And you shall know them by their love.

The two most hateful and ignorant statements on homosexuality I've seen in a long time.

• http://goo.gl/ahyys
• http://goo.gl/Iunf6

'via Blog this'

Burn a Qur'an, Don't Burn a Qur'an...

So everyone's got their panties in a wad in one way or another over a Florida pastor's plans to hold a Qur'an burning. General Petraeus worries that it will endanger our troops overseas in Muslim countries. The Obama administration has chimed in, denouncing the idea. Clearly, a lot of people are taking this very seriously.

Which is precisely the problem.

The rational reaction to this is to have no reaction whatsoever. What's being destroyed here but paper? Are the ideas contained in the Qur'an in danger of being wiped from all memory if these few copies are burned? Is the guy breaking the law? Is he harming anyone? Does he have any power to do anything more than make his idiotic little religio-political statement? No? Then move on, nothing to see here.

This pastor is an idiot and a bigot, and so are his little band of followers. But this whole crisis results from our fear of how a second group of idiots and bigots will react to the actions of the first group of idiots and bigots. Rational people are caught in the crossfire in a war between two groups of religious fanatics. The only power these people have is the power to spread their hate through the media. Let's ignore them and remove that power.

James Madison on the Clergy

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Wait a minute, I thought the Founders were devout Christians who intended to create a Christian nation! Just wait until Glenn Beck debunks this bit of revisionist history!

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Theodore B. Olson provides a rare example of rational conservative thinking in this op-ed piece published in Newsweek. If Republicans still thought like this, I'd still be one.

• http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/output/print

Bauer via Ehrman on Early Christian Orthodoxy

This is from Bart D. Ehrman's book, "Jesus Interrupted". Ehrman is discussing how the Orthodox Christan scriptural canon came into being, and references Walter Bauer's 1934 book "Orthodox and Heresy in Earliest Christianity".

"Bauer looked at our earliest evidence for Christianity in a range of geographical regions throughout early Christendom - For example, in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Rome. He found that if the sources are studied in minute detail, they tell a very different story from the one told by Eusebius. In many places of early Christianity, forms of Christian belief that were later labeled heretical were the original form of Christianity, and in some parts of the church so-called heretics outnumbered those who agreed with the orthodox form of the faith. In some places Marcionite Christianity was dominant; in other places, one or another of the Gnostic systems prevailed.

Moreover, a number of Christian groups saw no sharp divisions between what would later be called heresy and what would be called orthodoxy. The clear theological distinctions of Eusebius's day were not original to the faith, but were created later when the battle lines were drawn up. Some people who were later considered heretics would have been seen, and were seen, as completely orthodox in their own day.

The way Bauer saw it, the church of the second and third centuries was not made up of one massive and dominant movement known as orthodoxy, with heretical groups at the fringes. Early on there were all sorts of groups with all sorts of views in lots of different places. Of course, all of these groups believed that their views were right, that their beliefs were orthodox.

But in the struggle to win converts, only one group eventually won out; this was the group that was particularly well represented in the city of Rome. The Roman Christians asserted their influence on other churches; as the church in Rome, the center of the empire, this community was larger, wealthier, and better organized than other Christian groups.

This Roman group acquired more converts than any of the others, eventually stamped out all of its competition, declared itself orthodox, argued that its views really were those of Jesus and the apostles, claimed that it had always been the majority view, and then - as a final coup de grace - rewrote the history of the conflict. What emerged was a Christianity characteristic of the Roman church. It was Roman Christianity - Roman catholic (meaning universal) Christianity.

Eusebius stands at the end of this process. It was his rewriting of history that made all later historians think that his group had always been the majority opinion. But it did not really happen that way."

WWJD = WWID

What Would Jesus Do? = What Would I Do?

• http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php

The Huckabee-Clemmons-religion connection

The following blog post lays out some very disturbing observations about how Mike Huckabee released a homicidal monster from prison because his religious beliefs blind him to reality.

