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!

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

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.

Bible largely a forgery

Oh, really?  No kidding?

Click here for the story on CNN.com.

Why do I think religion fosters lunacy?

Because there's just too much of THIS out there.

The part I love most is the fact that you have to purchase the "report".  If you believed that you had evidence that the antichrist had appeared, and you knew who it was, and you could prove it, would you put that information up for sale?!?  Wouldn't you just post the proof right on your website, to get the facts out there as quickly as possible?  No, evidently you'd be more concerned about making some dough off it first.  If even one person pays for this "report", they should be summarily lobotomized.

J. Grant Swank Jr. is an idiot.

Check out this loon.

Here are a few choice exerpts:

"There comes the time when mortals' sin can go over the divine mercy line. Many biblical believers are concluding that the world is now experiencing God's wrath."

Join the countless ranks of loonies who have been shouting this since the dawn of religion.

"America has a President who claims to be “Christian” who in fact is Marxist Muslim. Those who contest that can contest it against the facts all they want. Their conviction that he is “Christian” flies in the face of his anti-biblical ethics."

A Marxist Muslim?!?  I thought the most objectionable part of Marxism was its disdain for religion?  And which biblical ethics are we talking about?  The few parts where Jesus talks about love and compassion, or the overwhelming majority of the bible promoting rape, murder, genocide and slavery?  And thank you for appointing yourself to determine who's a real christian and who's not.

"Obama has been raised a Muslim, in a Muslim school, admiring publicly the Koran's cadences, mothered by a woman who concluded all religions are the same, all gods the same. His relatives are Muslims in Kenya, one being an extremist politician who ran for the Kenyan presidency. When he did not win, carnage was set loose through the entire country."

This is 10% misleading and 90% total bullshit.  Raised in a muslim school?  Sure, from 1967 to 1971 while in Indonesia, a muslim country, he attended school.  Hardy counts as being "raised" there.  Raised as a muslim by a woman who taught that all religions and gods are the same?  Doesn't sound like muslim teaching to me.  Relatives are Muslims in Kenya?  Sure, and don't you have "relatives" you've never met somewhere in the world that might have done some nasty things?

"When Obama does quote the Bible, it is usually politically opportunistic, not sincere."

(Sound of irony meter exploding)  And you know this because... you're a mind reader?  And even if it were true, that would put Obama right in there with pretty much any public figure who quotes the Bible.

"Further, Obama works laboriously to erase the Christian heritage to this Republic. He will do everything he can to eliminate Christianity and thereby replace it with secularism. Secularism is his god alongside Allah."

Secularism is his god alongside Allah.  So, he hates religion, but reveres Allah.  Holy crap, do you even read what you write?

"In his inaugural address, Obama elevated atheism to the level of Christianity. No prior President would have ever thought of doing that."

Yes, by saying that "we are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers."  Which is completely true.  No president ever thought of that?  Jeez, guy, you need to read the Founding Fathers.  You'll burst an artery over their outright hostility to the church.

"The age in which we live reads like Noah's rebellious, stubborn, smart aleck clod. It appears we are now inhabiting a world on the verge of the flood, on the cliff edge of God's wrath descending.  Hence the swine flu floodwaters increasing."

Swine Flu is devine retribution for Obama's election?!?  Is that the best you can do?  So, god is so pissed about Obama that he starts by killing off a bunch of Mexicans who are probably mostly good Catholics?

I love these people who look around at a world better than any in history, where we are safer, healthier, more prosperous, and more free than ever before, and claim that our acceptance of people's differences is going to bring god's vengeance down upon us.  That's no god worth worshipping.

I do think, however, that Mr. Swank should be a little nervous about all the false witness he's been bearing against his neighbor.  I hear god put that in his top ten of no-nos.

Added to the Idiot Brigade.

Faithful more likely to back torture?

A Pew Research Center poll indicates that regular churchgoers are more likely than nonreligious Americans to support the torture of terrorist suspects.

Click here for CNN.com's story.

So, why would this be?  Is it a sort of "let God sort 'em out" attitude?  Or simply that regular churchgoers in America tend to be politically conservative?  Or is it that when an American Christian thinks about a terrorism suspect, he imagines an Arab in a turban, and thinks God's love doesn't apply?  I'm not sure.  But I do think it's evidence that the connection between Christian faith and compassionate behavior may, in fact, be an inverse relationship.

Biological basis for belief

For your consideration:

And speaking of Michele Bachmann...

If you want a clear example of the kind of batshit crazy that the religious right is pushing into positions of power, just spend some time with the Wikipedia entry on Michele Bachmann.  Don't blindly trust the article itself, check out its cited sources.  They're not making this stuff up.

