will put forth an emotional argument that catches the crowd and the atheist will point out a flaw of logic. Academics are even worse, as one will fling a personal insult and in reply will come a semantic deconstruction. To carry the audience is done through emotion and appeals to authority. To derail a good argument one only has to attack their opponent and let them spend their breath on refutations and righteous indignation.

How can debate survive in the age of instant information? A creationist can read, or here, a well put argument and then go online to find a detailed, though wrong, rebuttal. A politician can put forth information from a study and his listeners can track down another study tailored to counter-act the previous one. Even worse we have an entire generation of those who have all but willingly lobotomized themselves. In a recent discussion on alternative medicine I encountered an individual who used the words “reason”, “facts”, and “evidence” as pejoratives. Creationists and alternative medicine devotees invoke a grand conspiracy. Crackpot politicos call upon heart-string pulling one-liners. Bigots fall back on tradition and mystical devotion to good old King James. Critical thinking is a stone being eroded by the ever higher waves of instant information and propaganda.

Debate is dead, pontification lives on. Out of the rotting corpse of intelligent debate and honest disagreement came blogs. No I am not bad-mouthing blogs, rather I think they have filled a niche carved out by the destruction of old fashioned intellectual joust. Instead of seeing two intellectual giants hashing it out, or trying your ideas against the crucible of the opposition we have single points of view presented as the one true way. Just look at sites like DailyKos, Ace of Spades, and Ray Comfort’s blog. All are just pontification on a particular point of view. Want opposition, to see if the pontification holds water, then walk on over to a blog dedicated to the opposition. It’s as if we walk down a street where every few feet are would-be luminaries shouting their “truths” out loud to no one in particular. If we want a different message or don’t agree, we can find a street-preacher that better suits are sensibilities. Custom tailored truth, delivered fresh daily.

Yet perhaps I exaggerate. Perhaps my own pontification speaks only to internet debate, or to a temporary lull in American intellectual life. One can only hope that debate is not dead, but will one day walk under its own power. I have been swayed by debate once or twice myself, though it is rare. Perhaps the volume of argument has risen but not that of understanding. One can only hope that there is cause to look with favorable eyes on the future. As for myself, I say the present is doomed to idiocy and I’m just going to try and ride it out.

The Politics of Hate

2008-04-04T05:22:00.005-05:00

History also tells us that a desire to enforce dogma and suppress heretics is a recurring human weakness, one that has led to recurring waves of gruesome oppression and violence. A recognition that there is a bit of Torquemada in everyone should make us wary of any attempt to enforce a consensus or demonize those who challenge it.
--Steven Pinker

There is a serious problem in American political life these days. Instead of voting based on reason and well-thought out policies we have a shallow popularity contest. Everywhere you look you see a wash of ideology that blinds voters to pragmatism and clean politics. This is the ideology of hate. What do I mean by this? Well, let’s look around at the mainstream of political opinion. Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh. What do these outlets have in common? They take on an attitude that their opposition is in fact the devil himself. Am I exaggerating? If we go to Daily Kos we find accusation that George Bush is no better than Hitler [1], that libertarians are corporate sycophants [2], and that all republicans are fascists [3]. If we saunter over to Townhall.com we can see allegations that liberals fight to support terrorists [4]. According to Renew America liberals hate god, and America too [5]. A youtube video courtesy of the Heritage Foundation goes on at length about how liberals want to destroy everything that is good and build up everything that is evil [6]. Even from little blogs are trickles and blips of this mindset. Jabs are made over hating the poor, wanting to control our lives, and hating our constitution. We hear it everyday on the mainstream media and our A.M. radios. How bad is this problem and what does it mean for American politics.

From the right we have the common refrains of godless, America-hating, terrorist, fascists. Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, and Rush Limbaugh (among others) take to the airwaves daily to tell us how evil the liberals are and how they are wrong and hateful at all turns. Ad-hominem attacks take the place of voting records. Bald assertions take the place of facts and evidence. According to the spin doctors of the right all liberals are socialists who want to take your money and pay people not to work. Only through their party-loyal reporting can you learn the truth, because all other media is controlled by a vast leaderless liberal conspiracy. Liberals want America to fail and be taken over by muslims. Liberals hate god and want to outlaw Christianity. Liberals want to put everyone on welfare and punish people for making money. It’s ridiculous. It’s absurd. It’s everywhere.

Once upon a time the majority of the hate-mongering from the left was isolated to a few key radicals, but as the market place of ideas finds hatred and vitriol a prime investment we see more and more venomous opinion outlets. What started out as a grassroots blog has become a party mouthpiece where the most misanthropic are invited to take the stage. Calls of selfishness replace fiscal policy. Images of Hitler and Mussolini replace constitutional scholarship. Instead of economics, corporations and chain stores are re-branded with swastikas. A tale of repression is taken up to cover up bad campaigning. Conservatives wanted the south to win the civil war. Conservatives are rich old white men who want women bear foot and pregnant. Conservatives want to segregate schools and jail gays. Conservatives want to kill brown people and stamp out Islam. I think we can begin to see a pattern here. It’s ridiculous. It is absurd. It’s everywhere.

So what harm does it do? After all, in our modern American culture we expect entertaining news. It creates dogmatism. The politically inactive often take the word of those they perceive to have authority. Combine this with the sad fact that we often side with those that agree with our preconceptions and we have a dangerous cocktail. Look at the number of people who believe Iraq was involved in 9/11. Look at the number of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Our minds are contingent on the information at our disposal and unless you choose to pursue independent fact-checking you receive a great deal of your information through the “main stream media”. And the main stream media is replete with this type of immature popularity-contest style politics. Instead of debating the issues we have the most popular pundits making their fame from frothy mouthed mudslinging.

The greatest problem here is that of dogmatism. Ask the common man on the street why he doesn’t support the other side. If he is a liberal he will tell you that Republicans don’t care about the poor, or their racists, or their murderers. If the questioned is a conservative they will likely tell you that Democrats hate our country, they want to criminalize Christianity, or they hate the troops. This is the political landscape of America. Broad rejection of an opposing idea comes to us fresh and hot from the tap of mass media, ready to be consumed without question. Among the myriad of problems this creates is an America divided down the middle. By demonizing the opposition to the point of near hysteria we polarize every issue to the point that moderates are excluded and people are encouraged to vote strictly along party lines. All this leads us to the point where we can determine the vote of an average American by examining where he gets his news. The myth of the red America and blue America is fostered in the carefully cultivate soil of fear and hatred.

What America needs badly is mature conversation. We can discuss honest disagreement over policy and philosophy without resorting to ad-hominems. Rational liberals and conservatives can have a dialogue based off of intelligent disagreement without declaring each other enemies of the state. Our television news can give us a broad objective look at a political situation without throwing around emotional arguments. It has been said by some that at the heart of America is a great untouched moderation which is pulled inexorably toward the two parties out of pragmatism while many more stay home. They stay home not out of ignorance or fear, but out of genuine cynicism. How can we change this? Some in congress have attempted to create a measure forcing equal air-time to dissenting opinion. That way madness lies. No, the government has no interest in practical solutions because fear mongering makes for fantastic party-building.

No, rational discussion will have to be a grassroots idea. The first step is rudimentary education. First, there is no “liberal media”. Media outlets come in all flavors, shapes and sizes with both liberal and conservative angles. I can show you ten liberal television shows and newspapers in one breath and ten conservative television programs and papers in another. Second, what a newspaper of news outlet reports is not the same as the beliefs of Americans. So if you see a New York Times article reporting something fishy and attention-grabbing like this doesn’t it make more sense to assume that this paper is trying to make money by using attention grabbing headlines than accurately representing an entire class of people’s political beliefs? The same is true for FOX news and attention grabbers like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. They’re shock jocks out to get ratings by playing to the lowest common denominator, and not accurate barometers of individual philosophy. I can’t stress this enough.

Going hand in hand with separating people from the image of the entertainment industry is separating people from politicians. The modern career politician is likely to be concerned with one thing and one thing only, money. From graft to kickbacks to pork to lobbyists, politicians want money and will say just about anything to get it. Not only will that but often times a person has to vote for the lesser of evils. Does that mean that the voter then agrees whole heartedly with everything their candidate does and says? Of course not! This is another major misconception that is made worse by the limited selection inherent in a two-party system. So remember, just because elected officials act that way doesn’t mean their entire voting bloc does as well. In the name of this cause I have taken to trying and disarm hate-mongers. I go where dogmatic politicos pontificate about the evil of their opposition and try to correct them. By all means disagree, but don’t label your opponents as immoral monsters or harbingers of evil. By all means disagree, but do it over the issues and not through straw-men and ad-hominems. So far I have been unsuccessful, but I hope the peanut gallery is listening.

An educated nation have a lot of ideas, an un-educated nation don't have ideas, it limits to follow someone.
--Vasco E. G. Lima e Silva

Life, Indeed

2008-03-31T04:18:00.002-05:00

Life? Don't talk to me about life.
--Marvin the Paranoid Android

Courtesy of Subnormality!

Sinking of the Ozymandias

2008-03-09T09:18:00.004-05:00

I am a galley slave to pen and ink.
-- Honore de Balzac

Everlasting grey, the cloak and mantle of god laid out forever in all directions. Long since the sun set the clouds swallowed up the moon’s light and cast an eerie shadow. Rays of frosted moonlight trickled down through every crack and crevice of cloud, stretching and trying to reach the earth below. All they found was more grey. Sea and sky married in a dark horizon. Occasional distant bellow belied the oncoming storm. Distant flashes of light herald death for whosoever was found wandering that grey wilderness. As shafts of moonlight played over featureless waves the water shifted and turned as something moved on its surface. Tons of steel and oil, like some unnatural whale, lumbered across the grey firmament. Its engines pumping ceaselessly tirelessly like mindless oars. Leviathan itself would look a speck of flotsam against the sea’s canvas. So the thing pulled on, tugging against every wave.

On the deck a young third mate pressed himself to a railing and fixed his eyes on some invisible point on the horizon. Still skies lied to his sailing heart as he felt the seas buck and spit, like they hated the little ship. Distant clouds formed up in columns to one another. A bulge of cloud here a wisp there, lining up to let the moonlight through. Like an army standing abreast, the distant peels of lightening looked like war in heaven. Shook with the fear of god’s wrath the sailor reached for a cigarette and found none. He had given them up. For his health of all things. But staring now at the closed fist of his god in heaven coming at him slow and sure he wanted to die a little. Maybe there was some booze left. A little death helps you deal with the larger thing, he thought.

Rain began to play out across the deck mixing with the growing salty spray. Ocean waves like hands swatted at the sides of the ship, heaving it to the left and to the right. The waves smacked the deck, trying so intently to fling the little giant into space. Beneath the layers of steel and rust and barnacles the men were resting. In his cabin the captain sat on the edge of his bed, scotch in one hand and a book in the other, not quite reading it. His knees shook as he waited. Any moment now, he thought. God had hated him his whole life, even more now that he’s trespassing on his ocean. The sea wanted him; it had gotten a taste for human blood all those centuries of exploration ago and now it craves it. The seas will be as blood, he thought.

A thud and clank down the hall, the mess was company to some hands playing poker, jealously guarding their free time against the demands the storm was sure to make. Cigar smoke was thick in the air around them. On the sea every day is hazard pay, every check is blood money. None of them wanted to be onboard the floating hulk that encapsulated them. Each knew the weaknesses of the hull, every spot of rust, every weak beam. Trying their best they joke and make lewd comments while throwing chips and laying down cards. Saying nothing, each one calculates the age of the engine every time a wave hit. As the swells grow and the thunder gets closer they start silently counting off the miles to land in their head. Sure of their own deaths they have another beer and start talking about each other’s girlfriends and wives. Being sure of their deaths they bet it all and hold nothing back. The only honest man is a dead man. Each one of them is ashen faced inside. Each one wants to tell the other to go to hell, or ask why any of them joined this ship, or if there’s a god waiting for them at the bottom of the sea. The only honest man is a dead man.

Below decks the swaying tilting grows as the storm descends. Iron and girders muffle the sound of thunder claps. Iron and girders creak against the wind and thud against the waves. Pipes criss-cross every wall each on their own way to some hideous mechanical monstrosity that sits and groans endlessly. Engine and boilers and endless pipes fill the gut of the titan, but only a few men scramble amongst it’. It’s all too much. Engineers go mad at about the same rate as captains, the ship feeds not only off oil but off their soul. Throbbing engines, and pulsing pipes, and pounding pistons. A valve is busted and two men work over it. Steam has filled the belly of the beast and they work near naked. A massive valve it takes their whole bodies to remove it. They’re covered now in grease, but the jobs done and just maybe they’ve save the lives of the crew when the storm decides to bandy them about like a child’s toy. Throbbing engines, and pulsing pipes, and pounding pistons. Captains drink to stop the ship’s constant demand for every drop of sweat. It’s maddening, the eternal hum. They can’t take it and they throw themselves at one another. Sweaty flesh thrown against sweaty flesh. Sounds of passion mix elegantly with the engine’s moan. Turbines spin and pistons thrust as they wail out in forbidden pleasure. Grease smears across their chests. Pipes throb and gears spin and the sounds of the lovers seamlessly blend in. No one knows. No one must ever know, the storm will see to that.

Hell descends not with a wail of trumpets but a silence. Rocking stops and the rains begin to flood over every surface and the captain can feel the ship in his bones. It’s in danger. A bellicose shout sends all the men rushing up to deck where the third mate stands dumbfounded, staring at the wall of water looming near by. Orders fly now. Shouts and screams answered back by sudden jolts of action. We’re dead, the captain says out loud to no one in particular. They know it, but they’ll fight for every last breath. Commanding neither respect nor love the captain screams obscenity filled commands at everyone, they have to be ready to fight god himself. The third mate is dispatched to rouse the engineer. Half way down the steps the crescendo hits among the boilers and cries of passion shriek out and end, just as the wave hits. Poseidon’s hand slaps the little ship and a man goes flying. A rookie starts to scream for the rescue when he’s cut off by a look from the captain. The boy’s dead, he barks.

Lightening crashes overhead and the boatswain struggles along the railings, little waves and spears of rain trying to push him down and into the sea. Some fool is calling for help on the comm, every sane soul has ran for their lives. Another wave looms and orders are given. The boat turns, takes the wave on its rear and is pushed high into the air, crashing down hard onto the water. A slap like a thunderclap resounds above the rain as the hull strikes the ocean and holds. A metal monster can only hope to survive a battle with god, not win it. The wind shifts, another wave. No time, their hit and thrown hard. Too close, they almost capsize. Every seaman is running and scrambling and tugging ropes and pulling lines and reciting prayers; but there is nothing to do but sit and wait for the ocean to decide their fate. Orange licks of flame sprout from a stair well and every head turns in unison. Fire. Every element now turns against them and they know their fate. The fire is in the engine room and the second mate pumps his legs hard, running fast against the rain with extinguisher in hand. A figure, his figure, silhouettes the flames for a moment and then an explosion rings out.

A fiery blast and a spout of flame leap from below the deck. Freight and pieces of metal and men fly out into the storm winds. Every man runs for the bridge now. A single resigned sigh from the captain and his legs lose all strength, plops into his chair. It’s over, time to sit down and wait to meet god face to face. With all the fire and vigor of anew born fool the boatswain pushes past the crowd of resigned sailors and grabs the wheel. All his might strains against it. It spins limply, sending him to the metal floor. Rudder’s gone. Fire burns at the rear and a swell begins to form to their port. Time only for prayers, no life boat can survive those waves. Seas hunger for blood and the tapping of the rain is the siren song begging he sailors to give up their lives. Moments now. Just moments. It is not cowardly, the captain thought, to be master of your own life and to deny the cruel grey sea and whatever god controls it one more body. And with all the conviction of a man the captain pulls out his pistol. A shot somehow rings out over the sound of the rushing wave. The second officer leaps for the gun next and a scuffle ensues. Fighting over their place in line at death’s table. His eyes still fixed on some alien point beyond the oncoming wave the third office runs out onto the deck and screams at the top of his lungs. An oath against whatever god would allow him to be born echoes off the watery hand as it strikes down the little titan. Steel shreds and oil spews and flame dances. The water is on fire. A wave of fire washes again over the capsized ship, ripping even more steel. With the crew long dead the waves do this just to show that they are mighty. Steel floats on burning water while bodies fall through the sea. Sacrifice has been given to the ocean and it grows calm again, it’s hunger sated. And the Ozymandias settles down through the grey firmament and onto the everlasting desert beneath the waves.