• http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/mike_huckabee_killed_maurice_c.php

Why Palin should never be President

This blog post makes the case against President Palin. It contains a blistering, and completely accurate, dismantling of her ability by a conservative writer who claims to be a "fan" of Palin.

• http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/12/a_fan_reviews_palins_book.php#more

Think the King James Version IS the Bible?

Might want to read this.

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/OriginOfKJV.htm

The Bible has a Liberal Bias (and Conservapedia aims to fix that!).

I am so stunned by this, that I can't even write much about it now. At first, I thought it was a parody, but evidently, it's authentic.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Nice quote from Ehrman

I'm reading Bart D. Ehrman's book, "Jesus Interrupted." There are a lot of things in this book that should make fundamentalists very uncomfortable, but I particularly like this passage from the beginning of Chapter 4.

"Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul -- isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors, who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't."

I like this phrase: "It turned out the liberals actually had something to say, and had evidence to back it up." To how many areas of public discourse could that apply? Evolution? Global warming? Weapons of mass destruction? Health care reform? The list could go on and on. Because that's the real difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals value evidence, conservatives value belief. Liberals will change their views if evidence proves them wrong. Conservatives will stubbornly stick to their guns even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. And liberals have a lot of evidence on their side. Look back through history, and you'll find that nearly every instance of social progress -- separating church and state, freeing the slaves, women's rights, desegregation, social security, medicare, clean air and water legislation, the list goes on and on -- was promoted by liberals and opposed by conservatives. And now, looking back, we celebrate those liberal accomplishments as milestones of a free society, and the conservatives who opposed them are at best forgotten, or at worst recognized for the narrow-minded zealots that they were.

Liberalism has a good track record. Conservatism, not so much. And liberals need to keep pointing that out. Like Frank Schaeffer said, we can't accommodate the village idiot. We have to let them stand on the mountain waiting for Armageddon while the rest of us get on with the business of making the world a better place.

Great Quote - John Lloyd

"I'm an Ignostic; I refuse to be drawn on the question of whether God exists until somebody properly defines the terms."

Watch his video here.

Rachel Maddow guest nails it

Here's a segment of the Rachel Maddow show, in which she speaks with the author of the book "Crazy for God", Frank Schaeffer. Mr. Schaeffer, a former fundamentalist Christian who came to his senses, describes the extent of the insanity running through the conservative Christian ranks. I've been saying these very things for years, and people have always just sort of looked at me like I'd gone too many days without sleep. I think Mr. Schaeffer hits the nail right on the head. Enjoy.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Doctors save Pat Robertson's life; Pat credits only prayer.

I've always had a pet peeve about people crediting prayer and miracles and God for saving their lives when, in reality, it was modern medical science that did the job.

This is a classic example.

Film: Anatomy of Hate

http://anatomyofhate.com/

Dubya really was a nutcase.

So, Iraq wasn't a war against Islam? Had nothing to do with religion? All about weapons of mass destruction? Turns out George W. Bush contacted French President Jacque Chirac in 2003, and made no bones about the true nature of his plans:

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

This bizarre episode occurred while the White House was assembling its “coalition of the willing” to unleash the Iraq invasion. Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”

That's what a lot of us wonder over here, too. Read more, if you can stomach it.

God's Love, Faithful Word Baptist style

Here's some inspriational teaching from Pastor Steven Anderson of Tempe, Arizona. Remember, his god is a god of love. And if this isn't enough for you, click here for more.

"The same God who instituted the death penalty for murders is the same god who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals, sodomites and queers!

That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed. Oh, God doesn't feel that way in the New Testament ... God never "felt" anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed.

You know why God wanted the sodomites in the Old Testament to be killed? You know why every good king of Israel, the Bible says they got rid of the sodomites in the land? You know, the good kings that came after the bad kings who had allowed the sodomites to infest their land, they had infiltrated ... King Asa got the sodomites out of the land, Jehoshaphat exterminated the sodomites that were left from the days of his father, Asa. Why? Because the sodomites are infectious, that's why. Because they're not reproducers, that goes without saying, they're recruiters.

