Luther and Nazism

Dear Christian,

Is Martin Luther a hero [of the faith] of yours? Did you know that he wrote a book called, On the Jews and Their Lies? (1543)

Did you know that it contains such passages as:

So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.

?

In context, here is the full passage:

Since it has now been established that we do not hold them captive, how does it happen that we deserve the enmity of such noble and great saints? We do not call their women whores as they do Mary, Jesus' mother. We do not call them children of whores as they do our Lord Jesus. We do not say that they were conceived at the time of cleansing and were thus born as idiots, as they say of our Lord. We do not say that their women are *haria,*, as they do with regard to our dear Mary. We do not curse them but wish them well, physically and spiritually. We lodge them, we let them eat and drink with us. We do not kidnap their children and pierce them through; we do not poison their wells; we do not thirst for their blood. How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of such great and holy children of God?

There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!

Did you know that:

he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." ^[3] He also appeared to sanction their murder^[4]

Did you also know that it has been very well argued and evidenced that Hitler adopted much of his Anti-Semitic views directly from Luther?

What, did you think that the Nazis were atheists? Oh, you could only wish so.

What, did you think that Darwin personally, or evolutionary theory generally, is somehow to blame for Nazism? Hardly so. Drawing moral extrapolations from natural observations is itself moving away from science. Science is only the statement of how things are, not how things ought to be, or how human beings should relate to one another. (I point this out, despite the fact that even if the Nazis [or anyone] tried to use a scientific theory to justify themselves, they would be committing Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy in so doing, and most people recognize this.)

Now, to be fair to Luther, nearly all contemporary Catholics hated Jews too. (also see wiki)

So, dear Christian, what do you have to say in response to this? Perhaps you'll remember it the next time you quote Luther?

With respect to Christians and their Anti-Semitism...so much for 2 Cor. 5:17, eh? New creatures, indeed.

Perhaps you'll think of this the next time you want to blame science for immoral choices on the part of people who fallaciously attempt to use it to justify themselves, or the next time you blame atheism for Hitler's Holocaust?
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Martin Luther, Hitler, Judaism, Anti-Semitism

Quiet, Transition in Progress!

**UPDATE** MTV News has a follow-up article, in which Alter Bridge counters Living Things' version of events with their own. Funniest excerpt from AB's statement:

Alter Bridge fully supports every American's right to free speech...If any band chooses the stage to address their political views and to take shots at the current U.S. government, that is their right. However, it is not their right to slander our country and its people in the process... [Living Things] shouted obscenities and "repeatedly yelled 'F--- America!...I hate America!'

So, in other words, AB supports free speech, so long as that free speech isn't offensive or slanderous towards the US. Okay? Sounds like they have been getting their tips on "free expression" from the idiots pushing the flag-burning amendment. **END UPDATE**

"Regardless of anyone's political views this is simply ignorant, offensive and unacceptable,"

A recent news story in music follows. The reason the story appeals to me is that, despite the outright rejection of the labels "Christian" or "spiritual" to the band Alter Bridge, they have, willingly or not, inherited the religious conflict from their past. I found myself remembering their quasi-Christian heritage when Lynne tipped me off to their recent debacle in Switzerland.

When people hear "Creed", they think, minimally, "spiritual lyrics" and possibly [albeit erroneously] "Christian band". This seems to be the case despite repeated protests against the label "Christian" during the time of the band's inception. It is a long-standing interest of mine to study the "crossovers" from Christian music as they move into other genres--typically rock and pop. The transition is often accompanied (some may argue "paralleled", or "compelled") by a synchronous transition of faith, or entire loss thereof. From the famous case of Jerry Lee Lewis, to Arethra Franklin, Dionne Warwick, Elvis, to contemporary bands like Lifehouse, Amy Grant and POD, crossover bands and artists are worth a moment's thought. To me, they are simply spotlighted case studies in deconversion, a phenomenon that I personally identify with. They are famous, completely public examples of the sort of experience that millions of people have annually--losing faith. I find religious transitions, and especially deconversions, fascinating [particularly the psychological aspect of] and would love to be pointed to some scientific studies on the process.

The former band Creed broke up, with lead singer Scott Stapp going solo and the remaining band members reforming as Alter Bridge. Why do we care?

Apparently, at a show in Zurich on June 14th, Alter Bridge is being accused of assaulting Living Things, another rock band, as they spoke against the current administration and the ongoing war(s). From the myspace site for Living Things, some fans did indeed document, on the day of the concert, the veracity of LT's claim.

On the same site, the tour date roster purports, "June 14 in Zurich, Switzerland at Rohstofflager supporting Alter Bridge". This implies that LT was opening for AB, so far as I can tell, and is thus considered a bit subservient in terms of their popularity/demand. An MTV news article interviewed the band's lead singer, Lillian Berlin, about the incident, where he claims,

We were in the middle of our second song, and I had some stuff to say about the current administration and the way they're handling the Iraq war...The Swiss were all behind us, and the crowd was cheering me on. I was talking about this letter I got inviting me to a Democrat-bashing dinner at the White House. And we went into our fourth song, and some goon from that Creed band came out swinging an American flag and then threw it at our drummer, Bosh.