In Defense of Public Education

2008-02-08T10:59:00.007-06:00

Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain.
--Former President John F. Kennedy

In wake of the recent Super Tuesday primaries a speech was given by republican candidate Mike Huckabee that repeated a troubling conservative talking point. In the course of his victory speech over the Arkansas primary, Huckabee said that one of his constituency’s concerns was that “families could raise children better than government could”. He then went on to say that, “government should under gird the American family and not undermine it”. In discussions with Huckabee supporters I have encountered an almost militant anti-education stance. Somehow it has become a political point of contention that public education and private education standards are somehow undermining of the American family.

This debate is over whether or not education is in the public good and therefore can be administered by the state for the good of all children. First we must establish the benefits of education. It turns out that education is the silver bullet when it comes to the societal health of a nation. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee Study of 2000 says that a higher level of education equals not only a higher pay rate but the larger percentage of a population is educated the higher the economic growth [1]. Furthermore the Justice Policy Institute has performed an in-depth study that tells us that there is a direct correlation between the level of education an American has and his chance of being incarcerated [2]. Education is one of the most important factors in determining not only financial success, but happiness. For example, many psychological studies into the science of happiness have included education and, education influenced, income in their calculations [3]. On top of all these direct causes we can see that an informed electorate also helps shape a better world. A thorough understanding of the issues can only be reached through education. Education should be one of our top priorities and held as one of the markers of a society.

Publicly funded education is seen by some among small government conservatives and libertarians as an egregious intrusion into personal liberty. Yet private schools and “home schooling” are common options throughout the United States. Of course we need to look into the fact that these institutions cannot, or should not, be left unchecked. After speaking with Huckabee supporters and libertarian pundits I have had the charge leveled that by imposing educational standards on private schools and home-schools that the government is attempting to raise our children. We can easily shrug this off this charge as a fallacy, considering that education standards are not attempting to teach our children which religion to follow, or which political party to vote for, but rather are ensuring that every student is being taught the same elemental weight of hydrogen or the same number of feet in a yard. Of course the question is asked why we need uniformity of data in education.

I cannot say enough that education is the silver bullet for a society. To understand the need for education standards we need to understand why education is important. No matter the medium, education gives children the tools they need to understand then world around them. Logic, reason, study form problem solving abilities that are not only practical, but can be used in social situations as well. Mathematics are the foundation of all modern science. Biology and Chemistry are not only of key importance in one’s daily life, but helps expose a child to fields of study. Music and art helps introduce children to a world of ideas in which those that have both a knack and the drive can excel. Yet what would happen if education was not uniform? We see already in extreme cases that home-schooling parents can distort reality for their child. A few religious extremists deny the world is round, and will teach their child this. Not only the concept, but also the entire modality of thinking associated with a denial of the real world can be imparted by parents who hold such fringe views. Now suppose that this child wanted to be an astronomer or geologist and instead of taking in new information during college, he rejects all of this science in favor of this deeply ingrained absurd belief.

Suppose a parent is a white supremacist and teaches their child the holocaust never occurred. Suppose a child is taught that there was never slavery in this country. Suppose they are taught that left is right and right is left. Not only will this child become unemployable and reduced to the lower levels of the economy and society for not having an understanding of how the world works, but he affects all those around him. No man is an island they say and ignorance is no defense, but in a world where one child can learn that red means go and green means stop can they really be held accountable for running a red light? Legally, of course; but morally the instructors are just as much to blame. Uniformity of information is sought, not uniformity of philosophy or religion, just uniformity of data. Because we live in a world where no matter what we think or how we were raised the apple will always fall at the same speed.

Let’s see why we would want public education for our children as opposed to a privatized system. Public education is a fulfillment of the promise of liberty and freedom. To put it bluntly, public education is the only egalitarian answer. In the system of public education all children are held to the same standard regardless of their economic status. Within the public education system all children are exposed to the bare facts and allowed to come to their own conclusions. Public education philosophy teaches children how to live and work in a cooperative society. Within a public school the rich white child is taught out of the same math and english text book as the poor black child. With education so imperative for happiness and success, how can we deny this from every American?

Certainly the current public education system has problems, but all of these can be fixed. Our public schools are not broken, just in need of some repair. Despite their faults the schools provide an important function in the development of young men and women. At schools a child is given a nutritious lunch, even if their parents can’t afford one for them. In the halls of a public school teachers are sharp eyed for signs of abuse and neglect. A safety net is created for those students who have special needs and as of yet undiagnosed learning difficulties. A public setting allows impartial distribution of facts and history while also arming our young people for life in the real world by professionals who have studied for years to not only understand their field, but to instruct others in it as well. Public education allows everyone to be on equal footing, just as we would expect of a nation that tells us that all men are created equal. I think Claude L. Kulp, superintendent of Ithaca School District, said it best when he said, “ There is a doctrine that is fundamental in American education. That is: every child born or adopted by this republic has by virtue of that fact the right to have developed whatever of talent he may possess, without reference to the quality, quantity, or type of that talent, under conditions favorable to such development, and that he shall have assured to him the opportunity to go as far as his ability and ambition will permit in order that he may live his life more abundantly than he otherwise could”.

So what would happen if we privatized all schools? First of all I would like to address what I see as a popular misconception. The idea that a privatized system will have better results than a publicly owned one. While it is true that publicly administered systems (utilities, travel, healthcare, etc.) are subject to political corruption and bureaucracy, we must understand the alternative. A privatized system does in fact encourage competition. However, it also encourages profit over people. Suppose that a hospital could save money by not performing a life saving surgery, is that best for the community that hospital services? Of course not, but it is best for their bottom line. I grew up in a small southern town with only one High School per county. Suppose that high school was privatized? There would be no competition unless a family either moved or opted to travel extensively to and from a distant school. As I’ve expounded above there would still need to be the need for academic standards enforced for the benefit of the students and the community.

Yet privatized schools are more troublesome above their preference of profit over the good of the child, it is the issue of money. A privatized system would require parents to pay for their child’s tuition. In America we have a progressive tax system designed to take tax money from the rich and use it to, among other things, educate the poor. In a privatized system the lower classes would go uneducated. Combine this economic cut off with a lack of competition in most rural areas and you have created an elite educated upper class that is literate and able to attend college right alongside an almost unemployable underclass incapable of gaining a higher education. This libertarian model would take us back to birth of our nation where literacy was rare and a handful of white elite businessmen controlled all of government.

The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son. And it is the unwritten rule of parenthood to give your child better than you yourself had. So how can we allow the income of parent to decide the entire future of a child? If we are all created equal, how can we give preference to some children in education and not others? And if our government was created to, “...Promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..”; how can we not endorse public education? With an educational system funded by all and open to all equally and freely we ensure that we live in a free society in which every child has the chance to be the best man or woman they can be. A world in which every child is educated is not only a richer, happier world, but a place where great ideas can change the world. How can we not give our children and our neighbor’s children this golden opportunity?

Education is the factory that turns animals into human beings.
--Ghulam Hazrat Tanha, Afghanistan Director of Education

The Myths and Lies about Gay Rights Part 2

2008-02-01T15:11:00.006-06:00

Wherever it has been established that it is shameful to be involved with sexual relationships with men, that is due to evil on the part of the rulers, and to cowardice on the part of the governed.
--Plato

It has been some time since I posted my first article detailing the obfuscation and outright mendacity of the religious right concerning the GLBT community. I recommend that you read it for yourself. I’m grateful for the perfusion of comments thanking me for my time in taking on these day to day misconceptions. While my last post only dealt with a handful of these myths and lies, I have opted to continue on in this endeavor. So let’s take a stroll down the lane of bad arguments and see what we can drudge up. As always feedback is not only welcome but appreciated.

Myth: People are homosexual due to sexual abuse.
My first encounter with this statement was shocking; as my reaction was that the man making the statement was thoroughly insane. Yet much to my surprise I have continued to encounter this sentiment among men and women whose exposure to gays and lesbians is minimal at best. Perhaps it began innocently enough with the simple fallacy of equating the experience of one person with the experience of all persons who happen to be gay or lesbian. A relatively simple “ad hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy has somehow ballooned into a quotation amongst the ultra-conservative lobby.

In my last post I pointed out that there is cutting edge research regarding the origin of homosexuality that points to a biological cause. Even among gay rights advocates, medical researchers, and biologists there is a consensus that at least some of homosexuality’s origin is biological. So where does this idea of an abusive origin spring from? As I stated earlier, I can imagine how a person could leap to this conclusion if they knew only one or two homosexual persons that were victims of childhood sexual abuse. However, it takes but a modicum of research to divine that this is incorrect. Yet somehow this theme continues.

Another possible source for this confusion is a study conducted in 1991 by Gari Remafedi (et al.) that stated that homosexual men experience a 34% sexual abuse rate in their pre-adolescent and adolescent years. However this study is flawed in it’s sample size and primarily because it does not separate whether the individual was abused after they began to self-identify as homosexual or before. Other studies (such as the studies by Debra Boyer in 1989 and Matt Mutchler in 2000) have examined the question and show that the majority of homosexual male sexual abuse takes place in their later adolescence after thye have begun self-identifying as homosexuals.

Rather than an indictment of homosexuality, this demonstrates the need for more sexual education among adolescence, particularly in helping them understand rape. Women are taught this regardless of their sexual orientation, which may account for the rate of female homosexual sexual abuse during adolescence being substantially lower. In the end we have scant hard data on the rates of pre-adolescent sexual abuse among homosexual men and women. So without a both a direct show of correlation and a peer reviewed demonstration of causation, there is no case to be made.

Why would you suppose that a person must have been subject to abuse in order to “become” homosexual? Obviously we are dealing with a social movement that tries their very best to demonize homosexuality. Many so called family groups go as far as to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. The opinion that one’s sexual orientation is born out of abuse is an opinion bred of ignorance and bigotry. In the eyes of the conservative right gay men and women are seen as less than, as sub-human. Personally I view this reasoning as nothing more than a step up from citing demon possession as an origin for sexual orientation. I invite anyone who has a question to ask not just their neighborhood gay man or lesbian woman, but go to the online community and you will quickly see that there is no direct correlation between being a homosexual and having suffered sexual abuse in pre-adolescence.

Lie: Homosexuals are more likely to sexually assault children.
This is one of the most insidious and heinous accusations lobbed against the gay community. It is also, fortunately the most easily combated. Since the 1970s here in the united states the GLBT rights community has been involved in a massive campaign of education. Popular prejudice and religious fundamentalism had, and still, create a shadow of ignorance. Under this shadow of ignorance fear finds a place to grow, for it is only natural that we fear the unknown. Yet we needn’t fear our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. And still the radical social conservatives have made abuse the banner under which they trample our civil rights. An issue so emotional and heart wrenching, it seems almost callous to some to point at cold and distant statistics. Yet it is by virtue of their cold and impartial stance that these issues can be understood.

Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts of sexually abused children in 1992. From these findings she determined that the molester was homosexual only 1% of the time, when identification was possible. That is only two cases out of a total of 269 [1]. The official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics [2] has been host to a number of peer reviewed studies concerning homosexuality and child molestation. One such study was concerning convicted child molesters. In this study it was discovered that less than one percent of the convicted predators of pre-adolescent boys was homosexual.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, another peer reviewed journal, found that of 172 child predators in the state of Massachusetts there were none among them that were homosexual. The Journal of the American Medical Association has one study showing that 90% of pedophiles are male and that 98% are heterosexual. These are only a few of several studies into convicted child molesters that have shown that homosexual men and women are actually far less likely to molest a child than a heterosexual [3]. Pediatrics Journal also states that a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a relative’s heterosexual partner than by a homosexual person [4].

This issue can also be viewed from a much simpler perspective. Homosexual men and women are, by definition, adults who are aroused by and seek consensual sex with other adults of the same gender. Pedophilia is defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [5] as the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent children. Homosexuality simply does not encompass the idea of sexual arousal by or around children. These are two almost mutually exclusive concepts and combined with the above data it is no contest to see that these claims against gay men and lesbian women have no foundation in reality.

Lie: Homosexuals want special rights.
One of the most pervasive lies spread by the religious right concerning gay men and lesbian women is that they seek special rights of which heterosexuals are not eligible. In a sea of ridiculous notions, this always manages to float to the top. It is simply an emotional appeal to Americans that the GLBT community wants something they haven’t earned, or seek to somehow elevate themselves above straight America. Nothing could be further from the truth. What rights then, do straight couples have that same-sex couples are denied? Marriage is an obvious one, but it is important. Homosexual men and women are denied from entering into this basic social contract. To date I have not seen one good secular argument in opposition. Without being able to legally declare the other person as a dependant a homosexual couple cannot benefit from one another’s health insurance. In some states laws have been passed that ban same-sex partner benefits [6]. The list goes one.

Without lawful recognition of gay couples a child cannot inherit from their biological parent’s same-sex partner. A gay or lesbian couple can be legally denied housing in many states [7] [8]. A same sex partner has no legal standing to sue for wrongful death, make arrangements for their partner’s funeral, or visit their partner in the hospital [9] [10]. A gay or lesbian couple cannot adopt in many states [11]. In others a person in a same sex relationship cannot even file domestic abuse charges [12]. According to the law two men or women who love each other and lived together for years are just strangers. And this institutionalized discrimination does not end with just a couple. The anti-gay stance of the united states military and state department are fine examples of a place where heterosexuals have rights that are denied to homosexuals. One of the most heinous and egregious violations of a homosexual man or woman’s civil rights is that in many states it is perfectly legal to fire someone, simply for being gay [13] [14]. So how does anyone think that gay and lesbian americans have the same rights as heterosexuals? All homosexual Americans want is simply equal protection under the law.

Myth: Marriage is a religious institution
This particular misconception is often stated as a counter argument to same-sex marriage. While it is true that the majority of wedding take place in religious context, that does not make the institution a religious one. As a minister I once knew was fond of say, ‘sitting in a garage does not make you a car’. Let’s look at what is actually required for two people to get married. First the couple must apply for a marriage license with the state. Now here is the first clue that marriage is not in religion’s court. Now the specifics of obtaining a marriage license vary slightly from state to state, but the process is basically the same. Next the couple must take the marriage certificate to an “officiator”. This officiator must be licensed by the state to solemnize marriages. Again, the details of who can be an officiator vary from state to state but almost all states state that ministers, community leaders, judges/justices, and retired judges/justices can all be licensed [15]. Let’s recap, first the couple has to procure a license to wed from their state government and then have that license signed by an officiator, who is licensed by the state. If a minister who is not registered as an officiator performs a marriage ceremony, or if a couple does not obtain a marriage license that marriage is not legally binding. What along this course makes one believe that marriage is a religious institution outside the realm of the government?

While it is simple to dismiss this argument on a factual basis, lets look at what this argument really means. Those who make this point are usually trying to demonstrate that the state cannot approve same-sex marriage because the church (I’ll get to fallacy here in a moment) does not support same-sex marriage. This position is preposterous on a number of grounds including the ones above. First of all, most who make this argument state that “the church” does not support same-sex marriage. What church? Does this include all the liberal Christian churches who openly accept gay congregants? Does this include all religions? Of course not, this is a myopic assumption based on the conservative Christian viewpoint of the GLBT community. Secondly we can see that even in opposite sex marriage a church is under no obligation to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. A church is free to reject someone on the basis of doctrine, there are already legal protections in place from discrimination lawsuits. So if a catholic church is free to turn away a protestant couple, so any church is free to decline officiating a same-sex marriage. Finally there is one simple reason why a religious objection is ludicrous, we allow atheists to get married.

