Why Do We Think The Way We Do?

The things that fuel my thinking are a naturally inquisitive mind and a love of reading, Thinking and reading, reading and thinking. In short, that has been the story of my life. Most everything else has been the mixer.

Also, I have always been an avid observer. A byproduct, I'm sure, of my inquisitive nature and overactive mind.

It has always been important to me to try to understand why things happen the way they do, why people behave the way they do. Hardest of all is looking inside and trying to understand why I behave the way I do.

I have a theory that there is no such thing as a totally honest autobiography. Each of us in our own minds rationalize our behavior. We do this to bring the unsavory things more in line with acceptability. We do it to protect our psychological self-image. Sometimes we don't realize we're doing it.

I also have a theory that there is no such thing as a totally honest biography. Because no matter how hard the biographer may try to be objective (I don't think this is even possible; think about it: if someone is interested enough about their subject to do a biography in the first place, they at that point already have formed an opinion about their subject, which is their reason for writing a biography and presenting that viewpoint) there is no way to look inside another person's mind. So it is inevitable that a little literary license will be taken in order to smooth out the picture.

Recorded history, for the same reasons, is problematical. We can attempt to ferret out as many of the known facts about this or that event as is possible, but in the end, if we are going to be honest, we must admit that a lot of this will turn out to be interpretations. And then we will turn around and filter this information through our own biased minds and reach other interpretations!

That there are so many schools of thought is testament to the above ideas. We tend to be interpreters. The "market place of ideas" is a veritable buffet of opinions from which one may take a little or a lot of this and that, according to the delight of their personal taste. Then when we set down to dine with a table of our friends, we see how different everyone's plate looks.

My mind, however, is drawn more to science and the scientific method. I love it that unlike the various religious and philosophical worldviews, science is the same the world over. (We just have be careful to separate science as a discipline from philosophy of science.) But for me, this is where it's at. More answers can be found here than in all the meandering romanticism of the popular mind.

A helpful exercise I often recommend to people is taking a belief they feel strongly about and, as best they can, analyzing the reasons why they believe that way. Trust me, it's not for the faint of heart. Helpful nonetheless though.

Why Are Conservatives Winning The Battle For America's Soul?

We had such high hopes when Barack Obama was elected president. Somehow - caught up in all the hoopla over electing our nation's first Black president and at the same time signaling for a new vision of what America stands for - we seem to have forgotten that our presidents serve primarily as figureheads.

Many of the liberal persuasion have been greatly disappointed by Obama's move from spectrum left to center after he came to "power" (chuckle). But how else could it have been? Idealism quickly gives way to pragmatism in D.C.

Not much is getting done and not much will get done. It's all about the 2010 elections. Unquestionably the debacle that is the legislative effort to "reform" healthcare is being made in the shadow of the upcoming elections. Public opinion is increasingly turning against our president. The ones who are obstructing now might be able to parlay that into victory later. However, if the economy continues to improve it might give the Democrats the momentum to at least make a good showing. Either way, nothing much is going to get accomplished before those elections.

Great little system we have.

The truth is that in the battle for the soul of America conservatives are winning. And they are winning hands down. I would like to suggest three reasons why this is so.

Reason number 1: History Is On Their Side.

History is ALWAYS on the side of conservatives. After all, that's what conservatism is: the conserving of tradition, the old ways.

New ideas are always difficult to sell. Now more than ever as we have such a rich history of tradition to appeal to. The new can very easily be labeled un-American - as in "we don't do it that way in this country" or "that is against two hundred years of tradition."

Not that conservative thinkers heed it, but long ago Thomas Jefferson succinctly answered that type of thinking:

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Conservatives will never "get" that principle, for if they did they would cease to be conservative.

Reason number 2: Emotions Trump Reason.

It is a sad thing to acknowledge, but nonetheless it is truth, that emotions will trump reason nearly every time with the masses.

You could if it were possible lay out a trail of facts that reaches from earth to the moon and still not persuade people as readily as you would by stirring their emotions. That holds true not just with politics, but with most opinions.

Fear, for example, is a great emotion to use if you want to stymie advance. That mountain known as the slippery slope is a hard mountain to blast a tunnel through. If we attempt a national health service it will eventually bring full scale Socialism to America. Allow euthanasia and involuntary mercy killing will follow closely behind. Legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes and soon crack and meth will be available in every convenience store. And on it goes endlessly.

But fear isn't the only way to win an argument by appealing to emotions. Righteous indignation and love of God can carry a tremendous amount of weight. Ever try having a rational discussion about abortion with a conservative? It can't be done. Facts don't matter, only the "sanctity of life" and God's decree against murder matter. Why, I'm surprised there isn't more of an effort to bring back prohibition.

I hate sacred cows, not because I think one shouldn't have strong convictions, but because they put rational discussion out of bounds. In other words, they make irrationalism respectable. A pox upon their barns!

I honestly believe that liberal thinkers have the better arguments. But that doesn't matter when conservatives yell louder when preaching their absolute morality.

Reason number 3: Humans Are By Nature Herd Animals

This is simply another fact of life. It is not of itself a bad thing. It is one of the things that helps preserve the species.

The truth is that conservatives have an easier time enforcing the rigidity of their thoughts. There is less room for maneuvering on a narrow road than a wide one. Liberals are more open in their thinking. There is no party line to toe nor could there be while at the same time protecting the right of everyone to think freely.

There is a reason why some paths are well trodden: the footsteps of many followers.

Liberal thinkers can never win the overall war. No matter how many individual battles we are able to win here or there, progress is a never ending journey that is always undertaken with the majority looking backwards. Nevertheless, fight on we must.

Realism Therapy

What good, you might wonder, is the startling notion I set out in yesterday's post that man is not completely free?

In the line of work that I'm in - leading groups of people to accomplish tasks and meet goals safely and efficiently - this realization has been a boon to me in helping to get the most out of individuals and helping me to avoid and mediate disputes.

But more than that, it has helped me tremendously in my own personal development. I no longer have so many internal conflicts and have solved a good many that I once had.

While it is humbling to realize that many of my personal positives are nothing more than the good fortune of genes, or that coupled with good nurturing, it is at the same time liberating to realize that many of my negatives are not character defects so much as something more akin to factory defects.

Once we realize there are things we can do something about and things we can do nothing about, life becomes more doable.

Also, once we realize the above, it makes our personal relationships more manageable and even more meaningful.

Unrealistic expectations are the bane of human happiness. I should emphasize: human happiness. Again, as I so often do, looking at the lower animals I can't help but notice their comparative lack of angst. Walt Whitman insightfully wrote:

I think I could turn and live with the animals, they are so placid and self contained;
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God;
Not one is dissatisfied - not one is demented with the mania of owning things;
Not one kneels to another, nor his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
Not one is responsible or industrious over the whole earth.

For all we gained in our evolution into homo sapiens, it seems we lost peace of mind in the process.

We humans tend to think increasingly grand thoughts. It is our nature. We have accomplished much and have much still to accomplish. Yet modern man's most popular "answer" to the problem of our psychological unhappiness is to attempt to treat it with chemicals.

I'm not saying there is no place for that. But what I am suggesting is that a therapy of realism - an honest look at who and what the human animal truly is, and what his place in the scheme of things is - might at least help the majority of the less severe cases of mental distress.

Body Odor And Free Will

Do either truly exist?

It all depends, I'm suggesting, on how the subjects are defined.

Seems to me fairly obvious that odors are an element of experience, at least for those of us who have properly functioning olfactory nerves.

But when we use the phrase body odor it inevitably brings to mind the long crusade of commercial advertising to vilify something that is quite natural. Normal, healthy body scents are usually considered offensive because of their pungency if left unmasked by soaps, deodorants, colognes, body sprays, and other concoctions.

The human animal has developed an aversion to normal body odors, more so than our lower-animal cohorts have. The latter seem to find body odors most useful and even enjoyable.