However, the spokesman for AB refutes this claim,

Alter Bridge was not happy that this band chose to deliver anti-American statements to their audience.

However, no Alter Bridge bandmembers were onstage, and their crew was in their designated working areas during this supposed incident. Alter Bridge thinks this is just a weak attempt by the opening band to drum up press for themselves. Alter Bridge will have no further comment on this as they are finishing up their extremely successful European tour and returning shortly to the U.S. to start work on their second album.

I'll have more info as it becomes available, but I would expect a lawsuit if the claim of LT holds water, especially since Lillian claims the band members suffered verifiable injuries, including black eyes. This news article was also picked up by chartattack and pr-inside. Whether it holds merit or not we will shortly see.

Thought: if Alter Bridge was not inexorably tied to a quasi-Christian heritage and subsequent image, would we even care about this? Typical rock/metal/punk concerts are almost boring without some sort of violence or tirade. Why is this newsworthy, and eye-catching? It must be the association between AB and Christianity.

As an aside, it appears that Living Things' enthused political commentary from the stage has made news before.
________________
Technorati tags: Alter Bridge, Creed, Scott Stapp, Religion

The Evolution of Gay Animals (Including Humans)

There is a quite interesting article in SEED magazine about sexual selection and homosexual behavior in animals. The interview with Joan Roughgarden, an evolutionary biologist, examines the role of evolution in animal homosexual behavior. As usual, PZ Myers' trenchant analysis shines light on the relationship between sexual selection, homosexual behavior in animals, and evolutionary biology.

The major points/possibilities where these converge, which PZ analyzes:

1) Homosexuality is selectively neutral (in PZ's hilarious words, "Many heterosexual couples elect not to have children, and many homosexuals elect to have them. This shouldn't be a surprise; all it takes to start a baby is a few pokes and a spurt, and it really doesn't take much effort to overcome an inclination for such a brief event. We are sex-obsessed animals, so redirecting an ejaculation to a particular orifice isn't that astonishing.")
2) Homosexuality promotes community bonding (conflict avoidance = more survival)
3) Homosexuality is coupled to other advantageous traits (coupling)
4) Homosexuality is a product of weak genetic specification (e.g. "brains are plastic")
5) Homosexuality is a byproduct (e.g. developmental/environmental, not genetic)

Obviously, one or more of these has to be right. Hopefully, the more genetics becomes understood in its relationship to evo-devo, we can begin to attach hard data to these hypotheses.

The well-known gay behaviors in animals (read the SEED article for details) are often used to "justify" homosexual behavior. Without going into detail, I do think it is funny how people will fall into Moore's naturalistic fallacy in concluding moral behavior from observations in nature: "It happens in nature, therefore it's natural, therefore it's moral!" Of course, the problems with these arguments go far and wide, but the most obvious and gut-wrenching refutations hinge on the exploitation of this same illogic in genocides, Übermensch, and in Hitler-esque "survival of the fittest" mentalities.
________________
Technorati tags: Homosexual, Evolution, Biology

Tangled Bank #55

Welcome to the *55th edition of Tangled Bank. I hope you enjoy the reading as much as I have.

Let's dig right in:

⊆Animal Biology
•Bird-brained

1. “101 Ways to Help Birds”, Grrlscientist, Trackback
2. "Mocking After Midnight", Mike Bergin

•Bug-brained

1. "Emergent behavior in desert locusts", Josh Rosenau
2. "Eight Hours a Circadian Rhythm Do Not Make", Courtnix

•Dog-brained

1. "Flappin' in the Wind", Always Learning

•Dino-brained

1. “Giant Armored Dinosaur Discovered”, Grrlscientist, Trackback

•Primate-brained

1. "Artificial Parts Versus Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine", Reason
2. “How Long Does It Take To Dress Your Monkey?”, Benjamin Cohen
3. "Breathing Liquid: The Frontiers of Human Respiration", Joe Kissell, Trackback

⊆Diet/Nutrition

1. "The missing nutrient?", Cat Davies
2. "Water - How much is enough?", Cat Davies
3. "Two Interesting Calorie Restriction Papers", Reason
4. “People with chronic back pain more sensitive to taste”, Dave Munger

⊆Environmental Science

1. "Let's Remove the Radioactive Metals Spewing Out from Coal-fired Power Plants!", Ruminating Dude

⊆Evolution

1. "Writing the right poll question", Josh Rosenau
2. “Electrifying Speciation”, Grrlscientist, Trackback
3. "Origin of Biological Diversity", Courtnix
4. "Evolution of Biological Diversity", Courtnix
5. "Current Biological Diversity", Courtnix
6. “Chelifores, chelicerae, and invertebrate evolution”, PZ Myers
7. "Emerging Disease and Zoonoses #16--the origins of HIV", Tara Smith
8. “Here is the ultimate question for which the answer is 42”, Arunn Narasimhan