Ecclesiates Syndrome

2008-01-26T03:14:00.000-06:00

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
--Ecclesiastes Chapter 1, Verse 9

I am suffering now from the bane of all writers. A diabolical psychological condition that can render a man's career lifeless and his hand limp. There is nothing more insidious to the soul of a writing man than the shadow that now looms over my very being. For now I stand in the footsteps of writers both great and small, as they have encountered this same beast. It is with the outcome of this battle that fortunes are won and lost. Those who have attained victory have won greatness, and those who have tasted defeated have been blasted from the public eye. I speak not of any physical ailment, for those all have their counter in Hippocrates's science. No, I am writing now of more subtle and debilitating malady that originates from one's very essence. I have chosen to give my malady a name and that name is Ecclesiastes Syndrome. Some others, more literally minded, might choose to call this affliction by it's common name, writers block. As such there shall be no blog post this week. I hope to discover a cure for this peculiar ailment in time to have a blog up for next week. Please forgive me my humble readers, and thank you for your support.

The Character of Christ

2008-01-15T03:13:00.005-06:00

If Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecutions that would be carried on in his name; he knew the millions that would suffer death through torture; and yet he died without saying one word to prevent what he must have known, if he were God, would happen.
--Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll

Continuing on in my series concerning the truth and validity of Christianity I want to examine the character of Jesus of Nazareth. Please feel free to go back and read my previous entry in the series, covering biblical literacy. Disregarding the issue of whether or not this character was a real person or religious myth, I want to examine the orthodox Christian view of Jesus as presented in the accepted protestant canon. There is always the concern that the authors and controversial editors of these gospels have altered the original text and meaning. However, American Christians do not take the issue of scholarship literally and abandon any search into translation accuracy or historicity in favor of divine inspiration. So we will examine the character of Jesus via the words of the orthodox gospels.

So let’s look at how Jesus is presented to the English speaking world. My goal here is to examine the words and actions of Christ and demonstrate that Jesus is not, or should not be considered, a moral leader. Being Christ-like is a common call in American Protestantism, the famous WWJD bracelets once flooded the American pop culture mindscape, and Jesus is indeed held to be the son of god, or god himself incarnate. So we would hope that Jesus stands the test as a fine upstanding moral leader. The head of everyman and the church is Christ, according to the apostles, so god would want to present us with an impeccable moral standard by which to measure our lives. More importantly we would expect to see the moral lessons of Christ to be timeless. Jesus should be a moral leader, and some of his teachings are regarded as instructive even by those without faith, yet if we examine the bible we find that Christ is far from the moral leader he is taken on faith to be.

In recent days my position of making moral judgments about god has been attacked by theists. I am told that without god there is no objective morality and thus you cannot make moral judgments. That is, of course absurd. Even if a person does not subscribe to the idea of moral absolutes, they remain able to make a moral judgment. All moral agents possess a standard by which to make moral judgments and can not only use this to judge actions, but to judge the morality of others. My purpose here is to present the actions and moral examples of Christ from the gospel account, and allowing it to be contrasted with modern Christian and American ethics. Most importantly, if god is the source of objective morality we can see the character of Jesus acting in opposition with our modern moral values and those of presented in the “Old Testament”.

Contents:
X. Infidel
IX. Incredulity
VIII. Racism
VII. Jesus Condones Slavery
VI. Violence
V. Duplicitous
IV. The Radical
III. Bad Advice
II. What he didn’t say...
I. Infinite Punishment for Finite Crimes

O. What he did right...

X. Infidel
Jesus is held up by traditional Christianity as the messiah of Jewish myth and the very incarnation of the Jewish god. However, if we examine the New Testament we find that Jesus is in fact a heretic. God sat down moral laws that were designed to be eternal (Exodus 12:24, Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15). Even Jesus says that the laws will last until the end of times (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17). When asked, Jesus tells his followers to keep the commandments (only five or six though), in fact he mentions specifically honor they father and mother (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20). He even makes it clear that he didn’t come to destroy the law (Matthew 5:17). Yet he repeatedly breaks the laws of god. In Matthew 12:2 and Luke 6:1 Jesus and his disciples are wandering through a man’s corn field on the Sabbath and become hungry, so they decide to pick the corn. Now, even picking up sticks on the Sabbath is worthy of being stoned to death (Numbers 15:35), not to mention the fact that their stealing a man’s crop which is also a crime in the eyes of the Jewish god (Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, Deuteronomy 5:19).

In Mark 3:31 and Luke 8:20 Jesus disowns his family, thus dishonoring his father and mother. In Mark 19:29 and Matthew 10:21 Jesus tells his followers to forsake their fathers and mothers. In the Sermon on the Mount (or the plain, Luke 6:17) Jesus tells his followers that he shall not divorce his wife for any reason save for adultery, thus changing the law (Deuteronomy 24:1). How can we trust god, or Jesus, to be a moral leader if he overturns his laws on a whim? I leave this particular entry as number 10 because this is the weakest argument since all Christians will immediately tell me that Jesus is god, so he can change the laws as he pleases. This should lead us to wonder why something was moral one day and then immoral the next? Of course many forget about Malachi chapter 3, verse 6.

IX. Duplicitous
Truth is a difficult word to use in a conversation about religion, so let me instead say that Jesus seemed to have lacked integrity. In Matthew 5:6 and 5:15 Jesus extols his apostles to let their light shine and make a joyful noise in worship of god. Yet in Matthew 6:1 and 23:3 he instructs them to do their praying in a closet and their alms in secret. Christians are told to preach the gospel to the world (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15), but Jesus also tells his followers to stay away from gentiles and Samaritans (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24). Christ says that he has come to bring peace to the world in one breath (Luke 2:14, John 14:27, John 16:33) and in the next breath he says that he did not come to bring peace but to cause strife and division (Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51, Luke 22:36). In Matthew 6:7 he tells his listeners not to pray in repetitions as the heathens do, then gives his followers the Lord ’s Prayer so that they may repeat it.

Jesus warns his disciples that if they call a man a fool they will be in danger of hell-fire. Yet shortly thereafter he calls his opponents fools (Matthew 23:17, Luke 11:40)! A very fundamental befuddlement of Christ’s sayings is regarding the operation of salvation. Is salvation by faith alone (Mark 16:16, John 2:18) or through works (Matthew 16:27, Luke 10:26-28, John 5:29)? Yet what is the worst duplicity of Jesus’ teachings are regarding the jewish law. Matthew chapter 5, verse 17, says clearly that Christ did not come to destroy the law. In fact he refers to the fact that the laws are eternal twice (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17). Yet Jesus goes on to dismantle and contradict the law several times (Matthew 12:2, John 5:16, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:38). The contradictions of the gospel account represent either a severely flawed transcription of actual events, a fictional tale from multiple authors, or one duplicitous individual properly reported.

VIII. Incredulity
Throughout the gospel account Christ often use examples and phrases that border on the absurd. While this is not a direct condemnation on the moral authority of Jesus, we would expect an ethical instructor (much less god incarnate) to at least present his ideas in a coherent form. Matthew 6:25 shows Jesus telling his followers that the birds of the air do not sow, or reap, or gather and are fed by god. In Matthew 13:32 Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed and if you plant it, it will become a tree, and birds will lodge in the branches. However mustard seeds are not the smallest seed and they don’t grow into trees. Christ teaches that faith in god will heal you of your illness, Matthew 9:22. After he drives out demons from a man and into a horde of pigs, which causes the swine to fling themselves off a cliff, the townspeople come to Jesus and demand that he leave; after all he just destroyed one or more men’s source of income (Matthew 8:34).

One of the most infamous episodes for Christ was when he came upon a fig tree while figs were out of season. Being angered that figs weren’t growing then, out of season, he curses the fig tree so it will never bear fruit again (Matthew 21:19, Mark 11:14). A lot of Christians don’t believe this story is true, but just ask GodHatesFigs.com. On top of these almost comical statements we can see certain disturbing trends and ideas. If a man keeps my teachings he shall never die, Matthew 8:51. There are some standing here which shall not taste death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom, Matthew 16:28. Seek and ye shall find, Matthew 7:7. Go and steal a horse, and if anyone objects tell them it is for god, Luke 19:30. These and the violent and radical statements expounded upon later reminds some observers of a cult leader. Followers are praised for being discriminated against, told to abandon their families, and exposed to a constant barrage of apocalyptic rhetoric. We can look back at famed cults and see very similar themes, but of course some argue that it is only a matter numbers between cult and legitimate religion.

VII. The Radical
Jesus is sometimes rightly attributed with certain radical social ideas. One that is often overlooked or outright ignored is Christ’s support for strict asceticism, or salvation through a form of self denial or monasticism. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5 and 6) Jesus preaches to his followers not accumulate treasures than can be stolen, but to focus on spiritual treasures. On the surface this might appear to be a simple admonishment against greed. This is in fact part of a larger speech that extols the followers of Christ to take no thought for tomorrow, or for your clothes, or for your meals. If we look at the previous passage literally, it is a strict message of asceticism. The idea of a literal interpretation of this passage can be backed up by looking at the overall view of Jesus concerning material wealth.

Through the gospel account Jesus makes repeated references to the nobility of poverty. In the beatitudes he says blessed are the poor and blessed are the hungry. Yet in Luke chapter 6, verse 24, he does not simply praise poverty but instead attacks the wealthy by saying, “But woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! For ye shall hunger”. As if the above passage was not clear enough we have the parable of the rich man. In this parable (Luke Chapter 16) we are told there was a rich man clothed in excellence and well fed and a beggar covered in sores and emaciated both die. The beggar is taken into the bosom of Abraham and the rich man is left to burn forever in hell. Jesus says through the character of Abraham: “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented”. Here again we see his disdain for the rich. Instead of attacking poverty and trying to organize the people in order to lift them up he instead attacks the rich and elevates poverty to a spiritual ideal. It seems as if these accounts are overwhelmingly in favor of an ascetic path to salvation similar to Buddhism.

These teachings worried many of those around the early Christian community and there is even a passage in the synoptic gospel that asks the question directly, how do you enter heaven? In one of the most controversial pieces of new testament scripture a rich man asks what he must do to receive eternal life and in Luke chapter 18 Jesus replies: “sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”.

In later epistles the disciples of Christ share equally in their goods (Acts 4:32, Acts 4:35), and even admonish those that dare keep private property for themselves (Acts 5:3). Jesus makes it abundantly clear that having money is a sin worthy of eternal hell fire and only in poverty and suffering can we reach him. Would a benevolent god have allowed and even sanctioned physical suffering as a path to eternal reward? Would such a god be just? If Jesus was simply a moral teacher, why would he eschew all physical concerns for a life of pure spiritual asceticism? Would it not be wiser to try and organize societies so that they might improve conditions on earth? Would it not be better advice to tell the poor to strive for economic comfort? Why does Christ declare that poverty is preferable and give no commands to improve the lives of the poor? More importantly, if Jesus is the moral exemplar for Christians then why is there no church following these edicts save for fringe sects like the Amish and Mennonites?

VI. Racism
In the ancient world racism was common, a simple truth that each tribe and culture felt they were the ones favored by the gods. It is certainly true of the early Hebrews when they made laws and wars against those of foreign tribes. And surely we can see a supremacist attitude in the workings of the Roman Empire. During the time of Christ the Romans were in control of Judea, and the tension between the Jewish populace and the gentile oppressors was palatable.

Let’s look at Jesus’ words and actions in the New Testament. Mark chapter 15 verse 22 sets the scene of a Canaanite (in some translations it is Greek or Samaritan) woman seeking Jesus so that he can cast out a demon from her daughter. Jesus says that it is unseemly to cast bread from the master’s table to the dogs. This is not a parable; this is presented as an actual conversation where Jesus is referring to this minority woman as a dog, and by inference calling her race dogs. It is only after begging and referring to herself as a dog begging at the masters table (in this case she is referring to the Jews and /or Romans, not god as the master), that she receives help from Jesus. In several other places throughout the gospels and Pauline epistles (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:22, and Acts 16:6) where Jesus or the holy spirit instructs the disciples not to preach the gospel, or even go to the lands of, the Samaritans and the Gentiles. Jesus even says: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” Matthew chapter 15, verse 24.

But this alone cannot be considered enough to condemn him. It is clear that the message above is a racist one, however racism was common place at the time. Egalitarianism across the races was the standard of morality throughout the ancient world. Indeed it remained so until modern times. Even out founding fathers held racist attitudes. Racism itself is not enough to condemn a man as immoral. However we would certainly expect a living god to be aware of the problems of racism and hatred, yet there is no specific sermon nor verse dedicated to race. We can though see that Paul and his followers did take it upon themselves to bridge the gap between jew and gentile and bring their message all the way to rome. In the early days of Christianity we can see an egalitarian spirit growing amongst its followers. Perhaps it’s a matter of do as I say and not as I do, or perhaps we can forgive Jesus the man for being a biased person in a culture where bias was the norm.

V. Jesus Condones Slavery
Slavery is not only condoned but expounded upon throughout the Old Testament. The god of the Jews clearly commands the Israelites to invade and enslave rival tribes. Here, though, we are talking about the words and actions of the biblical Jesus. In Matthew 8:5 Jesus is called upon to heal the servant of a roman soldier, and instead of rebuking servitude he hails the solider for his faith. Jesus uses the parable of a master and servants in Luke chapter 12. In Luke chapter 17 he speaks concerning how slaves are not thanked for doing their duties as a metaphor for servitude of god. The epistles, the supposed words of Christ’s disciples, make repeated appeals to servants to obey their masters (1 Corinthians 7:21, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9,& 1 Peter 2:18).

Worse yet, Jesus never makes one appeal to his followers to end slavery. Some would argue that the use of the word translated today as slave and servant simply meant a hired hand or maid. However this was an unknown concept at the time. Most slaves owned by the Jews were those imprisoned in order to pay off a debt, or indentured servants. Yet the Romans were well known for their system of enslaving an entire populace for life. In the central areas of Rome the slave populace was massive, and they brought these slaves to every region they conquered. So a historical Jesus would have born witness to the worst injustices of slavery. Today slavery is something that all civilized societies have done away with and recognize as immoral. How can god-incarnate, the ultimate moral exemplar, not rail against and attack slavery?

IV. Violence
Some might wonder about what I will discuss here. Christ is most known for the infamous quote “turn the other cheek”. He is held up as a pacifist and peace maker, but sadly the bible does not hold up to this image. Jesus frequently takes pleasure in discussing the torment and torture of those who disagree with him (Matthew 18:24, Matthew 10:33, Luke 3:9, John 3:36). Christ tells his disciples that cities which do not receive them will be struck down with a fiercer judgment than Sodom & Gomorrah (Matthew 10:14). Matthew chapter 15, verse 4, presents the Pharisee as attacking Jesus for not washing his hands. In response, Jesus says they are breaking god’s commands by not stoning unruly children to death. I wonder why Baptists don’t kill their children? Jesus specifically tells his disciples that he did not come to bring peace to the world, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). He implores his followers to sell their belongings and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). He even tells Pilate that if he were ruling the earth his followers would have fought to free him (John 18:36). In the parable of the talents he compares god’s kingdom to a master that executes those that oppose him.