We, on the other hand, have "evolved" to the point that natural body odors are considered bad and artificial body odors are considered highly desirable.

I'm not complaining, understand, just making a point.

Now if we humans were still in a primitive state of nature, the popular concept of body odor would be meaningless.

In other words, it is a concept we have developed and made into what it is now popularly considered to be.

Which brings me to "free will," so called.

What we commonly call "free will" is truly, in my opinion, a shorthand way of confessing our ignorance of how our minds really work in the first place. It is an illusion based on our ignorance.

Anyone (and I suppose this is everyone) who has ever experienced a "Freudian slip" by uttering something that his conscious mind was not thinking about, anyone who ever performed an action by rote without thought, maybe even not remembering it immediately after having performed it, should pause to consider what I'm saying.

Being unaware of our inner motivations is hardly the same thing as having "free will." Being inside our own minds watching as we weigh this or that notion, process this or that bit of information, in arriving at decisions and opinions skews our objectivity. We confuse the process and the end result.

In short, our brains - producer of our thoughts and subsequent actions - are subject to the same law of causality as the rest of the universe. We are all in subjection to our evolved nature combined with our individual environmental influences, whether or not we are aware it.

Most people are as unwilling to give up their concept of free will as they are their concept of body odor.

And in both cases life goes on whether one does or not.

Both are largely semantic issues.

Human language itself is an "invention" of sorts. The lower animals communicate without it, and quite effectively at that, probably with fewer problems of misinterpretation than we humans experience.

As with body odor, free will is an irrelevant concept to the lower animals, and they seem none the worse for it. For us it is an error in understanding, and denying it has become a bugaboo of sorts.

Of course, that would never stop me from talking about it.

Insanity With A Lovely Melody

Paul McCartney sang in his Silly Love Songs ditty

Some people wanna fill the world with sill love songs. And what's wrong with that?

Well, Sir Paul, I'll tell you.

Romantic (obsessive) love is just not a good, a healthy, a desirable thing. It is a humbug, an illusion, a snare for the unwary.

But this feeling, when set to pretty music, reinforces a deep-seated fear that is common among humans - the fear of being truly alone in the universe.

What good, pray tell, can come from the sentiments expressed in some of the popular love songs (and the following examples just came off the top of my head; had I invested the time I could have come up with literally scores of other well-known and less-than-well-known examples)?

In 1963 country singer Skeeter Davis rode all the way to number 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 with the incredibly daft elegy to love lost The End Of The World. All because "you don't love me anymore" we are lyrically treated to such supposed imponderables as why does the sun goes on shining, the sea keep rushing to the shore, the birds go on singing, the stars go on glowing above, her heart goes on beating ... you get the point.

But to answer the lyricist, maybe it is as George Bailey explained to "old man" Potter in It's A Wonderful Life, "[i]n the whole vast configuration of things ... you're nothing but a scurvy little spider." His point: Life doesn't revolve around any one person.

Michael Bolton certainly has a distinctive and enjoyable singing voice. He started out writing songs, however, one of which is the co-dependent anthem How Am I Supposed To Live Without You?

Laura Branigan had a number one hit with it in 1983, and then in 1989 Bolton, by now in a singing career of his own, recorded his rendition of it and had a number one hit also.

Guess the song must really have struck a chord for many with its searching chorus:

Tell me how am I supposed to live without you
Now that I've been lovin' you so long
How am I supposed to live without you
And how am I supposed to carry on
When all that I've been livin' for is gone

Of course, my feelings about this is, if someone doesn't want to be with me, why should I want to be with them? It just makes no sense, really. And when you are "livin'" solely for another person (which hopefully is something of an exaggeration), you are denying your own intrinsic self-worth. But, lots of people apparently are comfortable with that.

In the same vein, The Carpenters had a hit with I Won't Last A Day Without You. I say "in the same vein," but really it's much worse. Bolton only wondered how he was going to go on. The Carpenters don't foresee going on for even a span of twenty-four hours.

How many ways are there to say the same thing? Elizabeth Barrett Browning poetically asked the question How Do I love Thee? The modern peddler of these obsessive love songs keep on and on about how little we love ourselves.

Helen Reddy's hit song You're My World paraphrases Skeeter Davis song:

You're my world, you are my night and day
You're my world, you're every prayer I pray
If our love ceases to be
That is the end of my world for me

Nilsson's Without You serves up more of the same life-is-futile-unless-I-have-someone-to-make-me-complete malarkey:

Can't live if living is without you
I can't live, I can't give anymore

All that makes me want to write an "answer" song with the title And Just Why The Hell Not?

Well, if this type of love doesn't kill you outright, it tends to involve you in a vicious circle. Bolton struck again by co-writing Cher's hit I Found Someone, that presents it this way:

I found someone
To take away the heartache
To take away the loneliness
I've been feelin' since you've been gone

And so it goes...

Unpopular Essays

The philosopher Bertrand Russell had a book of his collected essays under the above title. In his preface he wrote the following in stating that the purpose of his essays was to

...combat, in one way or another, the growth of dogmatism whether of the Right or of the Left, which has hitherto characterised our tragic century. This serious purpose inspires them even if, at times, they seem flippant; for those who are solemn and pontifical are not to be successfully fought by being even more solemn and even more pontifical.

I've often thought that perhaps I should include a new tag "unpopular posts" to use whenever I am questing the "conventional wisdom."

Problem with that is that it would probably make a better descriptive title for my entire blog and blogging efforts than Groping The Elephant.

Personally, I hate dogmatism. And pontifications are for popes - another concept I despise.

It seems to me that people get so wrapped up in their opinions (even though a lot of times, perhaps the majority of the time, "their opinions" are not theirs at all, but instead the conventional wisdom, precepts instilled in them by their familial upbringing, the tenets of their faith, or the planks of their chosen political affiliations) that for them to attempt to question their own biases leads them almost to a crisis state of questioning their own integrity and intelligence.

It shouldn't be that way; and when we do find ourselves feeling that way, we should realize that we aren't truly thinking, not groping the elephant in an attempt to understand things, but only regurgitating pat answers that have been given to us preformed and ready to use.

Once my coworkers and I were having a discussion about evidences for God's existence (this, unfortunately, without first establishing a clear concept of what the word "God" means - but I knew what they meant from experience; they meant the old guy in the sky, a theistic God). We had this fellow who was a temporary employee, a gentlemen older than the rest of us in the discussion, who was an actor in local theater (and, I must say, apparently a talented one), who suddenly interrupted the discussion by slamming his closed fist onto the table and, in his rich and ear-pleasing baritone voice, ejaculating : "God exists whether or not we can explain it or prove it."

This seemed profound to most gathered round. In fact, I get that answer a lot from a lot of people concerning a lot of different ideas. I found it humorous and laughed out loud, shaking my head as I walked off.

If we are really going to have meaningful discussions about things of substance, EVERYTHING must be on the table - no "sacred cows" allowed. If you don't have the intestinal fortitude, the matureness of character to admit that even your most cherished belief might be in error, you probably won't like most of my posts.

If philosophers like Bertrand Russell or Peter Singer leave you feeling unsettled, you might want to look inside your mind a little more closely to see if sacred cows are hiding in this or that corner. I love those guys, even when I can't bring myself to agree with some of their ideas. Just the mental exercise of trying to punch holes in their theories is useful to me.

Opinion formation, it appears, is such a relativistic enterprise that absolutes are impossible to establish. Our individual perceptions of the universe around us are so different from one another's, so extremely personal, so colored by a kaleidoscope of different elements, that "final truth" seems to me, as creator and moderator of this blog, a most unworthy goal to aim for.

It isn't a destination but a journey that fuels my blogging efforts. Along the way I think I can provide some food for thought and helpful insights that many who deep down are dissatisfied (whether or not they truly realize or admit it) with popular opinion can use to advantage.

So if you are daring and adventurous enough, you should be able to find some things that will help hone your own thought process.

You will mostly find these, however, in my more unpopular essays.

The Tennessee Christmas "Miracle"

I like feel good stories as much as the next person, and this one - as told by WMCTV - is a very nice example that I first heard about yesterday on my local news:

A badge is at the center of a Christmas miracle that likely saved an Oakland, Tennessee police officer from serious harm.

The incident happened Tuesday night along Highway 64 near Oakland, when police officer Joshua Smith pulled over two men in a Chevy Suburban for having an improper drive out tag.

But the town's Police Chief, Keith Hogwood, said what the two men in the Suburban did when they got out of their car is every officer's worst nightmare.

"At that time, the driver pulled out what Officer Smith believed to be a revolver, and he shot him point blank," Hogwood said.

According to Hogwood, Officer Smith was saved by his steel police badge. The bullet hit it and exited out of his shirt, leaving a huge dent in the badge.

"He was blessed," Hogwood said. "God was watching over him. It hit the badge. We just got this badge. I ordered it less than six months ago."

Go to the link above for more details.

A truly amazing story.

The online Merriam-Webster has a good definition of the word "miracle," which I think captures the essence of what most people mean when they use it: "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs."

This story got me to thinking. First, I want to say how very, very happy I am that things turned out so well for Officer Smith. His family certainly must feel very blessed.

I, however, am always made uncomfortable when people start talking about such happenings as miracles - in the sense that God is interfering in the natural course of things.

Understand, I'm not saying God doesn't do this. But my personal belief is that luck is a better explanation. Better to live in a world with luck - both good and bad - than in a world governed by a seemingly capricious deity ... at least that is how I feel.

I had an uncle who was police officer in Northern Georgia for many years. He worked the third shift. On his very last night of duty he was involved in a "routine" traffic stop, only to be greeted with a shotgun in his face. He managed to wrestle the barrel away from his face and deflect it downward, where the blast blew away most of his right foot. Certainly it could have been worse. But an eventful last night of duty would have been better.

I had another uncle who was a military policeman in World War II. He and my father were very close. They were in the war together and wrote each other almost daily. Then one day my father's letter to his brother came back stamped "deceased." That was how he found out his brother was dead. My uncle, while on duty, had attempted to intervene in a brawl between two soldiers who had had a bit too much to drink. One of them took away my uncle's gun, which discharged into his neck, killing him.

Upon what scales of reason shall we approach the question of why Officer Smith was more worthy than my uncles (or that my uncle who survived was more worthy than my uncle who didn't) to survive his ordeal?

That is a stupid question, I feel, but one that is invited once you introduce God's favor into the equation.

My point is, for every case like Officer Smith's "miraculous" experience there are probably a hundred or more with more unfortunate endings.

Ask the theist that question and you will get some un-straightforward answer having something to do with the inscrutableness of God's actions.

And perhaps that is so.

For my part, however, I will give up the "miraculous" in order to get rid of the inscrutableness - or, honestly, what I feel is the capriciousness - of God.

With the Smith case, it is totally understandable how he survived, without any reference to God's intervention. In fact, my local news reported that he was wearing a bullet-proof vest at the time of the shooting, which would have rendered it even most likely he would have survived the shot, even had the bullet missed his shield.

As I said, I like feel good stories such as these. But the questions back of the spin some people put on them are more likely to make one not feel so good when pondered.

I Wish I Were Santa

My dear friends and readers,

My sincere wish is that this holiday season will be a warm, happy one for you and yours.

I appreciate everyone who stops by to read my ravings and especially those of you who leave comments. My hope is that I provide at least a little grist for the mills of your minds. Certainly this blog has kept my mind very active.

At this happy time of the year we should not forget those who - for one reason or another - may not be so merry. I want to share this old poem, which expresses something I believe my friends here will identify with:

If I Were Santa Claus


If I were Santa Claus, I'd go
To every fireside, high or low;
I'd bring sweet joy to weeping eyes:
I'd carry dolls of wondrous size
To little girls in every land;
And every toy that could be planned
I'd furnish to the boys, brand-new,
If I were Santa Claus - would you?

If I were Santa Claus, I'd pay
A visit to the house each day;
I'd come and mend the broken toys!
I'd kiss the little girls and boys,
And fill their stockings every night,
And give them dreams of rare delight.
All the good I could, I'd do,
If I were Santa Claus - would you?

If I were Santa Claus, I'd seek
To help the poor and raise the weak;
When earth was white, when earth was green,
My jolly nose would still be seen;
I'd scatter smiles like roses fair;
Ah! I would make it everywhere
Bright Christmas-time the whole year through,
If I were Santa Claus - would you?

George Cooper

One Nation Under Gods

Warning: Rant ahead.

Private property is a great spot for religious displays. Church property, temple property, mosque property, your front lawn ... well, you get my drift ... all are appropriate places for religious displays and expressions.

Some people insist every year on making trouble by putting up religious holiday displays on government property.

I've just been sitting here looking at a picture of a courthouse lawn in Pennsylvania that is cluttered with just about every holiday display imaginable. In fact, to me it looks like a holiday yard sale.

There are giant candy canes, a nativity scene, a menorah, Santa and his reindeer, a snowman, a Christmas tree, and even a Kwanzaa greeting, all scattered about in a "display."

Some of the townsfolk are evidently happy now - they feel they have a display that is safe from controversy (read: lawsuits) and doesn't endorse one religion above another.

And I'm just scratching my head and wondering why anybody feels this is necessary at all.

What next? Changing the motto on our money to "In Gods We Trust"? (Frankly, I think the motto ought to be dropped altogether.)

The question for me is: What must we do to get the gods - any and all of them - out of our government once and for all?

They just don't belong there.

Of Peace On Earth, Good Will To Men

There is no peace on earth today. Nor was there yesterday, or the day before.

And good will? Well, if we had enough of that the former would be easier to accomplish.

Christmas, let us never forget, is not the time of peace on earth and good will to all men. It is the time we talk about it.

Elvis Presley sang a very lovely song about Why Can't Every Day Be Like Christmas?, which was written by his buddy, the actor Red West.

The chorus went like this:

Oh why can't every day be like Christmas
Why can't that feeling go on endlessly
For if everyday could be just like Christmas
What a wonderful world this would be

Yes, that's the ideal.

Back in the real world, however, we will talk about it. And for the majority of us will spend a peaceful time with family and friends and share good will with them.

But just watch the news on Christmas day. This tired old world will keep turning, grinding out the hate, the pain, the conflict. And in that sense, every day is just like Christmas. And hardly wonderful.

The prophets Isaiah and Micah and their prediction of a golden age when men will "beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks" is as unattainable as ever.

Yet the Messiah cometh not.

Christmas will come and go and with it all the talk of peace on earth and good will to all men. Until next year. The illusion is fleeting.

Sometimes looking at the big picture is depressing.

The War Against Winter Solstice

Hey, today is the day of the Winter Solstice! Sadly, I have to report that there is a war being waged against it.

Seriously, it is a sad fact that when the Arkansas Society Of Freethinkers decided to put up a secular display to balance the Nativity scene annually displayed at the state Capitol ... well, for some the fat really hit the fire.

A Representative Lowery led a group of Arkansas legislators in getting approved a resolution opposing the freethinker's display.

The real war, in truth, is against those of us who don't recognize the authority of religious traditions.

Oh, wanna know what the freethinker's display said that was so offensive? It included these words:

As the old year passes and a new year is born, we reflect on that which has passed and hope for a better tomorrow. May the light of reason be a beacon to a brighter future for us all.

Scandalous! A little reason is a very dangerous thing, you know.

D'Evidence, Please

Conservative intellectual Dinesh D'Souza has a new book, Life After Death: The Evidence. After reading this "teaser" interview with Mark Galli for Christianity Today, I don't anticipate plunking down twenty bucks for a personal copy.

The first paragraph of the interview seems to set the tone. Rather than offering actual evidence, it seems D'Souza is more about demonstrating that "modern science presents no stumbling blocks for the Christian view of the afterlife."

Which - rather true or not - is hardly evidence for immortality.

Freud's "argument" that immortality is wish fulfillment is met by D'Souza admitting that Heaven does indeed "fit the notion of the adult Disneyland." But then he brings up Hell. He suggests it would be "dubious for a group of people who are trying to make up a better life to compensate for the difficulties of this one by inventing the idea of hell."

However, for human animals bent on vengeance and filled with hatred, it is quite easy to understand the creation of the idea of Hell. (What is harder for some of us to understand is how a just, merciful God can be reconciled with the doctrine of eternal torture in Hell.)

I believe Hell can be accounted for by "wish fulfillment" the same as Heaven.

D'Souza speaks of a "materialist agenda," which he describes as "the idea that the mind is simply a manifestation of the brain." But in light of the absence of hard evidence of an immaterial soul or some such concept, what are we left with? (And I just hate the way conservative thinkers use "agenda" as a pejorative for anything they disagree with.)

He says that "the brain has innumerable physical attributes, but the mind has no weight, no dimensions." We might as well argue that the heart has innumerable physical attributes while love has no weight or dimensions. In other words, that is a category mistake.

When asked about this "new evidence" for an after life D'Souza responds by bringing up the argument from ignorance. He talks about dark matter and dark energy that make up 95% percent of the matter in the universe; he talks about String Theory and how "our universe may not be the only one and that there may be other universes operating according to different laws" (emphasis mine).

But how is such speculation evidence?

That human knowledge is limited, that there is still very much that isn't known about the universe are givens. That is why some of us are agnostics rather than dogmatists. But such an admission should hardly be appealed to as evidence.

Simply put, there is a big, big difference between the possibility of something existing and the reality of it existing.

Perhaps D'Souza has more and better ammunition in his book. But suspecting that this interview represents the gist of his position, I have better things to do with my money.

The Crucifix Revisited

On Thursday I commented on the story of the eight year old Taunton, Massachusetts student who was suspended from school and sent for psychological evaluation for turning in a drawing of Jesus' crucifixion.

Now more details are becoming available, details which seem to dispute the father's story as originally reported.

The superintendent of the Tauton public schools, Julie Hackett, has now responded to the charges:

Hackett said the student, age 9, was never suspended and that neither he nor other students at the Maxham Elementary School were asked by the teacher to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas or any religious holiday, as the Gazette and other media reported and the father suggested, although his story changed as he explained it.

She went on to explain the school's real concern as being that the student had identified himself, rather than Jesus, as the one on the cross. Fearing this was a cry for help, the student was sent for the evaluation.

And Mayor Crowley, who interrupted his vacation to call Hackett to demand she apology publicly and to the family, has now done an about-face after learning more:

Dr. Hackett has far more of the facts than I do, and now I understand that the report was not accurate. Based on her account, I stand behind my superintendent. She is in possession of the facts.

The student's father is now asking that his son be given "a fully paid scholarship to the school of his choice" as compensation.

Now I think it's fair to ask: Did the media get "punked" on this?

A story where Christians are under attack always makes for good copy, especially around a Christian holiday.

Well, this incident has certainly generated a lot of heat and is being used to cause further friction between those who believe in religious freedom and those who believe in Christian Supremacy in the US. (As if we needed more fricition.)

In my original post I added some comments about my feelings that graphic depictions of Jesus' crucifixion were inappropriate for young minds. I still feel that way. In fact, I feel it is inappropriate, period.

The crucifixion was a violent event that even the New Testament Gospels used to vilify the Jewish people. Throughout history Jews unreasonably and unfairly have been tarnished with the stigma of being "Christ killers," which reached its hideous apex in Hitler's attempt to exterminate them. More recently the story was made into a gratuitously violent film, The Passion Of The Christ, which was directed by Mel Gibson, who, it was later discovered, holds some nasty opinions concerning Jews.

Leaving the Jewish issue, I find it offensive (and I speak as a former Christian, remember) when people try to shame me by pointing to the crucifixion and telling me that I was the reason for it - that Jesus died for me and for everyone. That he took the punishment - and make no mistake, crucifixion was more than mere punishment, it was extreme and prolonged torture - that I and everyone deserve.

That teaching is the popular theology of the propagandists and proselytizers, and not the Bible itself, by the way. The "wages of sin is death," not crucifixion. But again, it does make for some great and imaginative sermons (and movies)!

I'm not trying to be controversial just for the sake of it. I believe this is a legitimate concern.

Speaking just for myself, I'm not a fan of violence in any form and see no redeeming value in it. The glorification of violence leads to yet more violence. Our continuing fascination with it is the truest heritage of our primitive savagery.

And to my Christian friends, and I do have a few of them: may I suggest that the ancient Ichthys symbol (depicted above), which dates all the way back to the first century, might be more appropriate than a crucifix as a symbol for your religion? It is child friendly, and truly represents Jesus' call to his disciples to come be fishers of men.

Just a thought.

The Ebenezer In me

"Uncle!" pleaded the nephew.

"Nephew!" returned the uncle, sternly, "keep Christmas in your own way, and let me keep it in mine."

"Keep it!" repeated Scrooge's nephew. "But you don't keep it."

"Let me leave it alone, then," said Scrooge.

Well, I'm not really that bad.

Some of my friends at work decided here at the last minute to draw names for gift exchange. I wasn't prepared to be the lone killjoy, so when asked if I wanted to participate, I stammered and said "well...."

And I was promptly added to the name pool. The gift limit is $10. We ought to be able to get some nice gimcracks for that amount.

You see, if I have some odd ideas about gift giving. (Heck, as my regular readers know, I have some odd ideas about lots of things!)

Generally, I discourage people from giving me gifts. There's nothing I want anyone to buy for me. And some of the hideous gifts I have received in times past have left lingering bad memories. I know it's the thought that counts. And I am always ... ALWAYS ... gracious when someone does buy me a gift. But sometimes it ain't easy!

I just don't need more purposeless stuff cluttering up my home. Colognes I don't like and would never buy even if closed out for pennies, ties with loud and obnoxious designs, music cds by obscure, talentless artists, socks that match nothing in my limited wardrobe, etc.

Worst of all is the "gag" gift. G-string underpants (for a middle-aged man with a pot gut!), boxer shorts with stupid designs (I don't wear boxer shorts at all - not that anyone is interested), items with sexual innuendo or connotations (I just don't find these things funny at all, and in fact find them in poor taste). I've received all these, and more.

My point is, I'd rather people save their money. Much less do I like feeling obliged to return the favor or being made to feel like a schmuck for not reciprocating. Most gift giving seems superficial to me and I would rather not be a party to it. I'm into more tangible things, like true friendship: the gift that keeps on giving.

I was explaining this to one of my friends yesterday, when she said to me, "But Doug ... Christmas is the time of giving." So I asked, "Then why not give me my space?" We laughed and I thought of the above quote from A Christmas Carol. I also told her I had the subject of my next blog post. (Believe me, bad as this one is, what I had originally planned to write about was worse!)

But if people feel the irresistible need to give me a gift, I always encourage something they make for me with their own hands. One lady used to make me these delicious chocolate covered coconut balls every Christmas. Another used to make me the best sausage balls I had ever eaten for a present. As long as I know the person and know they are clean, I love these gifts. One friend went on a trip to the beach and wrote "Hi Doug" in the sand, photographed it, and sent it to me in a frame. Another lady friend once made me a lovely hand painted plaque with the word "tranquility" on it. She said it made her think of me and my home. I have a huge cross-stitched guitar that was made for me by my ex-wife. My mother has crocheted and cross-stitched nice items for me. These things are highly treasured and priceless to me.