⊆General Science/Seed/Other Stuff

1. "Justify my existence?", Orac [answer to Seed Question re "Brain Drain"]
2. "New York City trip - Part III: SEED", Courtnix
3. "Fish Story", Science Made Cool
4. “Oxford Scientific Activists Take Their Message to the Streets”, Nick Anthis
5. “Religion and Science”, Paul Decelles
   
6. "NASA to Build Litterbox for International Space Station", Hazel, Trackback
   
7. “Nonviolent Communication”, Brandon Peele, Trackback, Carnival ping [only non-science post accepted, for its moral fiber]

⊆Molecular Biology/Biochemistry

1. "Genetics Interview with Dr. David Moskowitz of Genomed", Hsien Hsien Lei
2. “Cell Rigidity and Protein Recruitment”, Dan Rhoads
3. “Chromosomes Involved in Color Blindness”, Daniel Fluck
4. "Piling in on Lipofuscin", Reason
5. "Antisense RNA Therapies", Reason
6. "RNA Interference as the New Gene Therapy", Reason
7. "Reducing the genome of E. coli", ¡Viva La Evolución!

⊆New blog alert: Conservatives Against Intelligent Design

⊆Plants

1. “Death Itch 3000”, Mark Rayner, Trackback
2. “Unintended consequences of invasive species”, Paul Decelles
3. "Poison ivy is sexy", James Hrynyshyn

Thanks for reading! The next Tangled Bank will be held at Centrerion. Please alert me in the comments section of any broken links or other errors.

*Thanks to Neil for the heads-up about me erroneously posting this as the 54th, rather than the 55th, edition of the carnival. Courtnix hosted #54, this is #55. Unfortunately, I can't fix the link without losing a huge amount of readers, so it will have to stay 54.
________________
Technorati tags: Tangled Bank

Bakunin on God

Mikhail Bakunin was born on this day in 1814. I want to consider a few of his sayings from his essay, "God and the State", and open the remarks for criticism.

The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty-Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

What we see in Genesis 3:22 certainly raises my own eyebrows:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

A plain reading of the Bible reveals the obvious issue of whether or not man "knew good and evil" before, or after, the Fall -- and thus whether or not man ought be responsible if the former. Nearly every time Bakunin's major point is raised with an apologist, the apologist insists that man "knowing" good and evil here means experiencing it. I brought to the attention of one recent apologist the fact that the same phraseology is used with respect to God, and thus a consistent hermeneutic would require an inference that God has also experienced evil. The apologist, needless to say, did not agree, yet was unable to provide a satisfactory reply.

An important question remains -- is the "Fall of Man" simply the acquisition of a moral conscience? It seems so at first glance. For indeed, if man does not know good from evil, then how could the choice to eat the fruit have been "sin" at all? Did the serpent lie about this? It appears that God gives substantiation to the claim in 3:22. Further, God cursed the serpent, and why would God curse the serpent for telling the truth?

The next section is particularly relevant in this day of theonomist revival:

On behalf of human liberty, dignity and prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover from heaven the goods which it has stolen and return them to earth.

If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist.

A jealous lover of human liberty, and deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."
-- Mikhaill Bakunin, "God and the State," 1883

If God exists, it is a moral affront to man to call himself "free". Let us consider this for a moment -- is there a "free will" at all, if God exists? Does man have the ability to choose freely between actions? Obviously not, according to orthodox interpretations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. According to these traditions, man has only one choice -- God's way or hell. That is not freedom at all. That is indeed slavery.

It is thus impossible to hold to theism and man's freedom without a contradiction. In the regress of events, if God lies behind them, our freedom is not only an illusion, but a mockery of God's sovereignty -- Calvinists agree. They claim Paul and Jesus did too [c.f. Rom 9].

See his Wikipedia entry for more.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, God

Fear and Loathing

I'm not easily frightened. Honest. I have to say, though, that after reading this article on the 14 unifying threads of fascism, this article on the 10 signs of an impending U.S. police state, and this Boston Globe article on Bush's 750+ modifications/usurpations of Congressional law, I do get a bit weak-kneed. Let's consider the facts:

The 14 common characteristics of fascism are --

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections

Admittedly, these 14 can in some cases be interpreted to apply to both parties. That does nothing to comfort me. I am of the strong opinion that the rampant corruption in our government is highly attributable to our two-party "wink-wink" system. Without more choices for voters, I fear that the political landscape will loom ever more barren on the horizon.

Ten signs that the U.S. is homing in on a police state:

1. The internet clampdown
2. "The Long War"
3. The USA Patriot Act
4. Prison camps
5. Touchscreen voting machines
6. Signing Statements
7. Warrantless wiretapping
8. Free speech zones
9. High-ranking whistleblowers
10. The CIA shakeup

Read the original article for details on each, but if you watch the news at all, or read up on current affairs, this list probably resonated strongly with you. Everything from Iraq, the resignations over touchscreen machines, the NSA, Porter Goss, and the invasion of privacy in the cybersphere should make us all think soberly.

Ten examples of Bush's "Signing Statements" since 2001:

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

So, am I just a paranoid fringe fanatic? Fear-mongering? No.

Don't get me wrong, I am not of the opinion that fascism is knocking at our door. However, I am of the opinion that if we see that bastard show up anywhere near our house, we ought to start firing out the window to scare him off. And, I doubt many would deny that these articles give us a keener perception of what lies just beyond our perimeter--even the shadow of a police state is terrifying, and when it's dark, and the wind blows just right, it seems to dance and jeer at us.

Consider these articles the first warnings from a BB gun. Let's hope fascism is easily spooked, or that November sees the departure of his shadow for a long time. Awareness is key, like G.I. Joe used to say...or wait, that was "and knowing is half the battle". Same thing.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics, Police State, Fascism

Relegated Terms?

This morning, CNN is running a special: "The 'N-Word' Debate" at 10 AM. I listened to two opposing voices within the black community -- Michael Eric Dyson, author of Is Bill Cosby Right?, Avalon Foundation Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, who supports the use of the "N-word" (TNW) within the black community, against the founder of http://www.abolishthenword.com/, who is obviously opposed to its use in our language.

Not being black myself, the topic is one which I can only lend an outside perspective on. It is sad that we often feel we must qualify our statements in such a way, since it is somewhat antithetical to the sort of true integration that would not produce "outside perspectives," [if there is, or ever will be, such a thing] but is still presently necessary. It's silly, in a way, to think of "outside perspectives" as being somehow less important, considering that we objectively view many things from without that are internally biased and skewed from within. Obviously, the perception of other cultures is also necessary in weighing the conflict.

Prof. Dyson made it clear, as I just listened to him talking in the interview, that white people understand the context of the word, and when it is, and is not, appropriate to use it. He thus relegates TNW to a sort of "language filter". For instance, he said that during the playing of Kanye West's "Gold Digger", a white person ought to self-censor and abstain from repeating TNW if in the presence of black friends (or black anyones). The use of TNW has obviously spilled over into popular culture, after years of being a clear racial slur, used only by bigots.

I think the real problem with his position is that it really doesn't work. Even if white persons, such as myself, don't use the phrase, TNW, like any phrase, carries connotations and imagery with it. When TNW is evoked, a mental image will form. The only question is: which image should/will form? In order to answer this question, consider: Which image do "we" want to form? Who are "we"? Can we alter the public perception of TNW? Can anyone redefine it?

Dyson's argument seems to be that the colloquial use of TNW is one of camaraderie -- analogous to the use of "home boy/girl" only a few years back within the black community. Those phrases do not share the history of TNW, nor the stigma.

While it is true that in the minds of my generation, and younger, we were not raised to hear the equivocation of the term with racism to the degree of erstwhile generations, it is certainly not true that the term does not still denote derogatory or deprecating value(s). It is certainly not a term of respect. When I consider those intelligent and hardworking friends of mine within the chemistry department, TNW is the last thing that comes to my mind. Indeed, when I hear or think of TNW, the first image in my mind is "a thug". I immediately see a gang, or at least a few guys, in big oversized parkas, with baggy jeans, sideways-cocked hats, lots of big chains, and lots of frothy, barely intelligible, Ebonics-talk. Am I a racist? Why is that the image that TNW provokes?

I don't think I'm alone. I think that not only for fellow whites, but for those in the black community that Dyson denigrates as "the Afristocracy", the mental image that forms with TNW is correlated to its popular presentation. Those who most often use the word, or at least, those who most of us most often see and hear using TNW, are naturally brought to mind upon hearing it. Who are those most frequently heard uttering TNW? Bigots, and the MTV culture. Those two camps.

Dyson doesn't seem to deny this. In fact, he seems to want to protect this latter group, the MTV culture, as a sort of "reserve" upon whose sacred ground whites fear to tread. Obviously, the issue of subcultures of all sorts having the legal or other rights to express themselves freely is not at stake, nor could it be challenged. It is a question of ought to, not able to, for this question, and thus very largely a moral issue. And it is Bill Cosby's moral stance, as well as others of us, which Dyson [and others] rails against.

In a National Public Radio interview after his book was published last year, Dyson said, "Cosby's overemphasis on personal responsibility, not structural features, wrongly locates the source of poor black suffering — and by implication its remedy — in the lives of the poor. When you think problems are personal, you think solutions are the same.

"If only the poor were willing to work harder, act better, get better educated, stay out of jail and parent more effectively, their problems would go away."

Cosby dismisses Dyson out of hand. "The guy who calls me elitist, who is he? A professor at the University of Pennsylvania. And how much does it cost to go there?"

Prof. Dyson was interviewed in the NYT for his views [bold], as expressed through his book:

On the other hand, many of us feel that his comments represent an admirable attempt at self-criticism and apply not only to blacks but also to whites in a consumer culture that has run amok.

Here's the irony: Mr. Cosby has been a supreme pitchman for American corporate capitalism for nearly 40 years. Had he come along now, he himself might have been promoting some gym shoes.

I actually found your book alarmingly unbalanced. How can you write 200-plus pages on Bill Cosby without detailing the millions of dollars he has donated to colleges and other good causes?

I think I mention his $20 million gift to Spelman College. It's a well-known fact. There's no need to repeat it.

But he has given to so many other black causes.

There's a dark underside to philanthropy. People who give a bunch of money are deferred to, even when they are wrong. The emperor cannot be shown to have no clothes.

You, yourself, as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, know that Cosby's following is hardly based on his wealth. Why do you think the black middle class has been so moved by his call for individual responsibility?

Of course, taken in one sense, a lot of what he said we can agree with. None of us want our children to be murderers or thieves. But Cosby never acknowledges that most poor blacks don't have a choice about these things.

So, then, how much do you think individual will counts for our success or failure in life?

I don't believe in that kind of American John Wayne individualism where people pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Someone changed your diapers. And if that's the case, you ain't self-made.

You seem to be of the Hillary Clinton ''it takes a village'' school of thinking.

Yes. But Hillary borrowed that from black people! In fact, it's an African proverb. And my ambition didn't grow out of nowhere. It was planted in me by a community that nurtured me.

Here in these last two quotations I think Dyson touched on what separates him (and many others) from Cosby (and myself, and many others): personal responsibility. Now, suffice it to say that this catchphrase can be easily injected into discussions of economics, political philosophy, religion, etc., but I want to focus here on its relevance to Cosby's comments in as narrow a fashion as possible.

I am well aware of the genetic predispositions that are intrinsic to humanity. I am further aware of the power of the environmental mold upon a fresh and developing mind. From these two things, we realize and readily admit that some people's actions and behaviors as adults are more understandable upon knowing their upbringing and hereditary records [family records of the same phenomenon/disease/addiction/etc]. We can apply these principles in understanding everything from alcoholism, to sex offenders, to the epidemic of black male imprisonment, and relative paucity of black males in college. When we apply these principles to that last sociological consideration -- nature and nurture -- what do we find? Nothing simple, obviously.

Some, like Dyson, want to focus on the freedom and beauty of the new subculture, while simultaneously ignoring the vicious cycle of the reality they represent. The dropout rates, gang membership, drug abuse, drug dealing, etc., of the urban culture are real. Their correlation to poverty is undeniable. The same is true of whites. Southern (Midwestern too), "trailer-trash" whites have the same problems, exactly, on a simply less-population-dense-scale in rural America.

TNW is colloquially equated with this image, just as "honkey" is equated with the white version. The fact is, it is this very portrayal of poor, uneducated, problem-ridden black American youths that Cosby fights against. Cosby seems to believe that acceptance of TNW is acceptance of its representation. I can't say I disagree. Popularizing ugly truths may be Dyson's reasoning for use of TNW. He may think it the only thing people can do when faced with the harshness of their own plight.

I repeat: When we apply these principles to that last sociological consideration -- nature and nurture -- what do we find? Who is "objectively and scientifically correct" in their solution to the real societal ills?

I suppose it comes down to a choice:

1. encourage people to promote education, individual responsibility, the avoidance of slanderous, self-deprecatory slang, promote self-respect, cultivate an self-image of achievement through hard work and culpability...
   
2. or, encourage people to blame everyone and everything else for their ills, promote and grow the divide between races by relegating racial epithets to the "us only" bin, and embrace those elements of popular culture which instill nothing of value to teens.

Is there such a harsh distinction? Is this a false dichotomy? Dyson seems to admit such a disjoint, by pointing to the bifurcation in the black community, using "Afristocracy" and "ghettocracy" to describe it.

Cosby is obviously in the former camp. Dyson sure isn't in the latter. Prof. Dyson decries the "Afristocracy", all the while a professor at an Ivy League, publishing a book that will largely be read by those he opposes, encourages people to use a word which deepens the rift between races and cultures, and appears to celebrate the "thug" subculture [ghettocracy, in his words] which promotes nothing of value to youth (of both races) [and is largely a fantasy].

All I will say is this -- our environment does not stop affecting us at age 11. Or 25. Individual responsibility, in the form of feedback as discipline/punishment/justice, is part of our environment. Or lack thereof. There are either reinforcing pressures on us (from childhood on) to take charge of our lives, not make or look for excuses, and give our best effort towards self-betterment, or there are none. Those pressures constitute our environment.

The "selective pressure" of a subculture which in no way celebrates education, instead promoting the "Get Rich, or Die Tryin'" lifestyle/fantasy, professional sports as a serious career option [for large populations], and uses self-deprecating racial epithets is an environmental factor as well.

It isn't a question of whether the environment parents produce and support molds our kids, our images, and our future. It is a question of which environment will. The lines of demarcation are pretty clear.
________________
Technorati tags: Cosby, Dyson, Culture

Paul Kurtz, "Why I Am A Skeptic About Religious Claims"

Paul Kurtz, editor in chief of Free Inquiry, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and the chair of the Center for Inquiry, has a featured article in this month's issue, "Why I Am A Skeptic About Religious Claims". One of Paul's aims is to examine the reasons for skepticism, but another is to provide us with a new working label to use to avoid the stigma of "atheist" without falling into the overly-general "skeptic".

I would like to introduce another term into the equation, a description of the religious "unbeliever" that is more appropriate. One may simply say, "I am a skeptic." This is a classical philosophical position, yet I submit that it is still relevant today, for many people are deeply skeptical about religious claims.

Skepticism is widely employed in the sciences. Skeptics doubt theories or hypotheses unless they are able to verify them on adequate evidential grounds. The same is true among skeptical inquirers into religion. The skeptic in religion is not dogmatic, nor does he or she reject religious claims a priori; here or she is simply unable to accept the case for God unless it is supported by adequate evidence...

Skeptics are in that sense genuinely agnostic, in that they view the question as still open, though they remain unbelievers in proposals for which they think theists offer insufficient evidence and invalid arguments. Hence, they regard the existence of any god as highly improbable. In this sense, a skeptic is a nontheist or an atheist. The better way to describe this stance, I submit, is to say that such a person is a skeptic about religious claims.

Paul points out that the new descriptor is positive and refreshingly honest -- too often atheism is connoted as a "faith statement", much like Christian or Muslim belief, which even in the face of contrary evidence may still be adhered to. If we are honest, and want to pursue the truth about religious claims, then we ought to carefully examine them and weigh their merits. Adopting a theists' presuppositions in order to determine the logic of their conclusions is thus almost a requisite for a skeptic, for unexamined claims cannot be begged off. Similarly, we would expect Christians and Muslims to adopt the presuppositions of, say, a naturalist, humanist, or physicalist, and carefully probe their conclusions, at all times considering reason and evidence, before making "statements of faith".

Some Christians have the intellectual honesty to have done this. Some claim that they "used to be an atheist". In some cases, we find that this aspect of their worldview was not arrived at through the same process of skeptical inquiry that Paul beseeches us to use. In some cases it was. In nearly all cases of conversion, however, we find that the conversion rate of Christian to "no religion" is double that of "no religion" to Christian.

Succinctly, I maintain that the skeptical inquirer is dubious of the claims

1. that God exists;
2. that he is a person;
3. that our ultimate moral principles are derived from God;
4. that faith in God will provide eternal salvation; and
5. that one cannot be good without belief in God.

Paul goes on to substantiate skepticism concerning each claim, but I especially want to focus on (3):

From the fatherhood of God, contradictory moral commandments have been derived; theists have often lined up on opposite sides of moral issues. Believers have stood for and against war; for and against slavery; for and against capital punishment, some embracing retribution, others mercy and rehabilitation; for and against the divine right of kings, slavery, and patriarchy; for and against the emancipation of women; for and against the absolute prohibition of contraception, euthanasia, and abortion; for and against sexual and gender equality; for and against freedom of scientific research; for and against the libertarian ideals of a free society.

True believers have in the past often found little room for human autonomy, individual freedom, or self-reliance. They have emphasized submission to the word of God instead of self-determination, faith over reason, credulity over doubt. All too often they have had little confidence in the ability of humans to solve problems and create a better future by drawing on their own resources. In the face of tragedy, they supplicate to God through prayer instead of summoning the courage to overcome adversity and build a better future. The skeptic concludes, "No deity will save us; if we are to be saved it must be by our own efforts."

It appears clear that we cannot rely upon "special revelation" to glean our moral codes from. Whose special revelation? Which interpretation? We can rely upon the innate and intrinsic function of human empathy. It is not "special" in the sense that differing socio-historical cultures have contradictory empathy functions. All human cultures, throughout time, comfort one another in times of loss. All take care of their sick. The methods, rituals, and religious influences may change throughout, but the empathy itself never has.
Why do believers line up on all sides of moral issues? I think the answer was best given in the May 20th op-ed by August Berkshire that I linked to in yesterday's post:

The Bible is like a Rorschach inkblot test: you can see just about anything you want in it.

Indeed, this book has been used (and the Qu'ran) to justify genocide, infanticide, racism, murder, male chauvinism, slavery, etc., countless times by countless groups. Others decry, "Well, they aren't interpreting it correctly!" In so doing, though, they admit that the book's interpretation is quite relative. Taking the OT at face value, in its commands to stone bastard children, adulterers, homosexuals, rebellious children, women who are betrothed and are raped and don't cry out loud enough to be heard...is a tough pill to swallow for modern Christians with modern sensibilities--those influenced by democracy and humanism, products of the Enlightenment, antithetical to the very Scriptures we discuss.

Taking the OT at face value is not necessary to derive contradictory morality to those who say, "well, God's standards have changed" (and thus admit to moral relativism). One need only look to the Apostle Paul, in his writings, to find justification for slavery, sexist discrimination, the death penalty for homosexuals (Rom 1:31-2), punishing those who dabble in "sorcery" (Acts 13:9-10), and generally relating the wrath and vengence of God to come to anyone who doesn't believe it. Of course, all of these lend themselves as "enablers" to modern-day theonomists.

Indeed, we need a few more "skeptics about religious claims". Being such will surely induce many believers to at least substantiate their own faith (as they are already supposed to, according to 1 Pet 3:15), and in so doing, at least engage in rational discourse with those of us who are nontheists. Telling others we are "just" atheists/agnostics is too often a conversation-ender, rather than a conversation-starter. Admitting to our skepticism, though, reveals a certain curiosity and desire to hear an apologia in order to determine its truth value.

And it is in asking that we know we will receive, and in their giving, we may find more in common with many theists than they beforehand thought ;)

Though ethical values and principles are relative to human interests and needs, that does not suggest that they are necessarily subjective. Instead, they are amenable to objective, critical evaluation and modification in the light of reason. A new paradigm has emerged that integrates skepticism with secular humanism, a paradigm based on scientific wisdom, eupraxsophy, and a naturalistic conception of nature. Thus, the skeptic in religion, who is also a humanist in ethics, can be affirmative and positive about the potentialities for achieving the good life. Such a person can not only live fully but can also be morally concerned about the needs of others.

________________
Technorati tags: Skepticism, Religion

Theonomy: Scary Shit

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

A large (and apparently growing) percentage of the American population are not only in favor of making a "Christian nation" of the USA, but of going further: instituting Biblical Law.

Recently, Michelle Goldberg wrote an article on Salon (you can read it for free after viewing a short ad, just make sure to allow cookies) entitled, "Kingdom Coming: On the Rise of Christian Nationalism".

Last year, Steve Weissman posted a five-part series on the same subject at truthout.org.

Recently, Sunsara Taylor wrote an article on BattleCry, a ministry which uses military allegories and targets youth in rallies, entitled "Fear and Loathing at Philadelphia's BattleCry."

August Berkshire got a really nice op-ed in a MN paper on religion and law.

I strongly suggest that you read through all of these to get an idea of what is going on, but for a sampler, here are some clips and excerpts from the articles:

Faith + Values Forum: Keep religious texts out of laws, civil marriage
August Berkshire

Twenty years from now, when same-sex marriage is accepted the way other civil rights are accepted today, we can expect religions to claim they were at the forefront of obtaining this right. We know better. Almost every social advance that freed people and gave them more rights was opposed by religion. Examples include abolition of slavery, a woman's right to vote, contraception, abortion rights, civil rights and interracial marriage. Religionists remain a roadblock to the Equal Rights Amendment, same-sex marriage and (in the current administration) universal health care.

The Bible is like a Rorschach inkblot test: you can see just about anything you want in it. That is why Christians themselves cannot agree on such things as masturbation, premarital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, stem cell research, euthanasia and the death penalty. The Bible or religion as a moral guide? With all this disagreement, how is that possible?

Fear and Loathing at Philadelphia's BattleCry
Sunsara Taylor

Immediately afterward, a preacher took the microphone and led the crowd in prayer. Among other things, he asked the attendees to “Thank God for giving us George Bush.”

On his cue, about 17,000 youths from upward of 2,000 churches across America and Canada directed their thanks heavenward in unison.

Throughout the three and a half hours of BattleCry’s first session, I thought of only one analogy that fit the experience: This must have been what it felt like to watch the Hitler Youth, filled with self-righteous pride, proclaim the supremacy of their beliefs and their willingness to shed blood for them.

And lest you think this is idle paranoia, BattleCry founder Ron Luce told the crowds the next morning (May 13) that he plans to launch a “blitzkrieg” in the communities, schools, malls, etc. against those who don’t share his theocratic vision of society.

Blitzkrieg.

Nothing like a little Nazi imagery to whip up the masses...

...Luce put great emphasis on following every word in the Bible, treating it as an “instruction book,” even when a person doesn’t understand or agree. This is, of course, the logic that leads to the stoning of gays, non-virgin brides, disobedient children and much more—because the Bible says so.

Chillingly, when I confronted Ron explicitly about these passages, he refused to disavow them. During the afternoon preceding the May 12 rally, Luce and about 300 BattleCry acolytes (almost entirely youths) rallied in front of Philadelphia’s Constitution Hall—the location having been chosen because Luce wants to “restore” the Founding Fathers’ vision of a religious society (never mind that the Founders enshrined in the Constitution an explicitly secular framework of government).

I and about 20 people representing various anti-Bush, atheistic and anti-Iraq-war factions made our way into the rally and began interacting with the youths assembled. Some said openly that it was OK that George Bush’s lies have cost the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis. Why was it OK? Because “God put him [Bush] there.”