Of course we have to examine the most infamous example of Christ’s violence. In the Gospel of John chapter 2, verse 14, Jesus comes to the temple and sees men selling ox and doves for sacrifice and offering money changing for travelers. Angered to the point of insanity, Jesus leaves the temple and hand makes his own scourge. Let’s look at what a scourge is. A scourge is a whip or lash, especially a multi-thong type with hard material affixed to its multiple thongs to give it a flesh-tearing 'bite’; used to inflict severe corporal punishment or self-mortification on the back [1]. That’s right, the son of god went and hand made a severe torture device to attack the money changers with. It is worth noting that Christ himself was later scourged to within an inch of his life by the roman soldiers. Maybe if you observe this clip from "The Passion of the Christ" you can get a feel for what Jesus did to innocent men. How can Jesus be a moral leader if he not only advocates wanton violence, but carries it out himself in such a brutal manner?

III. Bad Advice
Christians and non-Christians alike often refer to Jesus as a wise teacher, a man who had good maxims, much akin to Confucius or Buddha. However, there is very little directly good advice in the bible. If we look at the words and works of Jesus, we see that the majority of the gospel account is concerning miracles and actions. Only a small segment of these accounts contain direct advice. Even including the parables we have only a handful of teachings. Yet Jesus is full of bad advice. Instead of being a good moral teacher or secular wise man, he has many of the advice you would expect of a leader with an over inflated sense of spirituality and delusions of godhood.

Within Matthew Chapter 6, starting at verse 26, Jesus tells his disciples that the birds of the air and the flowers of the field don’t farm or spin; it is god that provides for them. This is of course absolutely absurd, even for minds of the time. Yet he is trying to make a point, he tells us that we should give no thought for tomorrow and let god provide for us. If Christians actually accept Jesus as a moral example we would see none of them in the workplace. Thought crimes are often decried in the western world, but are specifically endorsed by Christ. Matthew 5:21 tells us that if we are angry with our brother then we are in danger of divine judgment. Later in Matthew 5:27 we are told that if we look with desire toward a woman we are in danger of judgment. Our thoughts may inform our actions, but simply entertaining the thought should not be considered worthy of punishment. Our thoughts do not automatically cause our actions; instead we discuss and weigh the ideas in our head before we act. It is our actions that must be judged, not simply the thoughts that enter into our mind.

Despite his violent acts and calls for divine retribution, Jesus advises his followers to follow an extreme form of non-violence that borders on being totally non-confrontational. We are told in Matthew 5:38 that if a man strikes you on your left cheek, then you should turn you right cheek to him so he can strike that one too. This is absurd; even if we look at the most well respected non-violence advocates we rarely see this level of self abuse and intentional martyrdom. Jesus calls for Christians to completely avoid self-defence. Beyond simple violence Christ tells the listeners of his sermon on the mount that if anyone sues you and takes your coats in the settlement, then give him your cloak too. And if a stranger compels you to walk with them a mile, go three. We are told to love our enemies and bless those that curse us. Teachings like this show an extreme form of altruism which tells us not only to be non-confrontational, but reward your attacker or litigant for their assault. We can see in the practical world that if a man is victimized gives in wholly and fully, he is likely to be victimized again. By doing this Jesus is instructing his listeners to make themselves as defenseless victims.

Gospel accounts (Matthew 5:29) tell us of the supposedly metaphorical teaching that if your eye offend thee, then pluck it out. Most Christians accept this as a parable or metaphor, but if we examine the text there is the possibility that he is speaking literally. In the particular passage Jesus says that it is better to have one of your members pass away then your whole body cast into “hell”. However, hell here is a mistranslation of the word Gehenna. Gehenna was an actual physical locale where the bodies of the disgraced and sinful were burned and ritually purified and not a metaphysical place of punishment. So it is not too far removed to say that he is recommending that people mutilate themselves to avoid dishonor in death. We can see this literal thinking again in Matthew 19:12 where Christ informs his disciples that if they have the willpower, they should castrate themselves in the name of divine purity.

We would at the least expect our moral leaders to have powerful and informed maxims for how to live our lives and improve the world. Yet we find a great deal of talk about the afterlife, even to the exclusion of secular and physical concerns. Can we accept Jesus as a moral example even despite all these incorrect maxims? Only if we ourselves are concentrated on the spiritual above the temporal, as only then do his edicts carry any weight. Duplicity, harmful advice, and violent imagery call into question whether or not any such figure would be heeded today. Outside of the religious context and compared to other moral philosophers we find Jesus deficient even safely nested in the time and culture during which he taught. So where are American Protestants getting their morals?

II. What he didn’t say...
No discussion of the moral character of Jesus Christ is complete without looking at what he didn’t say. For the vast majority of Christians the gospel accounts present the literal word of god which is a manual for how to live. Were the gospel Jesus actually an all mighty god we would hope to see talk of the future, a preparation for advancements in morality, and sound timeless wisdom. Of course, we do not. This ties into with the idea of prophecy in the bible. An omniscient being could have easily included a description of men walking on the moon or described revolutionary scientific ideas. Instead the moral lessons and scientific ideas expressed by the gospel Christ are no different than the views of the average west-asian Iron Age man.

So what should have Jesus said if he were the physical manifestation of god? Well we would expected him to speak out against anti-semitism. Surely he would know that almost all medieval and renaissance Christians would blame the Jews for their role in the passion play. If he was aware of all the repercussions of his words he could have spoken out against religious intolerance and if he were divine he could have seen and countered the eventual inquisition. A benevolent moral divinity should have addressed violence against woman and their equal rights. A divine moral teacher would, or should, have addressed the future issues of government. The idea of democracy was relatively rare during the times of the New Testament canon and surely a divine author of morality would address democracy. Democracy now, after all, is the predominate form of government in the industrialized west. Yet early Christians, and even later Protestants, have upheld monarchies and theocracies.

What should have Jesus said if he was not omniscient. If the gospel Christ was simply a human moral teacher, what should he have addressed if his message were timeless and important to us today? During the supposed time of Jesus slavery was heatedly debated issue. Yet Christ never once condemns slavery. There is, to my knowledge, not a single Christian today that would condone slavery of his fellow human being. At the time the entire Levant was under the restrictive control of the Romans. Yet Jesus does not speak out against the roman occupation. Nor does Christ ever address wars of genocide or extermination. He doesn’t even speak out against cases of genocide and mass murder in jewish lore. Racism is never condemned. Capital punishment is never addressed. Injustice and rape in the jewish law is never addressed. Sexism is never addressed. So if Jesus was a moral leader he neglected to take on any real issues of the day, much less address the issues relevant to the modern west. In fact the majority of Christ’s teachings deal with spiritual matters and metaphysical ideals instead of moral questions. Why doesn’t Jesus address real moral issues? More importantly, why are his mystical rantings taken as moral lessons today?

I. Infinite Punishment for Finite Crimes
Worst among all the ideas put forth by the biblical Jesus is the metaphysical concept of hell. Even this idea is controversial within the Christian canon, hell is most often the English transliteration of the words gehenna and hades. Hades is similar to sheol in the Jewish mythology, a place where all the dead go without punishment or retribution. Gehenna on the other hand is a place where the bodies of the dishonored dead were burned to ritually purify them. Yet there are many instances where the afterlife is described, though not named, as a place where the dead are burned and tormented. Is hell moral?

Let’s look first at the concept of hell as a moral control. Some, even the gospel accounts themselves, say that it is the threat of hell that keeps a man moral. How would we feel if a parent turned to his child and said, “Do your homework or I’ll lock you in the basement and torture you”. How can any man actually be considered moral if he only follows ethical guidelines because of threat of torture? Would we not expect him to try his best to cheat the rules, and do only the minimum required of him? Such a man wouldn’t understand why something is immoral, just be driven by fear and not respect of his fellow man.

Hell though presents the ultimate immorality. How can a benevolent god punish a person for an infinite amount of time for simple crimes, such as apostasy or thought crimes? Suppose that man commits the sin of theft and steals a can of soda. His crime took a few seconds and robbed a store owner, distributor, and corporation of a few cents. For that finite small crime he will be tortured for eternity. Is that just? Is that moral? Suppose that Hitler is in hell, even he would, in time, have paid his debt to society and the world. It may be hundreds or thousands of years, but is it ever just to punish someone eternally for a non-infinite crime? Worse yet are sermons, epistles, and passages that say the saved will look down from heaven and take pleasure in watching the sinners being tortured.

How can we accept god as loving when he tells all those who refuse to accept an irrational claim are worthy of infinite torture. How can anyone claim god is the source of morals when he sends all those who even disagree with him into a fiery torment? Beyond that, how can Jesus advocate the torture of these relatively innocent people when he discusses specifically in Matthew chapter 5 that we should resist not evil and love those that hate us. How can we accept Jesus as a moral leader if he tells us to love our enemies, and then says that those who do not follow him will burn forever?

What he got right...
Sadly there is little that Jesus says that is applicable to secular morals or society. Turn the other cheek is tempered by righteous fury, care for the poor is countered by ascetic glorification of poverty, sermons on justice shrivel under the shadow of hell’s great injustice. Is there anything which Jesus said that would be applicable to this day? Through his contradictory statements Jesus tried to create a sense of brotherhood amongst first century Jews, a sense of brotherhood in an age when roman influence split the culture into collaborators and victims. If we look back at the word of Christ as reported in the synoptic gospels we see that he never makes claims to godhood, but instead tries to encourage his listeners to reach a higher moral standard. While the messages of reaching for a higher morality and universal brotherhood may be tempered by the culture of the times, they remain powerful messages that were expanded on by the early church.

The one thing that we can say in favor of Jesus character is that he tried to bring respect into his works. Despite condemnations we see that he tries to inject the basic idea of the social contract, do unto others. An idea as old as human society itself, a moral worthy of teaching. And we cannot forget that when Christ is asked about the commandments he lists only six, the six secular values that are universal to human culture which stand even today as sound basic civil principals to live by. Further down in the same sermon he tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. While there is room for argument about the merits of pure altruism, this idea of loving our neighbor is at the heart of peace movements and even civil rights movements today. If men and women of the Christian faith are called upon to be Christ like then I hope they will look to the highest message, the message of love and justice, and hold that up as their standard.

My mission here is not to paint Jesus as an evil figure deserving of scorn, but provide the moral attitudes and lessons really taught in the gospels divorced from miracle tales and spirituality. This is the philosophy of Jesus as presented to us by orthodox canon and must be addressed by any opponent or proponent of Christianity. My mission here has been to examine the moral lessons and character of Jesus compared with modern Christians and Christianity. There are pieces of good advice and welcoming ideas, but we must be ready and willing to disregard the bad advice. If we view Jesus as simply a human moral teacher he is mediocre even for his time and place, and we can find greater moral lessons in other teachers. Yet if we look at Jesus as an infallible divine moral authority then we must doubt the logical validity or character of such a god. If the god of the pulpit is not the god of the bible, then how can Christians claim to be followers of Jesus? If our moral compass deems Christ to be immoral, or even a faulty moral teacher, can we accept him as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god that the rest of the bible portrays him as? If you were to present these precepts and sayings to a Christian without identifying the source, how would they react? More importantly, are the teachings of Jesus really worthy of worship?

Ten Reasons not to take the Bible Literally

2007-12-30T11:52:00.004-06:00

The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God, I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?

--Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Throughout American Protestantism, the concept of biblical inerrancy is a primary doctrine. The idea is that the bible, as is presented in English, is the infallible and divinely authored word of god. So called “liberal” Christians take the bible as book of moral stories and on the extreme end a few fundamentalists believe that only the King James translation is inspired. Yet the bible is still setup as the foundation of the Christian religion. In order to understand and counter the claims of Christianity you must understand the bible. So lets start from the least convincing arguments against divine authorship and work our way up.

Contents
X. Which Bible?
IX. The Bible Contradicts History/Archeology
VIII. Translation, Translation, μετάφραση
VII. The Bible Contradicts Science
VI. The Bible Contains Absurdities
V. Who wrote it?
IV. The Bible contains Bad Advice
III. The Bible contains Cultural Bias
II. The Bible Contradicts itself
I. The Bible is just another Mythological Text

X. Which Bible?
Source
The new Testament as we have it today was, shockingly to many protestants, not laid down by the apostles or even formalized until the 3rd or 4th century. The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the "memoirs of the apostles," which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament. A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly.

By the early 200's, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the Catholic NT canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation, see also Antilegomena. Likewise the Muratorian fragment is evidence that perhaps as early as 200 there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the 27-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[8] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon, and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The North African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the 27-book NT canon together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. See

That some works are categorized as New Testament apocrypha is indicative of the wide range of responses that were engendered in the interpretation of the message of Jesus of Nazareth. During the first several centuries of the transmission of that message, considerable debate turned on safeguarding its authenticity. Three key methods of addressing this survive to the present day: ordination, where groups authorize individuals as reliable teachers of the message; creeds, where groups define the boundaries of interpretation of the message; and canons, which list the primary documents certain groups believe contain the message originally taught by Jesus (in other words, the Bible). Many early books about Jesus were not included in the canons, and are now termed apocryphal. Some of them were vigorously suppressed and survive only as fragments. The earliest lists of authentic works of the New Testament were not quite the same as modern lists; for example the Book of Revelation was long regarded as unauthentic, while Shepherd of Hermas was considered genuine by many Christians, and appears in several ancient bibles.

The works that presented themselves as "authentic" but did not obtain general acceptance from within the churches are called New Testament Apocrypha. These are not accepted as canonical by most mainstream Christian denominations; only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul, and several Old Testament books that most other denominations reject, but it should be noted that this church does not adhere to an explicit canon. The Syriac Peshitta, used by all the various Syrian Churches, originally did not include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation (and this canon of 22 books is the one cited by John Chrysostom (~347-407) and Theodoret (393-466) from the School of Antioch ). Western Syrians have added the remaining 5 books to their NT canons in modern times (such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823). Today, the official lectionaries followed by the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (India), and the Chaldean Syrian Church, also known as the Church of the East (Nestorian), with headquarters at Trichur (India), still present lessons from only the 22 books of the original Peshitta only. The Armenian Apostolic church at times has included the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, but does not always list it with the other 27 canonical New Testament books. This Church did not accept the Revelation into its Bible until A.D. 1200. The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement.

Books which are objectively known not to have existed in antiquity, such as the medieval Gospel of Barnabas, are usually not considered part of the New Testament Apocrypha. Among these are also the Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae (also named as the Nativity of Mary) and Latin Infancy Gospel. The latter two did not exist in the antiquity, and seem to be based on the earlier Infancy Gospels. See

IX The Bible contradicts Archeology/History...
Source
The bible is often touted by fundamentalists as a historical text that can be relied upon for archeological truth and evidence. While the book does contain the names and locations of real cities and geographical features, this does not prove other facts in the work. This is similar to the way in which the real city names and geographical features in the Iliad and Odyssey do not prove the details, or mythological aspects, of those stories.

Aside from the above issues of 6 day creation and world wide flood, there are a small number of historical facts that conflict with the biblical account. For example, there is no archeological evidence for the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah. In Exodus 1:7 the population of the ancient Israelites grows exponentially until they outnumber the Egyptians, an idea completely lacking in evidence. There is no evidence that the Jews ever were enslaved by the Egyptians (See). In Exodus 16:35 the Israelites take 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey required little more than 10 days. There is no archeological evidence for long term migration through the Sinai dessert.

In Numbers 1:45 the population of the Israelites went from seventy to several million in a handful of generations, an absurdity. In Joshua chapter 8 the Israelites destroy Ai and make it a desolate heap. But Ai was an abandoned city by the time of the Israelites. Joshua 8:28 This verse says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah 7:32 lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. Daniel chapter 5 speaks of Belshazzar the King, son of Nebuchadnezzar, but Belshazzar was neither. Daniel 5:31 refers to Darius the median as successor of Belshazzar, but there is no such person and the king during that time period was Cyrus. There is also very little historical evidence for the existence of King David as portrayed by the bible (see and see).