How are they multiplying? Do you not see that they're multiplying? Are you that blind? Have you noticed that there's more than there were last year and the year before, and the year before that? How are they multiplying? They're reproducing right? No, here's a biology lesson: they're not reproducers, they're recruiters! And you know who they're after? Your children. Remember you dropped off your kids last week? That's who they're after. You drop them off at some daycare, you drop them off at some school somewhere, you don't know where they're at. I'll tell you where they're at: they're being recruited by the sodomites. They're being molested by the sodomites. I can tell you so many stories about people that I know being molested and recruited by the sodomites.

They recruit through rape. They recruit through molestation. They recruit through violation. They are infecting our society. They are spreading their disease. It's not a physical disease, it's a sin disease, it's a wicked, filthy sin disease and it's spreading on a rampage. Can't you see that it's spreading on a rampage? I mean, can you not see that? Can you not see that it's just exploding in growth? Why? Because each sodomite recruits far more than one other sodomite because his whole life is about recruiting other sodomites, his whole life is about violating and hurting people and molesting 'em."

Christians call for revolution

A bunch of religious nuts are calling for a "revolution" on the steps of the Supreme Court.  It happened two days ago, and I'm not surprised that I didn't hear a peep about it in the news.  Here's my favorite idiotic quote from their press release:

"A call to Christian Revolution will be made at the steps of the Supreme Court. The Declaration of Independence was unanimously signed and proclaimed by our Founding Fathers on July 4, 1776. It was a call to obey God rather than men. When our Founding Fathers declared their independence from England's King George III, they were really declaring their dependence upon Almighty God -- the God of the Bible. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to proclaim-God is true."

That's so wrong on so many levels that it's not even possible to argue rationally against it.  It would be like trying to explain quantum physics to your dog.  The Declaration was written by a group of people who were largely not Christian, and who wrote many nasty things about organized religion.  It contains no mention of the Bible or Jesus Christ whatsoever, and only the most passing mention of God ("endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...").  It declared independence from a system that claimed the divine right of kings to rule, and that established Christianity as the official religion.  And somehow, these morons twist that around in every way possible to mean the total polar opposite.

Here's the article on Dispatches.

King being an idiot, debunked on Dispatches

Steve King continues to be an embarrassment to Iowa, and his idiotic statements are debunked by people with brains.

Read it here.

Priest throws a hissy over "wafer"

So, the Worcester, Massachusettes Telegram does a story about how the local Catholic church is dealing with concerns about swine flu, and they use the terms "communion wafer" and "wine" to describe the components of the communion ritual.  A priest writes a letter to the editor to complain.  Here's the funny part:

Second, the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t now, nor has it ever offered a wafer and wine as Communion. We do offer the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which in John’s gospel he proclaims to be our source of life in Him. To refer to the Eucharist as a wafer and wine is to demean the value of this sacrament, seemingly equating it to an evening snack.

Ok, this is really getting ridiculous.  Here's the explanation of transubstantiation from catholicapologetics.org:

Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.  Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.  Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.  From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.  Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.

Ok, three things:

1. NOBODY really has faith in "the literalness of the words of the Bible."  If they say they do, they're either lying or delusional.  It's not possible to take the Bible literally; it's both self-contradictory and completely at odds with observation.  If you're going to take this literally, then you'd better be prepared to believe a whole lot of (other) really bizarre stuff that goes along with it, and I know for a fact that you don't.
2. It depends on what your definition of "is" is.  Do Catholics really reject the possibility that Jesus (assuming for the sake of argument that he actually existed AND said any such thing) was speaking metaphorically?  This is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees.
3. Do you mean to tell me that if I visited a factory that produces these communion "items", that I would find boxes labeled "Twenty dozen cartons of individual pieces of the flesh of Jesus Christ"?

Believe what you want, I guess, but don't expect everyone else to automatically accept it as true.  Get a grip.