Sunday, July 04, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
God Hates
A few thoughts on Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. I’ve noticed a huge backlash even among theists against Fred and his bunch. It’s easy to trace the backlash to when Fred decided to get some real publicity he would start protesting at soldier’s funerals. While appreciate the push-back from moderate Christian sources against Phelps, I wanted to point out one thing: There was very little push-back when Westboro was only protesting funerals of gay civilians. They protested the the funeral of Mathew Shepard, a gay man who was killed because of his homosexuality.
You must forgive me if I find all the push-back a bit “too little too late” now that Phelps is targeting military funerals. He’s been spreading his hatred for many years now, and moderate Christians didn’t seem to be very concerned about it. Only when they show up at a funeral of a soldier is his message “extreme” or “non-Christian.” I might be tempted to conclude that his behavior was fine with these new critics when he was only protesting the funerals of gays.
As an aside, I can not really see a legal reason why Westboro cannot protest at a military funeral. Free speech is free speech. The only time our commitment to free speech really matters is when someone repugnant like Fred Phelps is speaking. If we only allow speech that we like, than that is not free speech.
I’m pretty sure the extreme reaction to Westboro has to do with the dark underbelly of Christianity that they shine a light on. Their attitude toward gays isn’t all that different than many evangelical’s viewpoint. Sure, they aren’t unsophisticated as to say “God Hates Fags,” but they’ll gladly tell you that God condemns homosexuality and that it’s a “sinful lifestyle.” It doesn’t take an extremely obtuse reading of the Bible to conclude god does indeed hate fags, or at least he’s willing to destroy entire cities to get rid of them. It’s one of they few sins that somehow prohibits you from being a “good Christian.” (Why most of the other sins, like adultery get a pass, I’ll never know.) To be fair, these folks will pray for and try to “save” homosexuals, not spit at them. I do note the difference.
I’ve long been convinced that moderate Christianity provide the setting for the extremists to work in. Sure, they don’t sail the ship, but they help build it. When they don’t do their do diligence in countering extremism in their own ranks, they bolster this perception. Taking a stand against protesting a gay funeral takes a bit more courage than wrapping yourself in the flag and taking a stand at a soldier’s funeral. It’s a nice gesture, but we can do better and stand up for everyone.
You must forgive me if I find all the push-back a bit “too little too late” now that Phelps is targeting military funerals. He’s been spreading his hatred for many years now, and moderate Christians didn’t seem to be very concerned about it. Only when they show up at a funeral of a soldier is his message “extreme” or “non-Christian.” I might be tempted to conclude that his behavior was fine with these new critics when he was only protesting the funerals of gays.
As an aside, I can not really see a legal reason why Westboro cannot protest at a military funeral. Free speech is free speech. The only time our commitment to free speech really matters is when someone repugnant like Fred Phelps is speaking. If we only allow speech that we like, than that is not free speech.
I’m pretty sure the extreme reaction to Westboro has to do with the dark underbelly of Christianity that they shine a light on. Their attitude toward gays isn’t all that different than many evangelical’s viewpoint. Sure, they aren’t unsophisticated as to say “God Hates Fags,” but they’ll gladly tell you that God condemns homosexuality and that it’s a “sinful lifestyle.” It doesn’t take an extremely obtuse reading of the Bible to conclude god does indeed hate fags, or at least he’s willing to destroy entire cities to get rid of them. It’s one of they few sins that somehow prohibits you from being a “good Christian.” (Why most of the other sins, like adultery get a pass, I’ll never know.) To be fair, these folks will pray for and try to “save” homosexuals, not spit at them. I do note the difference.
I’ve long been convinced that moderate Christianity provide the setting for the extremists to work in. Sure, they don’t sail the ship, but they help build it. When they don’t do their do diligence in countering extremism in their own ranks, they bolster this perception. Taking a stand against protesting a gay funeral takes a bit more courage than wrapping yourself in the flag and taking a stand at a soldier’s funeral. It’s a nice gesture, but we can do better and stand up for everyone.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
AA BS
Judge backs Redding Atheist who balked at Religious Anti-drug Program.
Summary: An Atheist serving a drug program was order into drug treatment. Despite asking for a non-religious program, and despite such programs being available, his jackass of a corrections officer told him he had to stay in the program run by Alcoholics Anonymous. After being forced to attend anyway, he was then arrested because he was being “disruptive” in the program.
I’m of course happy that the court saw things the right way, and didn’t force someone to be subjected to religious bullshit in order to complete his sentence. The disturbing part is how hard it was for this man to get justice done. He should not have had to go through the ordeal at all. It doesn’t seem from the article that the parole office in question received any kind of discipline for his actions however. I hope he gets a large settlement. A message has to be sent that violating peoples constitutional right to not have religion shoved down their throat by the government.
On a side note: It’s disturbing that Alcoholics Anonymous gets so many “captive” clients, because they’ve never shown that their programs are at all effective. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that they are less effective than many alternatives. AA was developed using so called “spiritual” values, not with any scientific study. Not surprisingly, when you try to tackle something as complicated as substance abuse using what “feels good” you tend to fail. Proving effectiveness with research is time consuming and difficult after all.
(Please spare me your stories of how AA helped your uncle/dad/mom/whatever. If you don’t understand why anecdotal evidence is of no use, then you need to go do your homework.)
Summary: An Atheist serving a drug program was order into drug treatment. Despite asking for a non-religious program, and despite such programs being available, his jackass of a corrections officer told him he had to stay in the program run by Alcoholics Anonymous. After being forced to attend anyway, he was then arrested because he was being “disruptive” in the program.
I’m of course happy that the court saw things the right way, and didn’t force someone to be subjected to religious bullshit in order to complete his sentence. The disturbing part is how hard it was for this man to get justice done. He should not have had to go through the ordeal at all. It doesn’t seem from the article that the parole office in question received any kind of discipline for his actions however. I hope he gets a large settlement. A message has to be sent that violating peoples constitutional right to not have religion shoved down their throat by the government.
On a side note: It’s disturbing that Alcoholics Anonymous gets so many “captive” clients, because they’ve never shown that their programs are at all effective. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that they are less effective than many alternatives. AA was developed using so called “spiritual” values, not with any scientific study. Not surprisingly, when you try to tackle something as complicated as substance abuse using what “feels good” you tend to fail. Proving effectiveness with research is time consuming and difficult after all.
(Please spare me your stories of how AA helped your uncle/dad/mom/whatever. If you don’t understand why anecdotal evidence is of no use, then you need to go do your homework.)
Monday, April 19, 2010
Talkin' about the man
I'm pretty much required to post this link to: Talkin’ about the man: 18 real and fictional characters in Warren Zevon songs.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Breaking Good News
Simon Singh won his libel case in the UK. Who is Simon Singh. He’s a very courageous Science Writer who was sued by Chiropractor Quacks in the U.K. He tested claims that they could treat a host of childhood diseases.
This is a huge victory for the skeptical community in the U.K. Way to go Mr. Singh!
“Singh was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) over an opinion piece he wrote in the Guardian in April 2008. He suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims some chiropractors make on treating certain childhood conditions including colic and asthma. The BCA alleged that Singh had in effect accused its leaders of knowingly supporting bogus treatments.”
This is a huge victory for the skeptical community in the U.K. Way to go Mr. Singh!
Don't just take my word for it.
What do I know anyway?
Here’s a list of great places to go to get more (and probably better) information on skepticism, rationalism, atheism and lots of other great “isms.”
The James Randi Education Foundation: home of the million dollar challenge to prove paranormal claims. So far no one has won. Huh.
Quackwatch: Homeopathy, Chiropractors, and Anti-Vaccinators oh my! Not exactly thrilled with the “So 10 years ago” layout of this site, but the info is good.
Skeptic.com: home of Skeptic Magazine.
Center for Inquiry: Got Claims? They’ll investigate them.
American Atheists: Stand up and be proud.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State: This is an important one for atheists and believers who believe the wall of separation is important.
Richard Dawkins: The leader of the so-called “new atheists.” Those are the atheists that are so radical they actually say they are atheists in public. Scary.
Depleted Cranium: The Blog of Bad Science. No, he doesn’t do bad science, he debunks it.
Friendly Atheist: Good for a more global view of atheism.
There. That ought to get you started. Go out there and do your own research for a change.
Here’s a list of great places to go to get more (and probably better) information on skepticism, rationalism, atheism and lots of other great “isms.”
The James Randi Education Foundation: home of the million dollar challenge to prove paranormal claims. So far no one has won. Huh.
Quackwatch: Homeopathy, Chiropractors, and Anti-Vaccinators oh my! Not exactly thrilled with the “So 10 years ago” layout of this site, but the info is good.
Skeptic.com: home of Skeptic Magazine.
Center for Inquiry: Got Claims? They’ll investigate them.
American Atheists: Stand up and be proud.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State: This is an important one for atheists and believers who believe the wall of separation is important.
Richard Dawkins: The leader of the so-called “new atheists.” Those are the atheists that are so radical they actually say they are atheists in public. Scary.
Depleted Cranium: The Blog of Bad Science. No, he doesn’t do bad science, he debunks it.
Friendly Atheist: Good for a more global view of atheism.
There. That ought to get you started. Go out there and do your own research for a change.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Texas two-step
Should we be worried about the Texas Textbook Massacre? In case you haven’t heard, the state of Texas has stacked the deck in writing the textbook standards in the state. Thomas Jefferson’s Enlightenment ideas are too “liburel” for Texas. They are also making sure that the contributions of minorities are marginalized or ignored. Is any of this surprising? Hardly. To be honest, my opinion of the “Great” state of Texas couldn’t be much lower. This is state that probably spends more on executing it’s citizens than educating them. (hyperbole warning: not an actual statistic.) As the New York times summed it up:
Given the general anti-intellectualism of the far right these days, it comes as no surprise that politics is driving most of the decisions, not scholarship.
Why does this matter if you don’t live in Texas? Because Texas and California combine to be by far the largest buyers of textbooks. The textbook makers have generally had to have their books pass the standards of those states, or it wouldn’t be profitable to print the books. This is how Texas standards of education become your standards. Given that Texas graduates 61% of it’s student from high school (of those who enter 9th grade) which is puts it 43rd in the nation, it’s entirely possible that you don’t want your standards to be influenced by people who “held themselves out as experts on certain topics.” Maybe those same experts could turn their expertise on helping Texas’ struggling schools?
I believe that there is hope on the horizon, however. I’ve long given up hope that it is possible to change the mind-numbingly obtuse political and cultural climate of Texas. What does bring some hope is technology. I believe that higher tech publishing methods will allow publishers to tailor their textbooks to different states. Texas won’t hold sway over everyone’s children anymore. Sadly, Texas will still be churning out uniformed young adults, but that hasn’t slowed them down in the past.
There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
Given the general anti-intellectualism of the far right these days, it comes as no surprise that politics is driving most of the decisions, not scholarship.
Why does this matter if you don’t live in Texas? Because Texas and California combine to be by far the largest buyers of textbooks. The textbook makers have generally had to have their books pass the standards of those states, or it wouldn’t be profitable to print the books. This is how Texas standards of education become your standards. Given that Texas graduates 61% of it’s student from high school (of those who enter 9th grade) which is puts it 43rd in the nation, it’s entirely possible that you don’t want your standards to be influenced by people who “held themselves out as experts on certain topics.” Maybe those same experts could turn their expertise on helping Texas’ struggling schools?
I believe that there is hope on the horizon, however. I’ve long given up hope that it is possible to change the mind-numbingly obtuse political and cultural climate of Texas. What does bring some hope is technology. I believe that higher tech publishing methods will allow publishers to tailor their textbooks to different states. Texas won’t hold sway over everyone’s children anymore. Sadly, Texas will still be churning out uniformed young adults, but that hasn’t slowed them down in the past.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Swing and a Miss
This Blog Post by Andrew Brown entitled “Catholic Child Abuse in Proportion” is a marvel in missing the point. At least, I’m going to give Mr. Brown the benefit of the doubt and say that he missed the point. A more cynical person might find a deliberate attempt to muddy the water.
To save you some reading, Mr. Brown goes through some elaborate statistics in order to prove his central point: that the rates of abuse among the Catholic Clergy are no worse than other organizations. He describes the rates of abuse as “not remarkable.”
I don’t even care to look at Mr. Brown’s numbers. I don’t care because they do not matter one bit. Child abuse will happen anywhere children are. What Mr. Brown seems to want to bury here is what the real scandal is:
THE COVER UP!
It’s the Catholic Church’s years of covering up abuse by Priests that is the issue here, Mr. Brown. Shipping Priests around to different locations and passing the problems on to others. I consider the people who covered up the abuse only slightly less guilty than the abusers themselves. So no Mr. Brown, I don’t care about all your statistics about rates of abuse. They do not matter.
The blog post also ends with quite a statement: “Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are now among the tightest in the world.” Really? They are? He cites no proof for this statement, so I really don’t feel the need to find my own facts to refute it.
The question remains: can one miss the point this widely by accident?
To save you some reading, Mr. Brown goes through some elaborate statistics in order to prove his central point: that the rates of abuse among the Catholic Clergy are no worse than other organizations. He describes the rates of abuse as “not remarkable.”
I don’t even care to look at Mr. Brown’s numbers. I don’t care because they do not matter one bit. Child abuse will happen anywhere children are. What Mr. Brown seems to want to bury here is what the real scandal is:
THE COVER UP!
It’s the Catholic Church’s years of covering up abuse by Priests that is the issue here, Mr. Brown. Shipping Priests around to different locations and passing the problems on to others. I consider the people who covered up the abuse only slightly less guilty than the abusers themselves. So no Mr. Brown, I don’t care about all your statistics about rates of abuse. They do not matter.
The blog post also ends with quite a statement: “Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are now among the tightest in the world.” Really? They are? He cites no proof for this statement, so I really don’t feel the need to find my own facts to refute it.
The question remains: can one miss the point this widely by accident?
Posts