Now of course we come to one of the biggest historical gaps in the biblical account, the existence of Jesus. Outside of the Bible and other Non-Canonical religious texts there are practically no secular or historic sources for the existence of the biblical character of Jesus. While it is relatively harmless to assume that there were one or more actual persons who founded the Christian religion, the name and character of Jesus is more mythology than fact. See 1, 2

VIII. Translation, Translation, μετάφραση...
Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of contradictions arising between different English translations of the Hebrew or Greek text. Some Christian interpretations are criticized by non-Christians (and sometimes particularly by Jewish believers) as being based on mistranslations, or on readings found in only some manuscripts of the Bible, or in particular English translations of the Bible.

Newly discovered ancient manuscripts of the Bible, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Codex Sinaiticus, suggest that passages such as the Pericope Adulteræ, and Mark 16 and Comma Johanneum originally took other forms than are present in older translations such as the King James Version, or were even absent. There is also the question of whether the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most modern English translations of the Old Testament, is the more accurate or whether one of the translations which pre-dates the masoretic text, such as the Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and Samaritan Pentateuch is more accurate.

Some accuse Christians of translating the Bible in a dishonest way to make the text reflect Christian doctrine. For example, Muslim convert Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) points out that modern English translations avoid using the word worship in some contexts ("Nebuchadnezzar came to Daniel and he worshiped him") while crucially retaining it in others ("a man came to Jesus and he worshiped him").and that the word Messiah or "anointed one" is translated differently when applied to Cyrus the Persian in Isaiah, chapter 45, and when applied to Jesus. Miller claims that this is a deliberately inconsistent translation, in order to "give us the impression that there is only one Messiah, one Christ and no other."

Bart D. Ehrman makes similar claims in his book Misquoting Jesus. In Chapter 7 of the book, he discusses theologically motivated alterations of the text. He argues, for example, that scribes added Luke 22:43-44 in an attempt to counter the arguments that Jesus was not fully human and did not have a body. In Chapter 8, he argues that texts were changed in order to minimize the role of women and counter the Jews and pagans.

Virgin: Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" — which means, "God with us." This verse is, according to Jews (and other critics of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth), a misquoting of Isaiah 7:14. Jewish translations of the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel." Moreover, it is claimed that Christians have taken this verse out of context (see Immanuel for further information).

Another example is Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" A Jewish website claims that "Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was fabricated."However, one common suggestion is that the New Testament verse is based on a passage relating to Nazirites, either because this was a misunderstanding common at the time, or through deliberate re-reading of the term by the early Christians.

An example of translation differences can be found in John 17:6. The ESV (a more literal translation) translates the original as "I have manifested your name", while the NIV (a translation that uses dynamic equivalence) uses the phrase "I have revealed you". The NIV is simpler, and is thus easier for an English reader to understand. However, the NIV translation omits the fact that in the original text, the speaker (Jesus) was specifically revealing God's name. Since in the following verses he specifically prays about God's name, and many other verses specifically discuss God's name, the connection between this statement and other verses (including the ones that immediately follow) is eliminated by this less literal translation.

Consider Leviticus 18:22. According to one source, a word-for-word translation is:
"And with a male thou shall not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination."
(The word "abomination" is a mistranslation, in terms of modern English. The Hebrew word means something like "ritually impure". Some other examples of "abominations" are: a person eating lobster, the offering of an animal which has a blemish for ritual sacrifice, a man getting a haircut or shaving his beard, or a woman wearing jeans or slacks, a person eating a cheeseburger.) This passage is normally interpreted in English as something similar to:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (RSV)
That rendering would condemn all male-male sexual activity. Or, if the translators really wanted to stretch the meaning of the passage well beyond what the original Hebrew states, they might want to write a condemnation of lesbianism into the translation, as in:
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (NLT)
But it could be argued that an equally accurate rendering is:
"Men must not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination"
That is, homosexual activity is only condemned if it is done in the wrong location: on a woman's bed. Bible translators, scholars and individual believers debate endlessly over the precise meaning of individual passages such as this one. If people attribute multiple meanings to various verses, then only one (perhaps none) could be inerrant. We can try to compare a passage with other similar verses in the Bible in order to determine which interpretation is most likely. But, we have no absolutely reliable method of determining which interpretation is true.

A more speculative example can be found in Ruth 3:14. In Biblical Hebrew the word "feet" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "genitalia" (usually of the male sort).[2] So in Ruth 3:14 we have the quote "So she lay at his feet until morning." Formal equivalence makes it the reader's responsibility to determine what "feet" means in the context, risking the possibility that the reader completely misses a possible meaning of the passage. In theory, dynamic equivalence might render the passage "She made love with him until the morning." A translation that chose the second translation would provide the context by itself. Note, however, that there are currently no known English translations that use the second approach - at most this possible alternative meaning is noted as a footnote. So while this example more clearly shows the choices translators must make, in this case it is a speculative example. In particular, it is by no means agreed that the term "feet" is actually a euphemism for genitalia in this specific passage; some scholars specifically reject this interpretation as being incompatible with the surrounding text.

Another key issue in translating the Bible is selecting the source text. The Bible far predates printing presses, so every book had to be copied by hand for many centuries. Every copy introduced the risk of error. Thus, a key step in performing a translation is to establish what the original text was, typically by comparing extant copies. This process is called textual criticism.

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, creating a challenge in handling so many different texts when performing these comparisons. The King James Version (or Authorized Version) was based on the Textus Receptus, an eclectic Greek text prepared by Erasmus based primarily on Byzantine text Greek manuscripts. There are far more copies of the Byzantine text-types, so much so that it is termed the "Majority Text". Although the majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort's edition, there remain some proponents of the Byzantine text-type as the type of text most similar to the autographs. These critics include the editors of the Hodges and Farstad text and the Robinson and Pierpoint text. For example, the modern World English Bible translation is based on the Greek Majority (Byzantine) text.

Proponents of the Alexandrian text type claim that no significant doctrinal issue hinges on these differences in text, indeed, most differences do not yield a difference in the translated result, but proponents of the Byzantine text type tend to believe the opposite.

The Byzantine text type is the text historically in use by the church, and is a universal text, with manuscripts to be found all over the world. The Alexandrian type on the other hand was the local text type of Alexandria Egypt for only a portion of the 4th century, and which was buried there from the 4th to the 19th century unused, while the whole world went on using the Byzantine text. See

VII. The Bible contradicts Science...
If the bible were the work of an all knowing god then we would expect to see a modern understanding of science. If this were simply a book concerning moral principles and “history” there would be few references to scientific ideas and those would be correct and obvious to a modern man. Yet this is not what we find. Throughout the bible we see scientific ideas that reflect the understandings of a bronze age civilization. For example, a planet does not have corners . We know with an almost absolute degree of certainty that the world was not created in 6, 24 hour, days six-thousand years ago . Man does not have a missing rib (Genesis 2:19) and there is absolutely no evidence of a world-wide flood (Genesis 7:20). Bats are not bird (Leviticus 11:13), rabbits don’t chew the cud (Leviticus 11:5), there are no Unicorns (Numbers 23:22), or Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33), and the sun does not move in the sky (Joshua 10:12). Not only that but even Jesus had trouble understanding science. The Mustard seed is not the smallest seed (Matthew 13:31). Jesus says that birds do not hunt, but are fed by god (Matthew 6:26). There is no record of a solar eclipse over Jerusalem during the supposed time of Christ (Mark 15:33). The faithful cannot survive snake bites and drink any deadly poison without injury (Mark 16:17).

VI. The Bible contains absurdities...
While it may seem like a cop out, I recommend that this section point you directly to VII and IX. Violating science, history, and reason is very common in the bible and likewise other religious texts from the age. Yet the greatest absurdities come from the blatant supernatural elements and contradictions with reality. Demons are said to be the cause of disease. Prayer heals wounds and illness. A supernatural trickster tempts people. Donkeys talk (Numbers 22:28). The dead coming back to life. Ghosts being summoned up to aid Israelite kings (1 Samuel 28:11). Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season(Matthew 21:18, Mark 11:12). Reason is rejected in favor of blind faith (Job 11:7, John 20:29). And so on and so forth, and in our world today we have developed science and reason and logic. Mainstream science and psychology have unilaterally rejected the supernatural. Those who claim to investigate ghosts or exorcise demons are ridiculed by professionals. Yet here we have a book written by bronze and iron age peoples with no understanding of psychology or science and it is regarded as the infallible and inerrant word of god. Amazing.

V. Who wrote it?
Source
The New Testament is a collection of works, and as such was written by multiple authors. The traditional view--that is, the authors according to most early orthodox Christians--is that all the books were written by Apostles (e.g. Matthew and Paul) or disciples working under their direction (e.g. Mark and Luke). However, since the second century or perhaps even the second half of the first century, these traditional ascriptions have been rejected by some. In modern times, with the rise of rigorous historical inquiry and textual criticism, the authenticity of orthodox authorship beliefs have been rejected in large part. While the traditional authors have been listed above, the modern critical view is discussed herein.

Seven of the epistles of Paul are now generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic; these undisputed letters include Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. Raymond Brown has this to say about Colossians: "At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter" (An Introduction, p. 610; cited by earlychristianwritings.com). Experts usually question Pauline authorship for any other epistle, although there are a few conservative Christian scholars who accept the traditional ascriptions. Almost no current mainstream scholars, however, Christian or otherwise, hold that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, questions about the authorship of Hebrews go back at least to the 3rd century ecclesiastical writer Caius, who attributed only thirteen epistles to Paul (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6.20.3ff.). A small minority of scholars hypothesize Hebrews may have been written by one of Paul's close associates, such as Barnabas, Silas, or Luke, given that the themes therein seemed to them as largely Pauline.

The authorship of all non-Pauline books have been disputed in recent times. Ascriptions are largely polarized between Christian and non-Christian experts, making any sort of scholarly consensus all but impossible. Even majority views are unclear.

The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, unlike the other New Testament works, have a unique documentary relationship. The dominant view among critical scholars, the Two-Source Hypothesis, is that both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source", from Quelle, the German word for "source". However, the nature and even existence of Q is speculative, and thus scholars have proposed variants on the hypothesis which redefine or exclude it. Most Q scholars believe that it was a single written document, while a few contest that "Q" was actually a number of documents or oral traditions. If it was a documentary source, no information about its author or authors can be obtained from the resources currently available. The traditional view supposes that Matthew was written first, and Mark and Luke drew from it and the second chronological work; although not founded in textual criticism, some scholars have attempted to use their modern methods to confirm the idea. An even smaller group of scholars espouse Lukan priority. Despite the lack of a unanimous consensus, however, the majority view certainly agrees with the two-source hypothesis.

Modern scholars are also skeptical about authorship claims for noncanonical books, such as the Nag Hammadi corpus discovered in Egypt in 1945. This corpus of fifty-two Coptic books, dated to about 350–400, includes gospels in the names of Thomas, Philip, James, John, and many others. Like almost all ancient works, they represent copies rather than original texts. None of the original texts has been discovered, and scholars argue about the dating of the originals. Suggested dates vary from as early as 50 to as late as the late second century. (See Gospel of Thomas and New Testament Apocrypha.)

According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelical and Traditionalist scholars continue to support this dating.

Most critical scholars agree on the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e., those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.

In the 1830s German scholars of the Tübingen school dated the books as late as the third century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments, not including some of the later writings, dating as far back as 125 (notably Papyrus 52) has called such late dating into question. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first-draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, if we assume they must have been quoted by Clement or Polycarp. There are many minor discrepancies between manuscripts (largely spelling or grammatical differences).

IV. The Bible contains Bad Advice...
Slavery, murder, rape, prostitution, violence, racism, and hellfire, these are the things that the bible advocates for those that do no agree. Most Christians don’t believe me or anyone when they say this, yet it’s spelled out in black, white, and occasionally red. I will only list a few here for sake of brevity and space, but an exhaustive list can be found here and here . Genesis 19:8 Lot gives his daughters to be raped by the mob so that god’s angels can be safe. Leviticus Chapter 19 Tattoos, planting different crops side by side, wearing clothes of two different fibers, cattle interbreeding, and shaving are all abominations equal to homosexuality and worthy of death. Leviticus 19:20 If you sleep with or rape, an engaged (betrothed) slave, the slave is to be scourged and the man is to be left alone. Leviticus Chapter 25 Instructions on how to mark, buy, and sell your slaves. Numbers 15:32 A man is gathering sticks for firewood on the Sabbath and god commands that he be stoned to death. Numbers 23:24 god instructs the jews to kill like lions and drink the blood of the slain. 2 Kings 2:23 Elisha is called bald by 42 children and asks god to kill them, which he does by sending two she-bears from the woods. 2 Kings 3:27 the King of Moab sacrifices his first born son so that god will stop the Israelites from slaughtering his people. Isaiah 13:15 God sends the Israelites to run Babylonians through, smash their children, and rape their wives. Matthew 5:40 If someone sues you, don’t defend yourself but give him more than he asks for. Matthew 6:25 Take no thought for tomorrow, don’t worry about where you’ll find your next meal, or buy insurance. Matthew 10:14(Mark 6:11, Luke 10:10) Cities that do not receive the disciples will be struck down in the day of judgment, worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. Matthew 15:4 Jesus condemns the Pharisee for not killing disobedient children. Matthew 3:10(Luke 3:9, John 15:6) Jesus says that those who do not bear good fruit will be cast into unquenchable fire. Acts 5:1 Ananias is scared to death after being threatened by the apostles for not giving them all his money from a land sale. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 God will send you strong delusions to make you believe a lie and go to hell.

III. The Bible contains cultural bias...
It is admitted by even some Christians that the old testament and the laws therein were written for a specific culture in a specific time. If we look at the bronze age peoples of west asia we can see a pattern in culture. In some underdeveloped nations to this day these ancient customs can be seen, but they were ubiquitous in the age of the Tanakh. Slavery is specifically endorsed with detailed instructions on payment, treatment, and marking of the slaves (Leviticus Chapter 21). When at war the Isrealites are commanded to kill the men (Joshua 8:22, 1 Samuel 19:8, 1 Samuel 28:8, etc.), rape the women (Numbers 31:15), and take slaves (Leviticus 25:44). Women are treated as second class citizens and subjugated (Deuteronomy 22:13, 25:1, 21:11; Judges 19:24, etc.). Foreigners are treated as enemies and worthy of no respect (Deuteronomy 7:2, Numbers 18:7). All of these barbaric and primitive customs we would expect to see as laws and divine rules of the Babylonians, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Syrians, and so on but not from an omnipotent or benevolent god.

Yet let me allow Robert Ingersoll to sum up the cultural bias by quoting his treatise “About the Holy Bible”:

Is there anything in the Old Testament -- in history, in theory, in law, in government, in morality, in science -- above and beyond the ideas, the beliefs, the customs and prejudices of its authors and the people among whom they lived?

Is there one ray of light from any supernatural source?

The ancient Hebrews believed that this earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and stars were specks in the sky.

With this the Bible agrees.

They thought the earth was flat, with four corners; that the sky, the firmament, was solid -- the floor of Jehovah's house.

The Bible teaches the same.

They imagined that the sun journeyed about the earth, and that by stopping the sun the day could be lengthened.

The Bible agrees with this.

They believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman; that they had been created but a few years before, and that they, the Hebrews, were their direct descendants.

This the Bible teaches.

If anything is, or can be, certain, the writers of the Bible were mistaken about creation, astronomy, geology; about the causes of phenomena, the origin of evil and the cause of death.

Now, it must be admitted that if an infinite Being is the author of the Bible, he knew all sciences, all facts, and could not have made a mistake.

If, then, there are mistakes, misconceptions, false theories, ignorant myths and blunders in the Bible, it must have been written by finite beings; that is to say, by ignorant and mistaken men.

Nothing can be clearer than this.

II. The Bible contradicts itself...
Let’s look at the contradictions in the modern bible. Many passages in the Old Testament are directly contradicted shortly thereafter or in a later tale, but let’s look specifically at the new Testament. At first is the story of Christ’s birth. There is a massive census called by Caesar Augustus. In this census the peoples of the region were forced to travel back to their city of birth in order to be counted. Romans were immaculate record keepers and no such census has ever been discovered, or even referenced in the writings of Judean commanders. Not just that, but neither the Levites nor the Romans had ever called upon a census which required citizens to travel to their home town. Even if this was simply rare, there is no reason why they would need to.

Across a few pages is a totally different story of Jesus’ birth that involves Herod sending out soldiers to kill the new born males in Bethlehem. Again, the Romans were excellent record keepers, and do not mention this in the least. Josephus is silent on this despite his reports on Herod’s misdeeds and the killing of the chronicler’s children. Even if this was quickly covered up, this slaughter is not mentioned in other gospels save for the Protoevangelion of James, a non-canonical book. This story was created to link Jesus symbolically tom Moses. In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus is given a royal lineage from David via Solomon (Matthew 1:6). However, in Luke’s gospel, Christ’s’ lineage is entirely different, traced from Nathan (Luke 3:31).

Jesus told his disciples of his coming resurrection in (Luke 18:31, Mark 10:33,& Matthew 26:31), yet in John 20:9 the bible says, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead”. Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane for god to take away his burden if it were possible in (Matthew 26:36, Mark 14:35, Luke 22:41), yet in John 12:27 Jesus states, “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.” According to the above three gospels Jesus’ cross was carried by Simon of Cyrene (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26), while John 19:17 states, “And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha”. Divorce is strictly forbidden by Jesus in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, but an exception is made for adultery in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9; while another exception, this time for disbelievers, is made in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

These contradictions range from small copy errors to dozens of little differences. Did Jesus drink anything while on the cross (John 19:29 vs. Mark 15:23)? Were the disciples order to go barefoot (Matthew 10:10, Luke 9:3 vs. Mark 6:8)? Did Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:14 vs. Luke 2:39)? Was John the Baptist the Reborn Elijah (Matthew 17:12, Mark 9:13 vs. John 1:21)? Who was the first to see Jesus after he rose again, Mary Magdelene (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:9, John 20:11), Cleopas (Luke 24:13), or Cephas (1 Corinthians 15:4)? Should the gospel be preached to non-jews (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24, Acts 16:6 vs. Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, Acts 8:25, Acts 15:3, Acts 22:21, Acts 28:28)? If it risks hellfire to call someone a fool (Matthew 5:22), why does Jesus do it (Matthew 23:17, Luke 11:40, Luke 24:25)? Why do his disciples do it (Romans 1:21, 1 Corinthians 15:36, Galatians 3:1)? Was Jesus born before 4 BCE during the time of Herod (Luke 1:5, Matthew 2:1), or after 6 CE during the time of Quirinius (Luke 2:1)? Did Judas identify Jesus to the guards with a kiss (Matthew 26:47, Mark 14:43, Luke 22:47 vs. John 18:3)? How did Judas die (Matthew 27:5 vs. Acts 1:18)? Should Christians marry (Matthew 19:6, 1 Timothy 4:1, Hebrew 13:4 vs 1 Corinthians 7:1, 1 Corinthians 7:7)? Can women be leaders in the church (Acts 18:26, Romans 16:1, Romans 16:7, vs. 1 Corinthians 14:24, 1 Timothy 2:11)? Are Christians still required to follow jewish law (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17 vs. Luke 16:16, Romans 6:14, 2 Corinthians 3:14, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14)?

I. The Bible is just another Mythological Text...
Joshua invades Gibeon and prays to god that the sun may stand still so until he has slaughtered the Hivites. As the greeks wage war on Troy, Hera seduces and makes love to Zeus, thus allowing Poseidon to aid the greeks in battle. What’s the difference?

God takes mud and forms it into human shape and breathes the breath of life into it and creates Adam. Odin and his brothers Ve and Villi took two pieces of wood and carved them into human shapes. Then Odin breathed the breath of life into them. What’s the difference?

God says let there be light and there was light. Ptah opened his mouth and called forth the world. What’s the difference?

God sends the angel Gabriel to announce that Mary shall conceive the son of god. Rhea Silvia the vestal virgin of ancient Italy is raped by the god mars and gives birth to Romulus and Remus. What’s the difference?

Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist and the holy spirit descended upon him. Siddhartha Gautama sits beneath a bodhi tree in meditation when he reaches enlightenment and universal understanding. What’s the difference?

Jesus heals the sick, raises the dead, and prophecies of the future yet these events are only spoken of by his disciples decades after his death. Apollonius of Tyana heals the sick, raises the dead, and prophecies of the future yet these events are only spoken of by his disciples decades after his death. What’s the difference?

Jesus is crucified and resurrected and ascends into heaven to sit at the right hand of his father. Mithras is killed and resurrected and ascends into heaven to join his father the sun god. What’s the difference?

Any outside observer, an alien or person who has never encountered Christianity, will look upon these events as mythology and folklore. Those who believe these events really happened must look with a literal eye toward the life of Heracles, Achilles, Krishna, and Osiris. So how can any intellectually honest person say that the bible is a literal inerrant work of an all knowing and loving god?

Reporting Live From: Small Town USA

2007-12-17T00:09:00.000-06:00

I say we are here in human form to learn by the human hieroglyphs of love and suffering. There is no intensity of love or feeling that does not involve the risk of crippling hurt. It is a duty to take this risk, to love and feel without reserve or defense.
--William S. Burroughs

Well ladies and gentleman, I appear to be settled in for the moment. I’m a young man who has hit a snag financially and am now residing back in my home town with my parents. That’s right, a nerd living with his parents with a blog on the internet. Cliché no? Yet I am just here to regroup and pool some money. Until the holidays past there is not much work in town and I’m trying to adjust to the sudden shift as best I can.

So I find myself once again in the bounds of Small Town, USA. That’s right, behind enemy lines in the culture war. It’s a land where churches outnumber people and everything closes promptly at 9 PM. A town of whites-only where over 50% of the population is over 40 and claim that the town is safe, “I never lock my door”. Yet the youths are bored, restless, and stupid so meth and madness flow freely down their throats. David lynch knew it best that Small Town USA is where the real pulp and black heart of America is, not the cities. In Cincinnati if a man was murdered you said, “Well I’m glad I never go into that neighborhood”. Here, a sheriff slaughters his family and the incident is hushed up in the local papers. Multi-million dollar houses are built by people who own construction companies that consist of a single truck that hasn’t left its garage in years. Drug money is filtered down through the Dollar Store that sits there and does no business, but the manager drives a Porsche. God Bless America.

My few ventures out into the fray have brought the images of an expanding Baptist church and a frothing mad commercial marathon. I’m reminded of what made my blood boil with lust and regret. There’s nothing to do here. As a curmudgeon it was never that bad for me, but there was this sense that you have four places to go for fun and after that it degenerates into drinking contests and cutting. I feel the rush of high school smells in my memory. Ah, the home town, what a contemptible place for it's native.

As for people, well I haven’t had much luck. I spoke with the two people who were my best friends years ago and we seemed to get on alright. Rumors and gossip bring the whiff of religious extremism from a man I used to debate the philosophy of Dune with. Yet the man who was a devout believer when I left shrugs my Atheism off and welcomes me with that same old child like exuberance that he displays toward everything. At times I find that exuberance comforting and warm, and other times I feel so dark in comparison that I get a little testy. The sun makes shadows grow.

I fear that my best friend may be lost to religious extremism, as is easy to do in a town like this if your not prepared. Yet, in life, my fears are often smaller than they might appear. So I have hope that he and I can once again have fun together as in the old days. Yet I wax nostalgic. Though I have seen and disapproved of the flaw in others, I find that more and more I am romanticizing the past. Dreaming of good times that weren’t that great and comparing the cold hard world with these gilded memories. A bad mix.

As always my fear here is loneliness. As always my goal here is to be happy. Maybe I can go back and rebuild friendships lost. Perhaps I can find people who care and help pop me out of this rut my life has fallen into. As always the fear is rejection. As always the goal is to loved. “Maybe” and “Could Be” taunt me, promising what “Will Be” cannot hope to live up to. I just hope I can stay sane in this floodgate of memories.

The Myths & Lies about Gay Rights

2007-07-30T06:02:00.002-05:00

If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door.

--Harvey Milk

In the United States of America we have a rich history of oppression and an even richer history of civil rights movements. We the people fought our government to end slavery, to give women the vote, to give non-whites the vote, to end segregation, and to end the ban on interracial marriage. Yet here in America there are still groups which are systematically left out in the rain and denied civil rights, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender community.

In the United States there are laws designed to protect a person from workplace discrimination or even violent action if you are African American, handicapped, or female. If however, you are not attracted to the opposite sex you are fair game. Every year in this country men and women are fired from their jobs for no other reason than their sexual orientation and the law offers them no protection and no recourse. Every years hundreds of gay men and women are savagely attacked because they are different than their straight attackers, yet the law offers them no redress or recognition. Gay teens across this great land are bullied and harassed while the education system looks on with cold indifference. Many same sex couples are denied the right to take in a needy child and give them their love and devotion. Untold numbers of gay men and women who love one another and live together are denied the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital, seek financial redress after accidental death, claim insurance, or be given the legal and fiscal protections of a married heterosexual couple.

The United States is not an evil tyrant when it comes to gay rights, only backwards. It was once illegal for homosexuals to be served alcohol or for two same-sex partners to kiss in public. It was once illegal for two consenting adults to engage in sexual intercourse if they were of the same gender. Hell, decades ago the American Psychiatric Association recommended shock therapy in order to “repair” homosexual men and women. The United States is making progress, albeit slowly. It is up to the progressive and caring masses to unite in a push for Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights.

In order to do my part in the fight for Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights I have included a number of links to the right that will direct you to the leading Civil rights organizations. Also I am going to explore the myths and lies about the gay rights movement and hopefully use my words to aide the fight against religious zealots and mistaken bigots who are fighting against the rights of Gay United States citizens.

Myth: Homosexuality is a choice…

This is one of the biggest public opinion campaign slogans for the religious right and anti-gay bigots. There are those that believe that same sex attraction is a choice and that Gay men and women can simply stopping being gay at any time and as such should not receive civil protections.

In 1973 homosexuality was evaluated by national psychological associations and found to be a personality trait an not a mental illness as previously believed. Today a majority of psychological institutions including the American Psychiatric Association, have come forward with damning rebuttals of the so called ex-gay movement that claims to change a homosexual person into a heterosexual one.

On top of this we have scientific studies pointing to the fact that homosexual men and women are physically different from heterosexuals. Simon LeVay was responsible for a study examining the size and composition of the Hypothalamus between gay and straight individuals. Leading biologists and physicians have identified the womb as the place where the foundation for sexual orientation is laid. Androgen, which affects handedness and finger length among other things, has been shown to have a significant impact on sexual orientation. Then there is the interaction of H-Y antigens in the womb with the developing fetus.

In the end the scientific evidence outweighs the anecdotal evidence given to us by the religious right. Homosexual men and women respond to different pheromones, have different neuron-chemical reactions to sexual stimuli, and there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be altered. Those who claim otherwise seek to dehumanize gays and lesbians as diseased or sexual deviants. However, one of the simple truths is that homosexuals are simply aroused by their own gender and not the opposite sex, a fact that cannot be denied no matter what the underlying cause. So why discriminate against a gay man or lesbian woman? They can no more be straight than a black man can be white.

Myth: Homosexuality is unnatural…

The anti-gay lobby would have you think that homosexuality is against the laws of nature and a perversion of the natural order. Of course this ties into the above argument on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. If homosexuality is not a choice, then surely we would see some evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Almost 1500 species of animals have been documented to contain homosexuality. Of course there is the world renowned gay penguins, gay big horn sheep, and numerous gay animals across the animal kingdom. What does this mean? That homosexuality is a natural phenomena for mammals, including us human beings. Homosexual men and women have existed in the human culture since the beginning of recorded history. So how can we make laws against gay men and lesbian women? How can we condone discrimination of people who are simply living their lives in accord with their natural urges and biochemistry?

Lie: Same-sex parenting harms a child

The Christian conservative think tanks Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and others are often hastily creating documents that supposedly show a correlation between homosexual parents and child abuse or mental illness. However, the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all support same-sex parenting as just as healthy to a child as a heterosexual household.

The Human rights Campaign, the Public Broadcasting System, and American Psychological Association all highlight peer reviewed scientific studies that debunk the slanderous and false correlations between same-sex parents and abuse, or false correlations between same-sex parents and dysfunction. As has been pointed our again and again, there is no scientific evidence that same-sex parents are in any way detrimental to a child’s mental or physical health.

Lie: Same-sex marriage destroys the American family…

This is the classic example of a straw man argument. Supposedly American marriage is a religious institution based on the ancient cornerstone of western society. However, up until the medieval period the family was usually composed of one man and many women. To claim that the modern nuclear family is the cornerstone of society is laughable. In America the number of single parents is at an all time high and the divorce rate is steady. The nuclear family is now and \never has been the basic unit of our society. The nuclear family is not a stable and widely adopted method. So to baselessly claim that somehow allowing two consenting adults to enter into the civil bonds of matrimony will damage our society or the American family is a facetious argument at best and a straw man at worst.

The point of this exercise is to bring to light the ignorance and misunderstanding that fuel the anti-gay agenda. I did not address the issue of religion and homosexuality today because I am an atheist and feel that it is not my place to try and find theological arguments for a behavior.

You can find part 2 of "The Myths and Lies about Gay Rights" here.

The Lies of War

2007-07-25T17:11:00.000-05:00

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.
--General William Tecumseh Sherman

Atheist Questionnaire

2007-07-20T19:27:00.000-05:00

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
--Thomas Jefferson

Below are my answers to the Atheist Questionnaire posted on The Friendly Atheist Blog

Why do you not believe in God?
One word, Evidence. I learned to use rational thought and practical reason to examine the world. In my high school days I kept reading the bible and the books on comparative religion and wondered how one could be right and the other’s not? I looked at metaphysics and actual physics and examined the idea of a supernatural force that interacts in our lives. I saw no evidence, anecdotal or scientific, that proves the supernatural or the divine. On the other hand, in my search I was turned on to the majesty of the cell, the virus, the photon.

Where do your morals come from?
Many places. My parents tried to raise me to be skeptical and reasonable; they gave me the emotional and logical tools to face the world. School taught me science and art and led me to discover the origins of thought. Philosophy has taken it from there. Using reason, a touch of Socratic Method, and comparative study in philosophy I have shaped my own morals. Not only those but the day to day events of our lives shape our worldview and do so regardless of our religious beliefs. The evolution of morals is a constant thing and I take what the world and its collected knowledge as it comes to me.

What is the meaning of life?
The meaning of life is that it has no intrinsic meaning. Everyday, we wake up and try to create our own meaning. Life is the struggle to imbue our lives with meaning.

Is atheism a religion?
No. A religion implies faith and belief in a metaphysical or supernatural worldview. Atheism is the rejection of the supernatural, the metaphysical, and the divine. Atheism is perhaps best explained as the anti-religion.

If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?
I think, I cry, I talk with friends, family, and lovers, and I read. I cope. I move on and work toward getting myself out of troubling times knowing that no supernatural force will come to my rescue.

Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?
Not as such… I believe it is the call of the exuberant (or militant) atheist to hold up the hard mirror to religion and let the world see the imperfections and atrocities. I believe it is the call of all atheists to promote reason and logical thinking and to fight religious oppression and intolerance wherever it rears its head.

Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?
Yes. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and others committed horrible atrocities; but they did not do it in the name of atheism. Atheists are people too and all people are capable of great evil. However that evil is fostered y the hateful teachings of religion. In the name of religion the average man rose up to slaughter his muslim brother in the ancient crusades and the streets of Palestine today. Because of the teachings of the priesthood and their bible thousands of women were burned at the stake and many more men and women were tortured in the inquisitions. Millions of jews, catholics, blacks, and homosexuals were slaughtered by Hitler and his Aryan Cult. Protestants and Catholics kill each other, Shi’a and Sunni kill each other, Jew and Muslim kill each other, Hindu and Muslim kill each other; all for no better reason than they are the wrong religion. Atheism has never advocated death and has never provided the encouragement for slaughter.