For more on this story, see two "hot off the presses" articles on DailyKos:
1) DailyKos 1
2) DailyKos 2

"Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism"
Michelle Goldberg

Speaking to outsiders, most Christian nationalists say they're simply responding to anti-Christian persecution. They say that secularism is itself a religion, one unfairly imposed on them. They say they're the victims in the culture wars. But Christian nationalist ideologues don't want equality, they want dominance. In his book "The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action," George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote:

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less...
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."

America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives? -- Part V: "The Ayatollah of Holy Rollers"
Steve Weissman
As early as 1963, Rushdoony wrote a "Christian revisionist" historical account called The Nature of the American System, in which he rejected the separation of church and state. The authors of the Constitution, he wrote, intended "to perpetuate a Christian order."

He similarly opposed the secular bent of American public schools, becoming an early proponent of Christian home-schooling, which he defended as a First Amendment right of their parents.

"We must use the doctrine of religious liberty ... until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government," explained his son-in-law Gary North. "Then they will get busy constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Rushdoony opposed labor unions, women's equality, and civil rights laws. He favored racial segregation and slavery, which he felt had benefited black people because it introduced them to Christianity. He largely denied the Holocaust. And he made it kosher for Christian leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell openly to despise democracy.

"Supernatural Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies," wrote Rushdoony, "Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life."

For more on Rushdoony, see his Wikipedia entry

America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives? -- Part I: The Lure of Christian Nationalism
Steve Weissman

With all their many sects and denominations, American evangelicals differ on all sorts of questions, from when Jesus Christ will return to the proper way to run a church. But most Southern Baptists and Pentecostals share the belief, more political than religious, that America once was and should again become a Christian nation.

This is Christian nationalism, and no one has done more to popularize it than an energetic young man named David Barton. A self-taught historian, he has dredged up hundreds of fascinating historical quotes and anecdotes in an effort to prove that the founding fathers were primarily "orthodox, evangelical Christians" who intended to create a God-fearing Christian government.

For more on Barton's fraudulence, see a refutation of his claims and expose of his lies by fellow Christians here:
A Critique of David Barton's Views on Church and State (by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty)

America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives? -- Part II: Hang Ten and Fight!
Steve Weissman

According to the polls, most Americans see the Ten Commandments more as a cherished symbol of universal morality than as a statement of religious belief. Yet, in repeated tests, few seem to know very much about them - or about the religious and political conflicts they inevitably invite.

To begin with, they resonate mostly with Jews and Christians, and - to a limited degree - with Muslims. They largely exclude Americans who follow other religious traditions, such as Buddhists and Hindus. They also exclude a growing number of pagans, polytheists, and non-believers, such as myself.
________________
Technorati tags: Christian Nationalism, Reconstructionism, Theocracy, Theonomy

Rewriting History

I made a mistake on February 8th. I decided to delete all of my posts from the blog that I didn't want family and friends reading, particularly those people I had been in church with as a congregant and/or worker. I took 100+ posts off the blog, nearly all of them, with the exception of those that I had presented to carnivals or that had been linked to a bit. I kept a hard copy of all of my old posts as .txt files in HTML, but I didn't date them [didn't keep the original posted date information]. I see those actions now as a mistake, and I want to correct them.

A major part of my decision to mothball this weblog had to do with the fact that I was a Christian, and an informal minister [youth pastor] at a couple of different churches. When I found out that those in my family were reading my site, I tried to rewrite history. My deconversion was something I didn't really know how to deal with at the time. I had, after all, been working as a youth pastor even during this transition, closeted as an agnostic/atheist.

I realize now that I should not have attempted to rewrite history. Those who are offended will be offended. Those who wish me well and respect intellectual and spiritual freedom [which entails complete lack of belief in a "spirit"] will do so regardless of what they read on here. Besides, I am not important enough to influence that many people. Deconversion experiences, particularly within a marriage, are quite gut-wrenching and often take quite a toll on one's social circle. Thankfully, the impact upon my own network is minimal, compared to what I had erstwhile predicted.

So, I thought (a LOT) about what I ought to do with this site. I've decided to undo my quasi-revisionism of this site's history. And, despite my efforts to the contrary, which were paltry and not well thought out, my hometown and former church communities have heard the gossip. I suppose I thought this site would somehow remain undiscovered for a longer amount of time, but I'm not really sure as to what I was thinking...or if I really was. I really didn't want to try to continue writing, feeling censored by the unintended audience. The realization has swept over me that then, as now, I should have written nothing to be ashamed of. And it is in this spirit that I will continue to post items here, doing my best to avoid self-censorship, or worse--pandering to people I know.

Ergo, I've decided to repost the deleted items, sans a few poor-quality, flame-oriented, and hastily-written articles, and try to retro-date them as well as memory allows. I really don't have the time I'd like to devote to continuing to write here, so I will basically just be cross-posting material here that I contribute to Debunking Christianity, Out of Christianity, AAFSA at UF, and on the CreationTalk forum. Therefore, I'm going to copy those articles here, along with the old ones, over the course of the next few days (maybe a week or two). Don't expect much in the way of new material, not for a long while.
________________
Technorati tags: Personal