Now someone who drew my name will have to go out and spend ten bucks trying to buy something for someone who doesn't need or want anything in particular. And I will be obliged to do the same, even though this last weekend before Christmas is going to be an extremely busy one for me and I don't really have the time to be looking around, scratching my head, trying to figure what an appropriate gift would be. One of the guys mentioned getting a gift card for the person whose name he drew. Easy way out. But what's the difference in that and just sticking ten dollars in a cheap card and saying "Merry Christmas!"?

It just seems so pointless. Wouldn't it make more sense if we all just kept our sawbucks and went out and bought ourselves something?

I do things for the people I am close to all year round. If I know for a fact they have a need for something, I will get it for them. But I don't like to buy pointless gifts for people. It cheapens the whole concept.

I know, I know, I need to "get into the Christmas spirit." I wish people would leave me alone and let me keep Christmas - or not keep Christmas - however I choose.

A Bloody Impression

I'm not sure I really know what I want to say about this.

An eight year old "special needs student" was dismissed from school and ordered to undergo psychiatric testing after submitting the above drawing for an assignment to draw a picture depicting what he did on Thanksgiving break.

If that picture seems a bit odd, his father explained it was his son's response to their visit to the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette in Attelboro.

The town mayor interrupted his vacation to call and ask the school superintendent to apologize for the incident.

And then Toni Saunders, of the Associated Advocacy Center, who was invited by the family's pastor into the situation, weighed in with this:

I heard the story and I was appalled, to put it mildly. My intention is to shed light on what is happening to children in schools because of zero tolerance. I’m sure they expected Santa Claus or a reindeer, but that’s not where this child’s mind was.

Incidentally, the student did okay on the psychiatric exam, was found to pose no danger to himself or others and allowed to return to class, but the father claims, not unreasonably, that this has traumatized his son.

What a mess! What a big, ugly mess.

I'm not convinced this is as nefarious as some would lead to you to believe. That it was an incredibly stupid overreaction, I am sure.

What the story did do was take me back in my mind to the time I was seven years old and found a picture in a magazine put out by our Christian denomination of Jesus carrying his cross on his shoulder on his way to Golgotha. (Well, actually, it was a black and white photo of an actor portraying Jesus). I cut out that picture and tacked it to the wall above my bed. I don't know why I did. I just know I was brought up on the story of Jesus' crucifixion.

In fact, my parents had a holographic picture of the scene. When you looked at it straightaway it depicted Jesus hanging on the cross; but with a slight movement of your head you saw him resurrected and ascending into heaven. I would stare at the picture often, and for long periods of time. I especially remember staring at the blood trickling from the nails in this feet and hands.

My little New Testament also had a painting of the crucifixion, complete with the two thieves who were on either side of Jesus. That was my favorite page in the entire Testament, but it was so small that it wasn't overly graphic - not as graphic as my parent's picture which hung in our home.

Is such violent iconography appropriate for young minds to obsess about?

I personally think not.

An Obama Nativity

Well, Chuck Norris is these days doing what he likes to do: hacking for the political right-wing. His latest column is an anti-abortion piece, which is certainly his right to write. But just get a load of this bit of buffoonery from it:

Lastly, as we sit on the eve of another Christmas, I wonder: What would have happened if Mother Mary were covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor uninsured teenaged woman were provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind, if only they too would have been as progressive as Washington's wise men and women!

Okay, I'll bite.

First, just what the heck is this Obamacare? Is that not a slander from the devious mouths that spout it? Barack Obama put forth his vision of how he would like to reform healthcare, and the majority of voters decided it was a good idea and elected him. Of course what has happened since his election is a vicious battle between political parties that is still going on. And in the end, whatever compromise is finally reached, just to be able to say something was accomplished, can in no honest way be called Obamacare, for it will not be his original plan. So please oh brainless ones who apparently can't participate in this discussion without a script: just stop with this Obamacare business. (But to simplify things, I will use "Obamacare" to stand for affordable health care for everyone, which is supposedly the goal of whatever bill finally gets approved and sent to the President.)

Second, has Mr. Norris even read the narratives of Jesus' birth? It doesn't seem that he has. What is this "ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning" he suggests Mary might have attempted to avoid through aborting her child had she had "Obamacare"?

According to Matthew's account, Joseph "was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly" (verse 18, NIV). Okay, just on that alone Norris' question seems obnoxious. But there's more. Luke's gospel points out that "Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph..." (Luke 3:23 NIV).

The common assumption was that Jesus was Joseph's son, and any misgivings Joseph had (which were eventually put to rest through angelic visitation) were going to be handled privately anyway. I mean, that's what the Bible plainly says.

Therefore, Norris' question just makes no sense. As rhetoric it is totally lame because it rests on a false assumption. I feel silly pointing out the obviousness of this.

And if we take the Bible at face value "young, poor, uninsured" Mary would never have given thought to aborting her child because we find this in Luke 1 (NIV):

And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me— holy is his name.

I guess we can safely assume Mary would have been insulted by Norris' question.

So again I have to ask if Norris has read any of this, or does he count on the (considerable) ignorance of his readers?

So in keeping with spirit of the Bible I will "answer a fool according to his folly" (Proverbs 26:5) and suggest that had Mary had "Obamacare," she would have gone to Bethlehem Memorial Hospital and received quality care for herself and her newborn (who would have avoided the indignity of being born in a stable and being lain in a feed trough) and this would not have caused too severe a financial hardship even for her husband's simple carpenter's wages.

Next stupid question...

The Thorny Problem of Capital Punishment

I was reading a New York Times editorial about capital punishment titled There Is No Humane Execution.

Convicted murderer Kenneth Biros was put down in much the same way an animal is, with a single drug injection rather than the normal three drug "cocktail." This is considered an improvement.

But the editorial states: "No matter how it is done, for the state to put someone to death is inherently barbaric."

Me, I have mixed feelings about the subject.

My biggest concern is that our justice system, unfortunately, too often does a very poor job in capital cases. There have been far too many exonerated off of death row by DNA tests, too many examples of prosecutorial misconduct, too many mistaken eyewitnesses, for me to ever be comfortable with things the way they are. It is a known fact that we have put to death innocent people.

I believe that it is indeed better that a guilty person should go free than we put to death an innocent.

Still, having said all that, I have no hesitation saying that habitual killers are beasts who have forfeited their right to live. There is no hope of reforming such animals, and having them alive at all is risking having further mayhem.

I don't believe capital punishment does much in the way of being a deterrent - other than as I said above, it eliminates the risk of repeat murders.

A normal mind doesn't contemplate and carry out murders. And a murderous mind is not likely to be deterred by threat of execution.

Is capital punishment barbaric - uncivilized and primitive? Perhaps. But It was figured out early on that murderers and the extremely violent have no place in a civilized society. That type of behavior just wasn't tolerated as humans began to organize.

But if they have no place in society and we are too civilized to execute them, what shall we do with them?

Our prison system is the biggest joke of all. There is little effort made to rehabilitate those who might can be rehabilitated. When we put those who might be rehabilitated together with those who are incorrigible, we establish a veritable criminal factory.

Prisons are violently dangerous places, for both guard and inmate and, when inmates escape, for the citizens nearby. At best prisons warehouse the beasts, keeping them out of circulation (for the most part).

Prisons are also expensive and there apparently aren't nearly enough of them.

Part of the act of execution is the attempt to sate the human desire for revenge. That is why we allow the families of those who have suffered at the hands of murderers to witness executions - for the closure it hopefully brings. Those who want to be a part of this are often left with the feeling that the murderer got off too easy. They often feel too much concern is taken to assure the murderer is not treated in an inhumane way, when the murderer had no such regard for their victims.

There is the rub.

We truly want to rid society of those uselessly harmful elements while giving some semblance of justice (revenge) and at the same time we want to do this in a way that preserves our sense of being civilized.

No one, I suppose, is very pleased.

The Winter Solstice Is Coming Soon

I'm a sun worshiper. Not in the sense that I lie around basking in it during the summer months in an attempt to get and keep a tan, but in the sense that I recognize that without Mr. Sun life one earth as we know it could not exist.

George Carlin made me laugh and made me think when he wrote in his Brain Droppings:

I've begun worshipping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry.

Amen.

What has been called the darkest day of the year (or as I think of it, the shortest day of the year) will come next Monday, December 21.

Winter for me is nice, but it gets old rather quickly. The welcome relief of summer's oppressive heat is soon a burden with its bone-aching, extremity numbing cold.

I love the snow, just like nearly everyone; but I don't love being snowed in. Much less do I enjoy losing utilities because of snow-laden branches that get heavy and fall into utility lines.

Then there is the increased number of cloudy days, seemingly endless days when my mood enhancing Sun never makes an appearance. Yes, I suffer from a mild case of seasonal affective disorder.

I've read that the ancients would watch as the days continued to get shorter and shorter, and as their carefully gathered and preserved harvest dwindled, and would begin to fear that perhaps the sun might not return in force and bring the planting and growing seasons.

So the winter solstice, the day that sets the stage for the sun's slow return to prominence, is a day of celebration for me just as it was to the ancients, who had their various mid-winter festivals surrounding the event.

As winter represents death in the cycle of life, spring is the time of rebirth. The winter solstice is the pledge that rebirth is soon coming back to the earth.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate winter. But I sure look forward to surviving it. And I look forward to the days getting longer.

The Fundamentalist Mind

No one can fully appreciate the power that Fundamentalism has to clamp minds tightly shut and keep them shut more than those who struggled and finally came out of the movement.

I am one of those who did.

In my childhood home and our church the Bible was the only book thought necessary to understand life. (Not that we didn't have other books; we did; but they were all considered inferior to our Bible.) It was our "roadmap" to heaven and instruction book for life.

That is what is back of the claim that the Bible is God's inerrant, infallible Word.

And, as Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

Fundamentalist Christians take that as literally as they do any other part of the Bible.

That stance leads to a natural disdain for "worldly" scholars.

That stance is buttressed by other Biblical texts:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20).

Science and philosophy, therefore, are considered tools of the Devil.

And as Martin Luther put it, "reason is a whore," so you best not think yourself wise either, because "[t]here is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 16:25).

When this is pounded into your head continually it eventually takes hold. It is the perfect method of mind control. And as I wrote about here, it is in the best interest of those who are doing the controlling to keep the enslaved mind away from any intellectual nutriment that might allow the seeds of free thinking to take root.

Now were I not so thoroughly convinced through my own experience, not to mention scores of others I have known, that such mind control - under the guise of supplying strength and comfort - is injurious to the human spirit, I would have little reason to dwell on the Bible or Biblical subjects.

My aim is not to be another garden variety scoffer. There are enough of them. What I want to do is take the Bible seriously enough to help those who have been taught to give it an automatic reverence and a place of honor above reason and logic.

As literature and religious history, I find it interesting. And no one can even hope to understand American history without some understanding of the Bible and its impact on its followers.

But as a substitute for science and philosophy, it is laughable. However, considering its antiquity, what would you expect?

The morals of the Bible show the crude cultural customs of ancient peoples (some places in the Middle East preserve some of those customs to this day). Thus slavery, child abuse, genocide, the subordination of women to men, and all manner of sexual perversion are given approval inside its covers.

I cannot tell you how many of Christianity's greatest apologists I have studied (earnestly studied, not merely read) and found necessary to disagree with. Not because I think my mind is superior to theirs. In most cases I would say I am intellectually inferior. But intellectuals can be Bible defenders too - which only goes to show that even intelligent minds can be made to submit to emotionally needful beliefs.

That is the crux, I believe. Christianity is so ingrained in our history, so widely revered, that it is thought dastardly to attack it. It is a sentimental favorite, and while fundamentalists and conservative Christians outnumber liberal Christians, unbelievers are more greatly outnumbered and greatly misunderstood

Rick Warren Admits That God Is Evil

Every person concerned about human rights, that is to say every thinking person, is troubled by the proposed Ugandan law that would impose the death penalty on homosexuals.

Amid rumors that he and other American Christian leaders may have been lending support to that cause, Pastor Rick Warren found it necessary to issue this "encyclical video" denying involvement and condemning the proposed legislation.

He began by quoting Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

He states that "...the potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases."

In answer to the question "Do you support the death penalty for homosexuals?" he gives a crystal clear answer: "Absolutely not. ALL life, no matter how humble or broken, whether unborn or dying, is precious to God."

Now I want to make clear that I fully concur with Warren in considering this proposed law an evil.

However, where he and I part company is that he uses the Bible as the standard for proper sexual behavior ("we can never deny or water down what God’s Word clearly teaches about sexuality") while I believe such conduct is a personal matter that is none of anyone's business so long as no one's right are being violated (I'm speaking of adult consent here).

I can do that, you see, because I believe the Bible is a fully human book, written by men in search of God and God's will.

For Warren, as a conservative Christian and believer in Biblical inerrancy, he is limited, as he said, to what "God's Word" (i.e., the Bible) teaches.

And make no mistake, one of the things it explicitly teaches is that the death penalty is appropriate for homosexuality:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

Now do whatever hermeneutical cartwheels you like, but at the end of the day the Bible teaches that God approves that "unjust, extreme and un-Christian" (as Warren calls it) death penalty for gays.

Liberal thinkers have no problem at all seeing the cultural aspects of verses such as this one, rather than understanding it to be "God's Word" on the subject.

The truth is, Rick Warren is speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. If he is willing to ignore Leviticus 20:13, why does he not go all the way and ignore the other anti-gay Bible passages which is the basis of so much of the bigotry against the gay community?

Conservative Christians, you aren't being broadminded at all here.

The Party Of Ignorance

Honestly, I haven't been very pleased with the debate about healthcare reform. It is simply hard for me to come to terms with why we can't have a national health program or service like all the other modernized, civilized, industrialized nations have.

No one can dispute that Republicans are the major obstacle. What is it about these backward thinking, uniformed people? Because so many rank and file Americans associate with their conservative causes, Democrats are unable to push through many needed major changes in the way we do business.

Try to do something about the problem of global warming, and the Republicans will nix any attempt by pretending there is some kind of dispute about the evidence. They stand always ready with their conspiracy theories about evil, godless scientists.

Underlying this anti-science stance is a "God is in control" meme that urges us to do nothing. Stop playing God. Don't meddle in things that are God's concern.

One of Senator James Inhofe's "prominent scientists" who dispute manmade global warming is Chris Allen, a television weatherman in Kentucky, who in his blog said:

My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus ... did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do—rid the mere mention of God in any context.

See? We're worrying over nothing.

Oh yes, creationism is a Republican cause. In a Gallup Poll taken just last year, Americans were quizzed about their views on evolution. It broke down this way between Democrats and Republicans:

Republicans:

God created humans as is, 10,000 years ago: 60%
Humans evolved but God guided: 32%
Humans evolved but God had no part 4%

Democrats:

God created humans as is, 10,000 years ago: 38%
Humans evolved but God guided: 39%
Humans evolved but God had no part: 17%

The above statistic alone lets you know that the majority of Republicans are ignorant about science.

This scientific illiteracy and accompanying default position of "man doesn't need to meddle in God's business" leads us smack into other difficulties.

Try to do something with human embryonic stem cells and you will have a Republican president veto the measures advancing research because “Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.” That not only displayed a lack of scientific understanding, but also a desire to cater to the religious element in the Republican party.

It is worth noting that in 1995 the 104th Congress, which was controlled in both Houses by the Republicans, did away with a little something known as the Office of Technology Assessment. The purpose of that office was to assist Congress with understanding scientific issues.

Am I being overly suspicious thinking that the abolishment of the OTA had something to do with the Republican distrust of mainstream science?

So what does all this anti-science republicanism have to do with their efforts to prevent decent healthcare for all citizens of the United States?

Let me tell you: I'm sick of hearing Republicans sarcastically talk about "Obamacare" (just as they denigrated "Hillarycare"). Would someone please tell me what is so great about "Bushcare?" You remember how President George W. Bush explained it: "people have access to health care in America ... after all, you just go to an emergency room."

I don't know. Perhaps the Republicans feel we all should just depend on God rather than a government program for our health. Pray that you don't get sick; but if you get sick anyway, pray you will get better; but if you don't get better, pray you will be able to pay your doctor or hospital bill after our free market insurance industry has paid its share (providing they don't find a loophole to allow them to avoid paying).

After all, God doesn't need our help.

A Statement Of Concern For America From A Presbyterian Minister

Here is that statement:

The time was, and that within your own recollection, when the term infidelity was almost a stranger to our ears, and an open infidel an object of abhorrence. But now the term has become familiar, and infidels hardly disgust. Our youth, our hope and our pride, are poisoned with the accursed leaven. The vain title of “philosopher,” has turned their giddy heads, and, what is worse, corrupted their untutored hearts. It is now a mark of sense, the proof of an enlarged and liberal mind, to scoff at all the truths of inspiration, and to cover with ridicule the hope of a Christian; those truths and that hope which are the richest boon of divine benignity; which calm the perturbed conscience, and heal the wounded spirit; which sweeten every comfort, and soothe every sorrow; which give strong consolation in the arrest of death, and shed the light of immortality on the gloom of the grave.

There is no doubt that the so-called New Atheism is amply represented by popular works such as Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great, Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon and Sam Harris' The End Of Faith.

And as for that scoffing liberal mind, probably no book is more popular currently than Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church Of Liberalism.

If you're thinking that maybe this minister would make a welcome speaker at the next GOP convention, I have to tell you he would not be available.

He would not because John Mitchell Mason is now long dead and his long, venomous screed from which I took the above selection was written over two hundred years ago.

It was part of an attack on an infidel who was running for president at the time.

That infidel won, by the way, and went down in history as a rather well respected American. He was Thomas Jefferson, our third president.

Mason, on the other hand, is mostly forgotten.

I guess he was worried about the wrong thing.

The Devil's Number!

The cashier rung up my purchase and with tax it came to $6.65. She giggled a nervous giggle and said, "It almost came up to that bad number."

She was referring, of course, to what has been called the Devil's number. (Actually it is the number of the persecuting beast in the Biblical book of Revelation, said to be the number of a certain man.)

The number of sermons I've heard in my lifetime about "The Mark Of The Beast" probably would be in excess of six hundred and sixty-six!

So I did get a bit of a chuckle out of this story about a police officer whose badge number was 666, and it was his grandfather's badge number as well:

Houston Police Officer Carl Black still remembers getting ready to fight the hulking 6-foot-6, 280-pound thug who was threatening him about 17 years ago.

The suspect readied to attack as he ripped off his shirt and shouted “You're not going to take me to jail!”

Then he looked at Black's uniform, fell to his knees and gave up.

After putting him in his police car, the young officer asked why he had surrendered.

“I ain't fighting the devil,” the man said.

The suspect had caught a glimpse of Black's badge number. It was 666.

Thank goodness for superstitious people, I suppose.

The whole story is rather fun, with a number of humorous examples of people's odd behavior over this number.

Nearly thirty years ago I did intensive research of the book of Revelation - for my own benefit. It was a book that had frightened me very much as a young child with its vivid and horrid imagery.

The results of my personal study satisfied me that (1) the subject of that book was the situation the early Christians faced in the first century A.D. ("things which must shortly come to pass" Rev. 1:1) rather than the times in which we live or that of the future; (2) the persecuting Beast was the Roman Empire and the number of the Beast was a gematria for Nero.

Nothing in my further studies has persuaded me that my original conclusion were wrong. In fact, I was interested in news that an alternative for the Beast's number, 616, had been confirmed as perhaps the original.

I doubt one Christian in a hundred is even aware of the preceding discovery.

But it is still fun knowing ... just to be able reassure those who do fall prey to sensationalistic prophecy preachers and those who are just slaves to superstition that they should be freaking out over 616 instead

On Speaking My Mind

Allow me to talk about this blog.

Some people will be offended by some of the things I have to say, especially concerning religion. Down here where I live - in the Bible Belt - conservative Christianity ( especially fundamentalism) is as venerated as hunting for sport, NASCAR, and racism - none of which I have the least passion for. I blog about my thoughts in general, but it is most often in reaction to the idiocy I find surrounding me.

I have had coworkers call me the Antichrist simply because I defended myself against their verbal religious assaults. It is considered rude of me to speak in favor of science over faith and freethinking over closed-mindedness. Yet it is considered perfectly okay that others should pronounce the doom of my "eternal soul" in the pits of a fiery Hell and to tell me that my manner of conducting myself is sinful!

Go figure.

For my part, I don't care much for sacred cows. I'm not out to offend, but deep down I feel that people who get offended easily are emotionally immature.

For those folks who like to think and don't get offended easily, I humbly dedicate my blog.

Christian Supremacists Are Missing The Boat On Christmas

On the occasion of Thanksgiving I aimed a couple of not-so-good-natured jabs at the Pilgrim settlers. One of those was this statement: "And so the radical religious nuts came ashore and are with us still to this day."

Those folks left old England to "escape religious persecution," only to attempt to set up their own version of it on these shores.

Soon there was theocracy in "New" England.

Radical religiosity never went away but certainly has enjoyed a resurgence with the emergence of the Religious Right political element - an ungodly (pardon the pun) merger of religion and politics that seems bent on restoring theocracy.

The modern political-religious nuts, unlike their fathers, make much of Christmas and even use it as a rallying point in the battle against those of us who cherish true religious freedom.

But how different were the earlier nuts:

When the Puritans came to power in England, Parliament enacted a law abolishing most holy days, including Christmas. New Englanders followed this with a series of laws that formally made Christmas celebrations illegal. The Massachusetts law of 1659 authorized a sizable fine of five shillings to punish anyone who celebrated Christmas day by "abstinence from labor, feasting, or in any other way." [Quoted from Puritans At Play: Leisure And Recreation In Colonial New England by Bruce Colin Daniels]

Also of note is the following quote from Puritans and Puritanism In Europe and America (edited by Francis J. Bremer and Tom Webster):

In America the Puritan rejection of Christmas was epitomized by the Pilgrim Fathers, who spent 25 December 1620 erecting their first building, before returning to the Mayflower. Their influence appears to have remained in some areas until the late nineteenth century: until at least 1870, public schools in Boston held classes on Christmas Day and punished absenteeism.

Well, now!

Neither was there this hypocritical business of Jesus as "the reason for the season."

I say "hypocritical" for the simple reason that it is a sham to prejudice the unthinking into accepting that secularists are bad guys and wicked killjoys.

The Puritans rejected the observance of Christmas because they found no Biblical warrant for it. It was viewed by them as, at its root, a pagan celebration and a time of hedonistic excess.

Personally, I find the theology of the Puritans on this issue sounder than the motives of their spiritual progeny.

Paw Prints In The Snow

We don't get much snow where I live, but yesterday morning we got some. Maybe about an inch or so, or at least a very heavy "dusting."

My little cat friends made their way through the snow on my deck to get breakfast. I fed them plenty. Then I sat back and watched them investigate and play in their first snow. They hardly knew what to make of it as they alternated among picking it up with their paws, scooping it away, and eating it.

For me, being off work, it was a perfect to day to sit at my computer and get some work done, to sip some hot brewed tea with lemon, and to watch winter-themed cartoons on dvd. My favorite being Ub Iwerks' Jack Frost.

If you've never seen this, or don't remember having seen it, go check it out on Youtube here. It's the cute story of Jack Frost coming to the forest to paint and to warn the woodland creatures to prepare for the coming winter. A mischievous little bear cub phoo-phoos the idea, pointing out his furry coat, and later runs away from home, only to be caught out in the cold. Well, I won't give away the ending but it is way too cute!

Something that won't be so cute is when I return to work Monday. There are two loudmouthed conservative yutzes who every time we find ourselves in a spell of below normal temperature (such as we are in now) or have a snowfall (such as yesterday) can always be counted on to make merry with the global warming-is-a-hoax jokes.

The thought never seems to occur to them that by pointing to such isolated events rather than scientific evidence to make with the derision, they highlight their buffoonishness. Or maybe they really don't know any better, in which case they are highlighting their ignorance.

Conservatives, it seems to me, don't really understand how uninformed they really are, considering themselves to be "wise as serpents."

While not all conservatives are religious nuts, here where I live I'm surrounded by simpletons who walk around with a Bible tucked under their arms while spouting off about how "God is in control" and "God is still on his throne."

Translation: We don't need to worry about global warming or anything else; God will not let us destroy the earth because he is preserving it and us until he decides to rain down its destruction with an apocalyptic fire from heaven once his "grapes of wrath" have reached their proper ripeness.

Gee, and this post started off so well. If this rant offends, you can always go back and look at the pretty snow picture I included above.

Have Times Changed That Much?

And now a little religious history: On this date way back in 1484 Pope Innocent Vlll issued his Summis desiderantes affectibus (or in English: Desiring with supreme ardor), part of which stated:

It has recently come to our ears, not without great pain to us, that in some parts of upper Germany, as well as in the provinces, cities, territories, regions, and dioceses of Mainz, Koin, Trier, Salzburg, and Bremen, many persons of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith , give themselves over to devils male and female, and by their incantations, charms, and conjurings, and by other abominable superstitions and sortileges, offences, crimes, and misdeeds, ruin and cause to perish the offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows, pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth; that they afflict and torture with dire pains and anguish, both internal and external, these men, women, cattle, flocks, herds, and animals, and hinder men from begetting and women from conceiving, and prevent all consummation of marriage; that, moreover, they deny with sacrilegious lips the faith they received in holy baptism; and that, at the instigation of the enemy of mankind, they do not fear to commit and perpetrate many other abominable offences and crimes, at the risk of their own souls, to the insult of the divine majesty and to the pernicious example and scandal of multitudes.

It would be reassuring to believe that type of superstitious thinking passed away with the middle ages ... but as anyone who has read Chick comic books knows, we haven't come along as far as we need to.

The Harry Potter series of books have been vigorously opposed by Christian fundamentalists because they are viewed as witchcraft friendly.

Well, at least we aren't still prosecuting "witches". But if those who hanker for a Christian Theocracy get their way, who knows....

Yours truly is proudly on record as denying the existence of a literal, personal Devil. However, a certain rather large segment of our population believes to the contrary. Believes that Satan is:

...a personal enemy who rules our world system. Whether we know it or not, he also influences every life to some degree. Until recent years his very existence has been doubted. Our churches have denied or underestimated him. But he is here - alive and well! (Quoted from the Introduction to Satan is Alive And Well On Planet Earth, by Hal Lindsey, Carole C. Carlson.)

Folks, that type of thinking is scary and dangerous. As Voltaire well put it: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Our own little "witch" inquisition in righteous old Colonial America is reason enough to stay always on guard against religious fanaticism.

Good Without God?

Sure. Why Not?

Haven't we all seen too many examples of believers in God behaving badly to buy into "religion" being sufficient to form good character?

The United Coalition of Reason has created a stir with their campaign featuring billboards that consist of a simple question: "Are you good without God?"

One pastor weighed in with an interesting response:

"I don't think anybody can really be good without having a part of the God component inside of them."

God component ... I wonder what that is?

Maybe I'm just simple minded, but really ... why wouldn't a commitment to grant everyone else the same rights we want for ourselves be enough? You know, the old Golden Rule of treating everyone else the way we want to be treated.

It is simply faulty logic that commingles ethics and religion.

But of course we wouldn't expect the mainstream churches to admit such a thing. It would be very, very bad for business.

A Strange Argument For Divine Inspiration Of Bible

Bodie Hodge has written one of the strangest defenses for the theory of the divine inspiration of the Bible I have ever read. And I've read many.

Hodge argues that anyone who claims that man rather than God wrote the Bible is making "an absolute statement that reveals something extraordinary."

Actually, the reverse is true. This is a fact (or as he puts it, an absolute statement): there never was a book written on earth before man was here to write it. Every book penned since man arrived on the scene and developed written languages has been written by human hand. Therefore, the extraordinary statement would be that God wrote any book through man.

Now get a load of Hodge's twisted thinking:

It reveals that the person saying this is claiming to be transcendent! When one claims that God was not inspiring the human authors of the Bible, that person is claiming to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent!

He goes on to explain that the denier would need to be omniscient in order to refute God's claim to have inspired the Bible - and of course that old standby 2 Timothy 3:16 is called into service (more about that verse shortly); the denier would need to be omnipresent in order observe that God didn't aid the human authors; the denier would need to have been omnipotent in order to have prevented God from helping the human authors (talk about non sequiturs!).

Then Hodge delivers what he evidently believes to be the coup de grace:

So, the person making the claim that the Bible was written by men is claiming to be God; but these three attributes belong solely to God.

At this point I'm tempted to wonder if Mr. Hodge would be willing to admit that he needs to be God, with all the above attributes, in order to deny the divine inspiration of The Book Of Morman, the Qu 'ran, or any other religion's Scripture.

In his essay he deals with the question: what if someone claims that God inspired Shakespeare? A very easy strawman to knock over. He writes: "Nowhere did God self-authenticate Shakespeare’s writings as Scripture."

Okay. But again: what about the Scriptures of other religions that do claim to be divine?

What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander, right?

Hodges makes the statement, without elaboration (other than a footnote to an article he wrote on the subject), that: "The canon is already sealed."

How do we know this? And just when was it supposedly closed? The average rank and file Christian has no idea that the 66 books which make up his Bible was the fruit of long debate and voting. The average Christian doesn't know that the earliest Canons contained books no longer recognized as Scripture, The Shepherd of Hermas being an example. He is not aware that some books were included only as "disputed" books - books that weren't universally recognized as inspired. Few, in fact, would be able to explain why Catholics have several more books in their Bible than do the protestants.

Now let's look at Hodge's proof text, 2 timothy 3:16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...

We are supposed to assume whenever a conservative theologian quotes this verse that Paul (the supposed writer) was speaking of the 66 books - the "sealed Canon" - which make up the protestant Bible.

The problem there is the fact that, according to those same conservative scholars, the verse above was penned in the mid-sixties A. D. Even conservatives don't argue that the Canon was closed at that point. For example, they generally date the Johannine epistles and the Apocalypse around the last decade of the first century. Jude's epistle is generally dated much after 2 Timothy.

My point is that Paul could not have been referring to what we today consider the New Testament (along with the Old Testament), because it was still in the process of being written. (Undoubtedly he was referring only to the sacred Jewish Scriptures, which was the Bible of the early church, and was quoted heavily in the New Testament writings, and which Jesus referred to as the Scriptures or the Law and the Prophets.) In other words, Hodge's prooftext is really a pretext and a very weak argument.

What really is at issue here is gullibility. We do not need to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in order to doubt claims of divine inspiration for books. If that were so, we would have no choice but to accept every claim of divine inspiration.

And I know of no one that broadminded.