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?
Because human knowledge is always growing and evolving. In our early days were small tribes of nomadic barbarians who wandered the land with no law and no science. Those who sought power claimed to have the power and knowledge from god and set themselves up as the leaders of the community. The law was not informed by reason or science, but backed up by divine fiat. This system remained for thousands of years and was changed through science and learning. The roman senate, Athenian democracy, the enlightenment, and modern science hae all changed the way we look a society and the universe. We will continue to expand our knowledge and clarify our worldview as the centuries pass. Religion is simply the superstitious relic of our ancestors waiting to be shrugged off.

Why does the universe exist?
Because of the big bang. Of course, you probably want to know what created the big bang. We don’t know, yet. However there are many theories. I believe the universe is an infinite system and that the big bang was caused by the big crunch and that this cycle repeats constantly. Obviously this is an open question that continues to be studied by theologians and physicists today.

How did life originate?
Amino acids forming unicellular organisms in the primordial soup of our cooling world. Unicellular organisms formed colonies and then formed multi-cellular organisms that formed all modern life. It is a scientific and reproducible process that has been studied by molecular biologists and evolutionary biologists extensively. For all we know, this same process could be happening right now around Proxima Centauri or an even more distant star.

Is all religion harmful?
I believe so, yes. Religion fosters hate, ignorance, and subservience. Almost all religions are built with the idea that there are those among us who commit heinous sins and are worthy of death. Almost all religions teach that the punishment for transgression or sinning is to be forever punished. All religions teach the existence and acceptance of the supernatural; ghosts, goblins, and the like. All religions teach tha the divine and the supernatural is above our reasoning and therefore we should distrust reason. All religions have stood in the way of scientific and social progress. All religions teach that we are worthless and that this life is a sham; thus we should bow down to an invisible master and his earthly priesthood. Almost all religions preach the idea of theocracy and rule by the religious elite. Reason, Acceptance, and Self-Reliance are crushed by religion. What religion does good for society has been done by secular authorities that much better. What good religion does for human beings is outweighed by the atrocities and the message of spite and fear and ignorance.

What’s so bad about religious moderates?
Nothing per say… However, religious moderates act as a smokescreen against the larger evils of religion. Whenever Falwell or Robertson or Coulter or Savage or O’Reilly or Phelps stands up and spews hate and ignorance and theocratic madness the people are ready t attack their ignorant and superstitious beliefs until a moderate stands up and says, they may be wrong but god loves you. They deflect the public away from the hard questions about religion.

Is there anything redeeming about religion?
Nothing. The “good” morals and values that religion teaches are universal to all human cultures that we can cultivate without an invisible dictator.

What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?
I’ll be dead anyway, what will I care? Besides, if I was wrong there would be some shred of evidence that a diety or supernatural being has interacted with this world outside of the myths and legends of ancient man. So, I’m confident.

Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?
I respect people, not religions. People are free to accept and belief whatever they will, but I and other atheists and freethinkers have an equal right to challenge those beliefs. As long as you are not trying to force your belief on me we will get along smashingly. If you try to tell me I am going to hell or that this country is being corrupted by gays and pagans, I am going to rip you a new one.

How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?
The “historical Jesus” is only ever mentioned by Josephus outside the context of Christianity. Most of the “gospels” were written long after Jesus died and were based largely off of older mythologies. The myths and “miracles” of Jesus are similar to those of Apollonius of Tyana, Mithra, the cultic Orpheus, and a few of the myths attributed to Heracles, Horus, Gilgamesh, and the Elusian Mysteries. So I am not that impressed with the historicity of Jesus and/or the bible.

Would the world be better off without any religion?
Yes, yes, yes. Science would make great leaps forward, sectarian violence would be a thing of myth, and universal human rights would be a reality.

What happens when we die?
We cease to be. All that we were and are simply stops. Our memories and deeds and works will continue to exist beyond us. Our families and community will continue, be we will simply cease to be. This is the question and the horrifying reality that has driven more people to religion than anything else. We don’t want to believe it, we don’t want to accept it, but we have only a short time on this earth and once it’s gone, it’s gone. Make the most of it, don’t live in fear of an invisible dictator and don’t give in to hate and intolerance. Live, love, and leave the world better than you found it. That’s all any of us can do.

A thousand words...

2007-07-08T21:46:00.001-05:00

Loneliness has followed me my whole life, in bars and cars. I can't escape it. I'm God's lonely man.
--Taxi Driver

Blog Against Theocracy

2007-07-03T18:20:00.000-05:00

History furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.
--Thomas Jefferson

Today is July the Fourth, the birthday of our nation. On this day, myself and other bloggers have decided to take time out to stand up on our soapboxes and decry a creeping evil that is growing in this country. Our American shores have long been the destination of those seeking freedom from oppression. More than two hundred years ago, a group of intellectuals and reformers fled from the religious and social tyranny of Victorian England to create a new democracy. In this new democracy, authority would flow from the people and our leaders were to be elected. Before then the Kings and Priests would rule over the people through divine fiat. Now it would be Vox Populi Vox Dei, the voice of the people is the voice of god. On that note I will join with others today to blog against theocracy on this, the anniversary of our glorious revolution.

In the decades of the 60’s and 70’s our nation experienced a grand liberation. Father figures were replaced with community atmospheres. Free love, free drugs, and free speech surged orgiastic. Perhaps in response to this, starting in the late 70s and gaining power in the Reagen era, a fringe group of radical social conservatives began to pour millions of dollars into a campaign that ran utterly contrary to the American ideal. I am speaking of the group known as the Religious Right. Doomsayers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell picked up causes like “Family Values” and Christian morality and succeeded in putting them into play in the political arena.

You may ask why should this be troubling? Well, first let us look at history. One of my favorite quips is that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. The middle ages set the stand for the worst era of theocracy the world has ever seen. The “Holy” Roman Empire was practically run by the pope. No king could be crowned without papal consent. The reformation only caused wars between “protestant” and “catholic” nations. The crusades led to horrifying slaughters of innocent men, women, and children whose lives were taken because they were the wrong religion. In west asia, a massive empire came and brought with it the legal requirement of conversion. Even after the ottoman empire fell Shi’a and Sunni and Kurd and Hindu all fought bloody holy wars. The british empire forced it’s sense of catholic decency on every colony. State led religion caused the oppression, culture-death, and murder of countless peoples in Africa, India, and South America! The Nazis sought to establish a white Christian germany by killing millions of jews, blacks, and homosexuals. More wars have been waged and people killed on the basis of religion than almost any other reason. So you see that allowing religion to influence politics has, historically, only ended in sorrow.

Let’s put the history lesson aside and take a look at why letting religion become a political force is a bad thing. Organized religion has brought the world nothing but pain. Spirituality and individuals of faith have brought comfort and joy to the world, but religions as bodies of action serve only to harm humanity. In the past, Christian extremism has led to the bombing of abortion clinics, the beating deaths of gay men and women, mass murder and genocide of Turks and Persians, the near extermination of the Native American people, and millions of women were tortured and burned alive as witches at the hands of fanatic tribunals. These are just fanatics, you say. Yes, but by giving a religion a preferred status by law, or giving it power by law only opens the doors to atrocity. Religion teaches that those who do not believe are sinners, and your enemy. How can a message like that be sponsored by a democratic and free society?

Now Let us take a look at the message of the Christian right. They want to make homosexual love illegal. They want to take away a woman’s productive rights. They want to destroy free speech in favor of sanitized speech. They want to have Christian ethics made into state enforceable law. What about all the non Christians? What about different Christian sects that disagree with their interpretation? That doesn’t sound like a free society to me. The founders of this nation and the voices of liberty throughout the ages have decried state sponsored or favored religion. To give one group some special power is to dehumanize all other groups. To force a religious doctrine on a populace by law is not only counter to liberty and the united states constitution, but disgusting by any standard of freedom.

For decades the Christian Right and the NeoConservative movement have been pushing a radical religious agenda onto the public stage. Freedom and liberty are undermined by such actions. The democracy of America is the voice of the people doing what is best for the people. We are not some small nation with a tiny minority of non-christians. We are a vast nation that is a melting pot of cultures, peoples, and philosophies. So to use politics and the law to force a religious doctrine on even one man is both vile and un-American. So when you look up at that American flag and see the fireworks flash, remember that gallant revolution over 2 centuries ago to free us from religious tyranny and ensure our right to liberty.

Why Hate Crimes Legislation is Neccesary

2007-06-30T20:09:00.001-05:00

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the former.
--Albert Einstein

The state, at its most ideal level, is the voice of the village. Our nation has an obligation to its citizens not to bow to ignorance or hate, but to lead us into progress. In the dark ages, the nobility did not lead and the church had no interest in progress. So we had murder and evil on a heinous scale. Through the last 60 years we have seen hatred come and be shot down by our government. Hitler slaughtered the jews and the gays and the dissenters. We jailed the Japanese. The nations of the world denied women the right to vote. The Army segregated black from white. The schools segregated black from white. The individual states outlawed interracial marriage. The individual states outlawed homosexuality. Yet each time this has occurred, the reformers and the progressives have arisen from the people to lead the charge for social change.

At its heart, the issue of hate crimes legislation must touch upon what a government is and how it interacts with its people. There are those say that the government should not make social policy. I say, that is utter bullshit. Government, at its most ideal, is the voice of the village. Americans fought a gorilla war to replace the king with a body of elected legislators. Our society shed blood in order to choose our own destiny. The state is an instrument of social change. Whether that change is mandated early on or too late, no great social change can take place without the laws and government of the land. Slavery was abolished by the state. Universal Suffrage was established by the state. Segregation was abolished by the state. Inter-racial marriage was backed by the state. Anti-Sodomy laws were struck down, by the state.

Humanity is on a constant path forward in egalitarianism and altruism. Always hurtling toward utopia, we the people have had the reformers and progressive stand up in every age and preach the injustices of our neighbors and our leaders. Those voices are the cusp of a larger change manifesting itself. Our government nor its radical elements can stop progress. They can slow it down, but we will continue to advance toward an ideal of society and government, and to say that the government is not a part of society and societal change is baseless.

To try and invalidate the practices of abortion, gay integration, and civil unions is to also rail against racial integration, interracial marriage, the end of slavery, and universal suffrage. Progress is our true manifest destiny and our government was founded on the principals on operating for the best of its citizenry. The moral compass of our nation is swayed by the tides of public opinion and government action, but will always point toward progress.

-----

Let’s take this issue one step further. Why are hate crime legislations a good thing for the American people? We imprison people for manslaughter and for murder. We imprison people for assault and aggravated assault. The distinction between the motivations of crime are already laid out, but hate crime laws take this a step further. Many opponents would say that to punish a hate crime is to punish thought. Perhaps it is. Yet let’s look at the action itself.

A young black man is walking down the street and is attacked by a group of whites. One might say that punishing the attack is enough. Yet what happens to the black community? For weeks, black parents will be bolting their doors and staying off the streets in fear. If a black man feels threatened by a white man, he may react strongly, fearing violence.

If a gay man is walking along in broad daylight and a group of youths attack this man and scream slurs and hateful speech at him, they will be prosecuted for the violent act. Yet what happens to the gay community? Gay men and women will be frightened to walk alone. Individuals will hide their identity in order to avoid attack.

A hate crime is not simply an act of violence; it is a terrorist attack against a community. A hate crime strikes fear in an entire minority group. A hate crime not only hurts the victim, but harasses untold individuals. By adding an extended sentence to the conviction of a white supremacist or a gay bashre, society is creating a deterrent. We have tougher sentences for higher price robbery and intent to distribute drugs. Laws and jail time are created as a deterrent. To deter, we must create risk for those that would carry out crime.

Not only is hate crime legislation a deterrent, but it is social engineering at a rudimentary level. It is our duty and the duty of our government to stamp out hatred. It is our duty as human beings to elevate altruism and destroy intolerance. By adding an extra penalty to hate crimes we are telling the whole populace that hate can lead only to personal devastation. Preachy? Perhaps. Yet the state exists to serve its citizenry, from the lowliest bum to highest CEO, from the smallest ethnic group to the largest society. Hate threatens not only an individual but a community. Hate will erode not only a community, but also a nation.

If you take nothing else away from this article today, I would like you to think about why combating hate is so important. I want you to imagine what Germany would have been like; if the Weimar Republic had done more to crack down on hate groups. Let’s imagine a South Africa where Apartheid was prevented through altruistic government. During world war two, if we had combated hate against the Japanese, thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children wouldn’t have been caged like animals. Every day, you can read a story about the oppression of the South American indigenous people, the injustices of the Maori, or the bloodshed of central African tribes, or eastern European revolutions born out of ancient clans. Our own history as Americans is defined by our exploitation and hatred of the Indigenous people of the Americas. Much of Central America’s history is built by invading conquistadors on the bodies of “brown heathens”. And today every channel will tell you about the atrocities between the Kurds and Persians and Turks and Jews. Why would we not step up and take a stand against the pervasive evil of hatred? Why should we not learn from lessons of the past and do our part to try and stamp out hatred and intolerance?

Nighttime

2007-06-24T22:50:00.000-05:00

A poet dares be just so clear and no clearer... He unzips the veil from beauty, but does not remove it. A poet utterly clear is a trifle glaring.
--E. B. White

Night time heat and blazing passion.
Midsummer dreams become breezes through Cyprus trees
Sweat drips from living, breathing sex
Jaw lines and curved abs dance
Recreation of ancient greek orgy,
Bodies fly in ecstasy,
Seeking communion with eris.

The moon fades and crisp cool air,
Sweeps down the hill,
Winter air from future,
Blowing out of time.

A world apart I can see the moon
The eye of a lover I have not yet met.
Like a white sun,
Reflected from another galaxy.

Above me is the pitiless obelisk sky
All the powers and principalities above me
My cries cannot reach the obsidian vault
My prayers and pleas cannot reach heaven’s sky
Powerless, lowly, only rage and resignation.

I live for a moment in the hands of my lover,
And in his arms I am a living god.
Yet below this vaulted sky,
I die a hundred deaths.
Each the death of a drowning man.

I am lost,
Beneath this vaulted sky.
Lovers and friends pass,
Like mile markers
No God, No King,
No Priests, or Fathers, or Lords
Where is the hope?
Where are my heroes?
Where are my friends?

Where am I,
Under this vaulted sky?

In rebuttal to a counter-argument

2007-06-16T17:21:00.000-05:00

A Counter-Argument was set forth by a friend of mine.

Please read his blog post before continuing.

I would like to offer my rebuttal. First, this entire entry was designed to be a polemic against imitation. Not as a a definition of genres or as a blanket statement of all modern western culture. This was written to express my disgust with cheap imitation in literature, art, and music as well as encourage diversity of creation.

Genres are born out of imitation. That is a fact neither good nor ill. However, they are also born out of similar circumstances and similar culture. The beat generation was born out of the oppressive air of the world wars and a common affinity for drugs and exploration of new philosophies. We see new genres growing from our current events culture. Genres themselves are not an evil and do not denote mindless conformity. that was never my intended inference.

Now let me address your problem with my use of the word genre. By labeling works as a genre, we encourage imitation and limitation. Lets look at fantasy. There are unique writers everywhere, and just because you belong to a genre does not mean you are derivative. Rather, if you look at fantasy today, a great deal of new and recent works have been out and out imitations. Ann Rice and J.R.R. Tolkien made great works, as did many past and recent authors. But when you visit your local barnes and noble you see shelfs full of vampire novels that are dry cut and paste jobs. You also see the most formulaic fantasy novels ever conceived.

My point in the blog and now is that we should continue to laud innovation. Again, my blog was a polemic against those who would simply forgo creativity for profit or ego. So many bands, writers, and artists are nothing more than shadows of those that inspired them. That doesn't mean there are not creative minds and souls. Again, my point is to raise up the creative and chide the imitators. We have all been guilty of imitation and that does not make us worthless, but true creativity and originality is a goal to aspire to and to encourage.

A Fragment: Sideways

2006-12-21T09:55:00.001-06:00

An author is a fool who, not content with boring those he lives with, insists on boring future generations.

-- Charles de Montesquieu

The following is a fragment work I did entitled Sideways. I call it a fragment because it has no background or back story, it is simply a flash, a memory. It deals with the ideas of intoxication and writing. It is experimental and pure excersice. Literary masturbation, as it were. An examination and explanation of this work will follow after the new year.

I awoke to a world gone sideways. The cold dull ache of grey air hung in my lungs like some infernal smoke. I could feel the life within me struggle to ignite against the dull cold air and the all the ash. Lives burning like cigarettes, souls like cherries buried under soot and ash. The sky was grey and dark, the pre-dawn silence where only the junk sick coughs of the alleyways below can overcome the sound of your own blood struggling to beat in your ears. I die each night and each morning my body tries limply to rise again.

A lukewarm shower helps little to fight off the clouded obscenity of the waking brain. Like some industrial machine, every switch must be flipped and tested. Every gear lubricated. Every belt cleaned. A machine that eats up money and spits out meaningless shit. Under such a system the toilet is the true throne of the west. The great social construct of our time, discreet, hidden, but inexorably horrifying. The black bile truth that threatens the sane soul, so they must hide it away.

I awoke this morning to a world gone sideways. I travel down littered boulevards and press into a great mass of nameless faceless grey protoplasmic piles that I’m supposed to believe are fellow human beings. The world has been invaded, humanity replaced with the grey skinned witless mass that thrives on commercials and name brand toothpaste. The train is like a gallery at some xenocultural exhibit. Flesh distended, flattened, paled, and waxed to the point it is no longer flesh; rather some thin layer of nerves and veins that exists to gobble up cola and pre-wrapped faux beef sandwiches. Like giant amoeba creatures whose tendrils reach out in mindless groping looking only for the next beer, the next cigarette, the next fuck, the next cola; never giving a thought to any world outside their own cell walls.

Humanity is dying. A new race of protoplasmic single-celled grey masses are wearing our suits and driving our cars and carrying out inane and dulling conversations in automats all across a nation once populated by human beings. Humanity is a lost race now, only a few and they are chased out to the edges of the waterfront dives and the back alley junk-sick hideaways. All the real humans are knocking back whiskey and junk trying to cope with this unmentioned invasion. Everywhere there is a great grey cloud that swirls and bellows up from some hidden recess and threatens to take us away.

I’m off to work, pumping out three cent washer units and penny bottle caps, and radiator bolts. I press a button and the machine dances and screams and is ready for me to load it up again. I’m just a machine handler. They are the masters in the factor. We exist to service them. Eyes shifting I notice in a dream like haze from the radioactive junk cloud over the city that all the humans are giving robots lube jobs and feeding them electricity and steel while those protoplasmic things wear hundred dollar grey suites and laugh about their secret subjugation.

Motion after motion. The repetitive push and pull that once reminded me of sex now only jars my brain deeper into the ever loving grey despair that permeates the city. The drink will make it better. Some half-slut, half-machine thing hands you a paycheck worth little more than the paper its printed on and you make your way down to the bar. I was having my whiskey tonight, but only a little. The Whiskey made me see these horrible creatures as they were. The dead trees and stony skies stood out clear against my whiskey soaked eyes. I was saving my money for that special fix. The junk that would help clean the grey.

…

I could feel the red light elevator taking me down below the street into the depths of the building. A ding sounded as the morgue slab door slid open, pouring me out into the dank hallways. Sepia toned, piss stained walls were pocked with crumbling drywall behind which sapient cockroaches skidded around the balsa wood foundation chattering about Aquinas and mortal sin.
Every aluminum door was identical, cast in the flashing florescent bulbs twinkling on and off like distant lightning. Identical save for the corrugated bronze numbers. Like a human filing cabinet I thumbed passed door after door walking around the circuit hallway that would eventually take me back to the elevator. Number sixty-two had a hole blasted in it just below the peep hole from some low grade assassination. My joints ached with the need to escape, run, flee. My solar plexus vibrated with some subconscious terror, but I knocked anyway.

Rust and age squeaked as the brown aluminum door swung wide to reveal some emaciated ancient specter. Like some last member of an immortal lemurian race long banished from the waking world. Not quite human, both alien and ghostly. She gestured me into her apartment with the flip of her ancient claw, bejeweled with glass costume rings and pearls. Formica and linoleum covered every visible surface and the ceilings were stained brown from thirty-nine cent filter-less pall malls. She spoke like a croaking frog, throat full of industrial millennium sewage. My mind was elsewhere, I couldn’t tell what she was saying. I reached into my pocket and shoved a handful of dollars at her, it had to be enough.

She shuffled around on her avian legs that stumbled and jerked underneath dirty silk and stained polyester. That claw of hers reached into a termite riddled drawer and pulled out the vial. It was inky black and my mouth began to water in pavlovian excitement. Elemental lust rang up in brain and if the crone didn’t shamble faster I would wretch it out of her hands. Vial in hand, tucked against my beating chest, I fled out of the old crone’s apartment, my legs moving stiff and quick like an ant running for its life. I was in the steel drum of an elevator in an instant and without noticing the filthy creature hovelled in the corner I pulled my needle from its coat pocket and screwed it into place like a virgin fighting with a bra, drunken, excited.

The needle slid into tender jaundiced flesh and the black ink schlepped its way into my veins. I could feel the hot bile slowly making its way up my arm. I could feel the heat of it, like an orgasm, building, and up, and up, and up. Finally the lava black junk struck my brain like an orgasmic shot and I fell to the ground. Colors exploded behind my eyes and I felt my whole being tighten and draw in. I could acutely hear and smell and see the wino in the corner now. The urine puddle below him and the blood from his mouth stood out like sirens, wailing against my being. The world shifted and moved as the elevator slowed to a stop and I crawled out on all fours across the filthy carpet on onto the filthier linoleum. I couldn’t stand. I had to find a corner and slump there. Pray no one notices the needle still dangling from my arm.

The walls slid and moved like some Chinese puzzle box, aligning like the broken pieces of smashed mirror. Slowly the torn and horrible grey imagery that haunted my waking thoughts was replaced with an anosmic euphoria. I could stand again. My body moved of it own accord, my brain no longer conscious of any impulse moving down the spinal column. I was out the door and into the cold cold night. I watched myself walk for hours. I had no idea where my disembodied form was leading me. The ink in my veins was playing shows and narrowing thoughts and wind whistled through my ears to produce symphonies. Everything made since. I knew that wherever I was going there would be paper. The literary high. Shoot the ink, vomit on the page.

Mind and body snapped back together at the door to my rent controlled litter box apartment and I made my way inside, the terrible burning headache behind my eyes pushed my whole body forward with purpose. I poured the cheap scotch into my only glass and sat down at the hand me down typewriter. I had to let it go. The grey obscenity had been washed away with black ink, but the black had its own pains. I was coming down, the headache told me as much. If I let it fester I would surely go mad. Cracked. Like the old nervous judge, and find myself waking up thirty years later in the corner of some asylum writing for my life, trying to outrun my demons. I was crashing. The sweet poetic euphoria. The detached peace. The fat man’s nirvana was burning away with this headache.

Hands ached as I tapped at the clicking and resounding keys. All was quiet at this solemn graveyard hour save for the overload clicks and groans and squeals of my typewriter. Words I’d never heard of were being pounded out on the page like symbols pounded out into granite, one stroke at a time. The metal arms swung up and down and the rhythmic movement of the carriage was almost sexual. I was close now. The literate orgasm. The poetic shot. The burning was in my head now. In my arms now. In my legs soon. I would scream if I didn’t hurry. Sapient cockroaches. Midnight corpse cabarets. Last suppers with black messiahs on Vedic tablecloths. I had to let it out.

I grabbed a piece of the brown-white paper from a pile and vomited. I vomited out all the black on my brain. All the plaque on my soul. There it was. The vomited ink. On the page. Arranged like post-modern poetry. It was my bare and grey-sick soul vomited out on cheap drugstore paper. I felt spent. I felt disgusted. My bones ached and my lungs burned as I laid down on the freezing bed. I coughed and lit up a cigarette. It would be some time before I could score more ink. It would be while before I could write again. Back to the grey. The sad, lop-sided world of dead trees and walking apparitions. Back to the grey. The crushing grey.

Talkin’ ‘bout my Generation

2006-12-18T11:52:00.001-06:00

What do you say, for instance, about a generation that has been taught that rain is poison and sex is death? If making love might be fatal and if a cool spring breeze on any summer afternoon can turn a crystal blue lake into a puddle of black poison right in front of your eyes, there is not much left except TV and relentless masturbation.

-- Hunter S. Thompson

I’ve seen the greatest minds of my generation destroyed by mediocrity. In a world of junky street preachers and politically correct doomsayers there is little a man can do. We’re becoming one squealing mass, like hogs at a trough. Back in the beat generation people were finding their own voice and a handful of poets and artists stood out as greats amongst a dull post-war backdrop of conformity and xenophobia. Now here we are, the new silent generation, the new beat generation, the fear generation. Wars are raging and thanks to the internet and television networks that care little for the truth every manic street preacher and soap box artist can broadcast his unique voice.

Too many voices trying to find uniqueness. You stand next to the singing man; you eventually start to emulate his tune. Subconsciously. Genres grow from emulation and adaptation until one depressed youth’s voice sounds like another depressed youths voice with minor difference. One drug culture reject sounds like another drug culture reject until we’re all singing the same tune.
A generation of white noise. In the mainstream, the culture of the aged and the conformist is preached. Stephen King rehashes his first six books again and again and we keep buying them. The new york times best seller list is a cross section of the absolute boredom of the American experience. Those on the fringes are beginning to unite and in uniting become a little closer to being normal, being just like everybody else. Everyone wants to be normal, be accepted. Everyone wants to be unique, but they don’t know how so they steal from someone they find unique. We’re a generation of impersonators. A generation of White noise.

There is nothing new under the sun says the lord. Well that may be true in the 21st century. Perhaps we’re just a generation who haven’t found our voice. Maybe we’re a generation with too many copycats. The Xerox generation. A unique voice emerges and suddenly thousands leap up to copy it. We have a movement, a generation, a genre. Suddenly one man’s unique voice is just the first step in a tired old convention. Cobain, Sorkin, Palahniuk, Manson; where they tread a thousand soon followed. Imitation is the most sincere form of hatred. The cardinal sin is to be just like your hero, just like your legend. If you admire him then find your own voice and don’t take away from his legacy.

Where Burroughs went, few ever followed. He’s still unique. Where Tolkien went, everyone followed. Now he’s as much a hack as the genre he created. Innovators only last as long as they are innovative. Once the light bulb became humdrum we didn’t care about Edison or Tesla. Just old men in history class; sepia-toned, unimportant. Everything is branded and labeled. You can’t be experimental if you’re sponsored by Nike and Pepsi, and Colgate. You can’t be a unique voice if you can be classified into genre. How can people look at you like an original human being when you dress like James Dean, talk like Andy Warhol, and write like Sartre.

It’s said that the very act of observing an object changes it. I say the very act of defining an experience diminishes it. We rant and we rave about the conformity and herd mentality while we wear the sponsored shoes and drink the hip cola all the fuckable girls and boys drink, and head right for our clearly marked section in the Hot Topic. The hip culture is the most conformist group I’ve ever seen. You don’t even see this kind of herd mentality at office parties. Everyone wants to belong and everyone wants to be unique and in the end we all just end up like copycats; standing in our marked section screaming our harmonized message. Conformity is the new hip. Revolutionary is the new square. Uniqueness and identity are fading concepts in the new 21st century America. This is our brave new world; a world of categorized humans with branded and grouped tastes, ideas, and mannerisms. We’ve become caricatures of human beings. Like some extraterrestrial satire on American life. In the end, conformity is still the great creeping grey death that slowly kills the mind, it just wears brand name clothes now.

We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives.

-- Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk

American Dreamers

2006-12-11T20:13:00.001-06:00

And, Sweet Jesus, there sure are a hell of a lot of them - still screaming around these desert city crap tables at four-thirty on a sunday monring. Still humping the American Dream...

-- Hunter Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

My most glorious ambition in life is to write a great novel. It doesn’t have to be the great American novel. It doesn't even have to be the greatest novel of my generation, but I want to write a novel that will impact people's lives. A work I can look back on and be proud of. A great novel. I don't know if I will ever write it. That is the beauty of a dream, you never know if it is even attainable.

While it may not be my great novel I still have an idea. I hope to write a novel, or at least a novella, on the American experience as I see it. Horatio Alger, Hunter Thompson, Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs, Gore Vidal, Tom Wolfe, Philip K. Dicks, and others too numerous to be named. They all had unique perspectives on the American experience. My perspective may be reminiscent of the beat era. It may speak of a science fiction youth and my growing relationship with alcohol. Regardless, I want to put my experience on paper.

Maybe its part of my liberal upbringing in a southern town. Maybe it’s my burgeoning lifestyle. I think it is all those things great and small that define me as an individual that give me a unique perspective on the American experience. Is it the penultimate perspective? The best? No. Just unique. It's all part of my write for your life philosophy. The only way to deal with living in one of the most conservative nations in the industrialized west that does nothing but complain about how liberal it is. I have to write. Sexuality. Crippling Loneliness. Alienation. Frustration. Marginalization. Consumerism. These are things I can write about. These are my forty couplets on the American experience.

In the coming weeks it will be Christmas and I am going to be taking as many notes as I can. I hope to write a report of my trip. Some sort of Gonzo journalistic tale of the small town psychosis. I might even be willing to expose a little secret to my blog that only my closest friends know. I feel this need, like never before, to write. Maybe now is my time. Maybe the stars and novels and bookshelves and editors are in just the right millennial alignment to get me published. Hell, just to be read and enjoyed by someone who doesn’t know me would be fantastic. My writing and so many other revelations make me feel like I'm 16 years old again. Another chance at adolescence. To think, I'm only 22 and already pining for my youth.

Like leeches on a virus, the pen to paper.

2006-12-09T14:49:00.001-06:00

Shoot the bitch and write a book. That's what I did.
-- William S. Burroughs

I awoke today in a state of drunken exhaustion. I had been drinking last night and it did not leave me with the state of euphoric beauty it often imparts. Instead I was struck with a black despair this morning, as if I had wrapped myself in bile against the cold night. In a few minutes I'm supposed to go gallivanting with my brother all over the river valley and then go drinking again. I'm terrified to leave the house. It's that sort of terror you get by seeing a black cat or a dead body. The subliminal terror that lies at the base of spine warning you of some impending doom. Then again, it could be the cold-sweat nausea of my hangover turning on me.

I tried to read today but couldn't. I'm going to buy a notebook and carry it around with me. I need to write. On the back of my mint fresh new copy of Interzone is a quote that reads "The statement of a man writing for his life. a venting. a blood letting." That's how I feel. There is this crude work in the back of my brain slowly burrowing through my soul and feel if I can just write it out. if I can just find the write combination of surreal and existential then I can spit it out. Vomit out this darkness onto the page like so much ink.

Sanity is transitory. It is the crux of my writing and my literary experience that the brain cannot simply read and understand the world like a stop sign. The world, in my estimation can only be observed sideways, like an optical illusion. Your eyes see a wall or road, but the mind sees a crypt. The soul sees an endless stretch of grey nothing, like a foggy road into hell. I'm feeling particularly sideways today. If I write it, maybe I can excise it. Maybe I can vomit up the ink onto the paper and be clean again. If I can't, then I'll just go drinking again tonight and see if I'm any closer to some secret divine pentameter in the morning.

Sanity is transitory, especially with a hangover.