• Holds a degree from Oral Roberts University
• Opposes phasing out incandescent light bulbs, believing that the government has no right to tell consumers what kind of light bulbs they can buy, but favors federal legislation banning online poker
• Claims that homosexuals suffer from sexual dysfunction and sexual identity disorders, and that gays are specifically targeting children
• Believes that evolution is unproven, and that intelligent design should be taught in public schools
• Belongs to a church that believes the Pope is the antichrist, but doesn't have the guts to admit that publicly
• Calls for the investigation of "anti-American" members of the Obama administration, and then, with no sense of irony at all, calls for armed revolution over environmental legislation
• And it just goes on and on and on...

Folks, this is what you get when fundamentalist morons get together in large groups and use their tax-exempt war chests to push their toadies into elected office.

Pat Robertson is an idiot, again.

Over at ThinkProgress.org, there's a post documenting Pat Robertson's idiotic on-air assertion that the report from the Department of Homeland Security, warning of increased recruitment of extreme right-wing groups, was written by someone "whose sexual orientation is somewhat in question."  WTF?!?  And then, he encourages his listeners to "jam up" the phone lines of the department by calling and complaining.  What a pathetic piece of work Robertson is.

"It shows somebody down in the bowels of that organization is either a convinced left winger or somebody whose sexual orientation is somewhat in question. But it's that kind of thing, somebody who doesn't think that we should have abortion on demand, is labeled a terrorist! It's outrageous!"

No, Pat, what's outrageous is that you abuse your freedom of speech, and your organization's tax-exempt status, to spread hate and lies about anybody who doesn't send you money.  You're an idiot.

Former Navy officer talks about gays in military

Thanks to Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars for pointing us to this post from The Crossed Pond.  A former Navy officer discussing his experiences of discharging gay servicemen and servicewomen under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policies.  He finds himself convinced that discrimination against gays in the armed forces has got to go, with which I agree.  Apart from that, I find this section interesting:

"The next one was more disturbing. He was a hard working deck hand, a book worm, a loner, and a fundamentalist Christian. He made the mistake of leaving a moderately erotic drawing of a partially nude male on his rack in his assigned group berthing compartment. Someone took it, reported it, officers questioned him, and then we kicked him out. But along the way, I learned about self loathing. This young man believed he was demon-haunted and devil-tempted. He could resist these urges so long as we stayed in our home port, where he could attend nightly services at his small church, and pray for strength with the handful of other worshippers. But when we left home port, spending weeks at sea where he had no access to his support group, he grew weak, and would seek anonymous sex in the usual hang outs at the first port call. He hated himself. He comes to mind often; I wonder if he ever came to terms with his sexuality, if he still exists in his self imposed purgatory, or if he killed himself. My questions and doubts grew."

An example of the damaging effects of a religion that teaches you to hate yourself because of your sexual orientation.  A reminder that devout believers can be gay, too.  An illustration of how gays can be driven to destructive sexual behavior ("...would seek anonymous sex...") by the fear and self-hatred imposed by their religion.

And I find myself dumbfounded by the fact that he was turned in over having a drawing of a partially nude male in his bunk area.  What kind of bigoted asshole turns in a fellow sailor over something as harmless as that?  So, the end result is that the "hardworking deck hand" is discharged, while the creep that turned him in stays to make more sailor's lives miserable.

Creation Science examines weather

Oh, how I wish I could attend this:

So, here's what gets me:  one observable natural phenomenon like weather is evidence of God's design, but a different observable natural phenomenon (evolution) is not?  Why do these people insist on keeping God in such a small box?

P.Z. defends human-nonhuman hybrid research

P.Z. Meyers, over at Pharyngula, makes a great defense of research involving the mixing of human and non-human cell material.  Here's the best bit:

• "Look, Hughes, let's face up to reality. You aren't promoting this ban because you have any knowledge of the science; if you knew anything about the subject, you'd know that culturing cells of different species is common. Those cell lines to which George W Bush limited government-funded research? Many of them are grown on beds of mouse feeder cells. We could grow specific human cell lines on human feeder cells, but you'd freak out over that, too. There are gene mapping procedures that use fused rodent/human cells to produce cell lines with partial chromosomal losses. Monoclonal antibodies are made by combining immune system cells with immortalized cancer cell lines. And then there's the ultimate miscegenation: bacterial cells made with copies of human genes, to make human gene products, like insulin. You look old enough that if you aren't diabetic yourself, you probably have friends who are…and they're shooting up the product of a human-non-human hybrid. Are you going to ban those next?"

Click here for the whole post.

Argument against arguments against gay marriage

Great video that makes several very important points that are often overlooked in the gay marriage debate.

Wait a Minute, Smart Guy...

...Isn't Buddhism a religion?

Well, that depends on how you define religion.  And even if we decide that it is a religion, that still doesn't excuse it from the burden of rational defense.  Additionally, there's the problem of using the term "Buddhism" as if it refers to one monolithic body of teaching.  Personally, I think it's not a religion, because it doesn't concern itself with the existence or nature of  a supernatural God, and I think core Buddhist teaching defends itself pretty well in the rationality department.

I refer you to this: http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm