One Word:

pathetic.

The boy took a cardboard cutout of Jesus to the mall to evangelize. It's always easier to believe in something when there's evidence it actually exists.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion

More Christians Falling Into Our Trap

Rejoice, my fellow heathen! More Christians are being duped into joining us in the War on Christ- Xmas^®! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha...

They even bought our lies about the pagan origins of Xmas, and the completely unbiblical rituals and customs of these holy-days!

Only one last major obstacle remains to be defeated: Stephen Colbert, and his "Blitzkreig on Grinchitude": a brilliant counter-offensive, a "war on the war on Christmas", if you will. This man is cunning and powerful, we must not misunderestimate him.

Also see:

• We Lost the First Battle in the War on Xmas
• Feeling Festive this Xmas Season
• The War on Xmas -- Legal Insight
• Falwell Could Learn from the Grinch
  

________________
Technorati tags: Xmas, Religion

COTG #55

The 55^th edition of the Carnival of the Godless is up at Kingdom of Heathen. It appears that Aeger, the host, may have missed that Jeff G's post was arguing against the veracity of the "argument from religious experiences" -- "Indeed, I will conclude that by taking such religious experiences seriously, by not degrading them, the skeptic has a powerful argument against such an argument for God."

The pope said yesterday,

"Today there is talk of secular thought, secular morality, secular science, secular politics." A concept that must be rejected because it is based on "an unreligious vision of life, thought and morality: in other words a vision in which there is no room for God, for a Mystery that transcends pure reason, for a moral law of absolute value that is in effect all the time and in every situation."

He's sweating a bit, methinks, because of the accelerating trend to split church from state in the EU, and the increasing reality of "a post-Christian Europe":

Many of the new EU states were among the strongest voices in the unsuccessful effort to add a mention of God or Christianity in the EU constitution, which was effectively mothballed after rejection last year by voters in France and the Netherlands. The EU hopes to restart the ratification process, with some officials setting a target of 2008...

In Greece, the head of the powerful Greek Orthodox Church, Archbishop Christodoulos, said he would not object to a "velvet separation" between church and state, which would allow the church to retain its tax breaks and other privileges but would eliminate clergy from presiding at official events such as the swearing-in of political leaders...

Anglican clergy in Britain — where the crown is the nominal head of the Church of England — have been steadily dropping the practice of including prayers for the monarch in another small but noticeable crack in the church-state structure, which could come under further strains if Prince Charles takes the throne because of disputes over his divorce and remarriage...

Norway, which is not an EU member but has close economic ties with the bloc, opened hearings in April on whether to separate church and state after 469 years of Lutheranism as its official religion. A government panel recommended the split in January, but it could not happen until at least 2014 because of rules on changing the constitution. Neighboring Sweden ended its "official" Lutheran church in 2000...

"We are witnessing post-Christian Europe taking shape," said Jonathan Bartley, co-director of Ekklesia, a London-based group that examines religious and social trends. "The remaining alliances of religion and governments don't make sense anymore, in many people's eyes, and they are coming apart"...What may emerge in coming decades, experts say, is a greater presence of religious-oriented groups seeking to shape public policies as Europe becomes more culturally and religiously diverse.

Ah, don't sweat it, Pontiff, we don't blame you. Well, at least some of us don't.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Church-state, Politics

Appealing to Authority re Theism -- Some Thoughts on Antony Flew and Einstein

Long-time "poster boy" for philosophical atheism, Antony Flew, has now become somewhat an object of victory in the hands of misguided theists. I would first say that this interview by Strobel, like Kirk Cameron's article on Einstein, [HT: Ed Brayton] is a transparent attempt to prop up the position of theism (or argue against atheism) by simply appealing to authority.

Not all appeals to authority are wrong, of course, when knowledge is not held. This is especially necessary in areas of philosophical and scientific expertise. But given that Flew displays neither in citing a very basic version of the argument from design -- one so well-known that there is no real need to "prop it up" with some specialist, this seems unreasonable. Contrariwise, the heart of the interview with Flew is about biological complexity, an area in which he is spectacularly unqualified and unathoritative. Now let's consider authorities in that area: I find it quite humorous that those most familiar with the details of biology are most likely, among all scientists, to be atheists. It is well-known that Ph.D. Biologists are more atheistic than professors of physical sciences or social sciences.

Flew makes exactly the opposite argument here -- that the complexity of biology is so astoundingly high compared to the complexity of physics, that we ought to take for granted Einstein's words as a tacit admission that if physics reveals God...how much more so does biology?

I would first point out that Einstein's every word on God has been abused since nearly the day he uttered them. People desperate to validate their faith via "well hey, there's a really smart guy who also believes," have conveniently overlooked the details of the sort of belief that he actually had -- it was not belief in the God of any theism. Einstein was a committed determinist in the vein of Spinoza:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

-- The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given. The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp (The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970) pp. 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4. Ronald W. Clark (pp. 413-414) [source]

He might best be described as a Deist, not a true Spinozan pantheist. His comment about "God does not play dice with the universe," was direct confirmation of both of these two things -- although we know now that Einstein was wrong about quantum physics. Einstein was also wrong about the cosmological constant in general relativity -- the universe does extrapolate backwards in time to a singularity. Too often theists overlook the fact that Einstein did make mistakes in science; would they concede, given his mistakes in his own field of expertise, that it is just as plausible, and more so, that he also made mistakes in this field so outside of the possibility of anyone's expertise (whether God exists or not)?

I have to wonder if Einstein were alive today, and knew the progress and powerful evidence for indeterminism on the quantum scale, whether he would maintain his position stubbornly against the tide. I have to believe he would not. But it is clear that Einstein held some antipathy towards militant, intolerant, "bigoted" atheists. It seems to me that he would be quite unlikely, even if shown the evidence for indeterminism and accepting it, to immediately become a sort of Richard Dawkins. His sense of awe and mystery of the universe seems too great.

However, he might admit that there is no good reason to look at the laws and forces of our universe as evidence of any greater Mind or Cause.

Moving on from Einstein, Gary Habermas did an interview with Flew, in which Flew admitting to having come to a worldview aptly described as Deism. From the interview:

HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?

FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.

Now, what kind of response does Biola give this? Well, it dishonestly titles the interview, "Atheist Becomes Theist". This is a blatant lie. Period. From this intial interview, publication, and Biola lie, Flew "became a theist" in the media. In the aftermath of this conclusion, Flew was touted as a sort of victory object for the power of apologetics, and recently, for the power of ID.

Just a few months back, the Media Complaints Division says,

Judge John Jones swallowed this claim despite the many scientists and scholars outside of Christianity who have embraced ID (like British philosopher Antony Flew). They illustrate the obvious: A theory (ID) that makes no appeals to Scriptural authority, but instead bases its arguments on scientific evidence, is a theory that anyone from a deist to Deepak Chopra could embrace.

Well, Disco Institute, sorry to hurt your feelings, but Dr. Flew then says,

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction. [January 2005]

It was in fact abiogenesis, and not evolution, which led Dr. Flew to believe in something which had to seed the first forms of reproductive life on earth. He believed in some sort of "front-loading", like Krauze, not a guided evolution. It is for this reason Flew pointed out he did not believe in miracles, that evolution was sufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life on earth...after the first reproducing form:

...the non-interfering God of the people called Deists--such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

Flew admitted that he was ignorant of the scientific literature, and after speaking with Richard Carrier, who prodded Flew to examine it, he made the above confession. Flew does not dismiss the idea of a deity, but obviously admits that there is no need to invoke a deity to explain life's origins. He also holds no belief about an afterlife of any sort. For more, see here.

I agree with Carrier's conclusion [quoting Flew] that,

"I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super-radical controversy about the conceivability of the concept of God as a spirit." This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.

Flew put out a new preface to his book, before examining the evidence and the arguments, as he now admits, and calls himself "a fool" for doing, in which he states:

My own commitment then as a philosopher who was also areligious unbeliever was and remains that of Plato’s Socrates: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”

Indeed, we must. And this is why Flew calls himself a fool--for declaring a position without seriously scrutinizing it. And I call myself one at times for the same reason. It seems that more recent developments have seen Flew reiterating his Deistic position. One point to bring up to people using both Flew and Einstein is that neither man, possessing Deistic beliefs, denies the common descent of all life via natural evolution. Neither man, possessing Deistic beliefs, denies the Big Bang. Neither man, possessing Deistic beliefs, denies the most basic principles of science, which falsify huge portions of the Bible and render the idea of a Resurrection laughable. Remember, Deism is a God removed from Its Creation, not one which steps in and tinkers and breaks the laws It set up.

In the end, we all must examine the evidence and develop our worldviews based upon it. Using gaps in our own knowledge as a place to build faith is poor theology and philosophy. Einstein used a false position on quantum indeterminacy to maintain his deterministic beliefs. Flew used a false position on the plausibility of abiogenesis to maintain his. In the meanwhile, sloppy agenda-driven people will continue to tout Flew and Einstein as some sort of proof that a god exists and/or that solid evidence exists which can convince very intelligent people that god does -- that faith is almost unnecessary.

The agenda here is clear--a brilliant intellectual was convinced by the evidence for ID, and a brilliant physicist invoked the word "God" when describing the workings of our universe: therefore, God exists! Unfortunately, the truth reads differently -- a brilliant intellectual trusted some authorities' conclusions on the evidence without examining it for himself, and came to a faulty conclusion, which he later refuted after examining the evidence first-hand; a brilliant physicist made remarks which were completely taken out of context.

Don't believe me? Go practice exactly what I'm preaching: read for yourself.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Discovery Institute, Einstein, Antony Flew, Atheism

Clarification: Details on My Position re 10C vs. "Under God" et al

Although I summarized some of the major pieces of misinformation from the interview already, I wanted to provide details for what I said and what I meant; especially regarding the rationale behind why I said, "No," to Sean's inquiry about removing all mentions of "God" from government-related items/buildings/etc.

It should've been obvious to anyone with half a brain that Sean Hannity didn't want to stick to the legal details of why this action by the Dixie County Board of Commissioners (DCBOC) was unconstitutional. All Sean wanted to do was pretend I had been to that place before, or that I had been actively soliciting plaintiffs, and he wanted to focus on the question of how far I thought church-state separation should be taken. The reason he didn't want to stick to those details, and the reason that attorney Joey Lander sure as hell didn't either, is because they both knew that the law was clearly against them.

For the past 40 years, SCOTUS has fairly consistently used one metric in hearing establishment-related cases -- the Lemon Test. The Establishment Clause is understood by the application of its three "prongs" to any particular action by the government:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.

The DCBOC's action fails the test on obvious grounds, and by recent precedents in Alabama, Kentucky and Texas. Those who disagree typically cite some aspect of "legitimate secular purpose" (1) such as history and/or the "legal basis" of the 10C, which they then argue mitigates (2) and (3) as well. Admittedly, the Court left these rules broad and not narrow, for good reason. However, if we find that some case X was decided in high appellate court to fail the Lemon Test, it is logically straightforward that any case with circumstances identical to, or nearly identical to, that of X would fail the test as well.

Since the Roy Moore case occurred under in the same district as ours (the 11th Federal Circuit), it is quite humorous to believe that the ruling in this case would be qualitatively different. U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson ruled that the monument created, "a religious sanctuary within the walls of a courthouse". I fail to see why creating that same atmosphere just beside the front door [in the DCBOC case] is legally significant. See the original complaint against Moore et al., and read Judge Henderson's affirmation of the lower court's ruling. SCOTUS denied to stay the case.

For more background, see AL, KY and TX. For some good commentary related to the KY and TX SCOTUS rulings, and their impingement on future actions, see here, here and here.

The "historic/legal value" argument is fallacious along many grounds: i) The laws of the Hebrews were co-opted from the laws of various pre-Hebraic peoples, including the Sumerians and Egyptians; ii) the first four of the 10C have absolutely no basis in American law, aside from antiquated "Blue Laws" relating to the 4C; iii) any argument that presupposes the historicity of the story in the Bible is begging the question and contradicts mountains of solid archaeological and literary scholarship, which indicate the mythical status of the Exodus and Moses.

As such, given (i), should we post Hammurabi's codes? Should we post the dictates of the Pharaohs? Since the ancient Hebrews had a theocracy and we have a Constitutional Republic, should we not post Plato's Republic? What about the Roman laws that originated then and there, and find themselves still existing unmodified now and here?

• What sort of metric do we use to determine the causal efficacy of some historic influence or event, in order to objectively argue that it is sufficient to post a monument about it on government property, irrespective of religious (or irreligious) context?

For more legal and philosophical arguments against the 10C on government property, see here and here.

Now, moving to the question of generic "God" references, allow me to quote what I said in (12):

I have no legal standing, nor real problem with generic "God" references, and while I wish the government would stay completely God-neutral, I would happily settle for it being religion-neutral. I would never bring a suit to remove "In God We Trust" or "Under God", although I disagree with the motives of putting them on our currency after the Civil War, and in our pledge during the Red Scare, respectively. Our Founders chose a secular motto for a good reason -- e pluribus unum.

Given everything I've outlined above, what I have tried to argue is that current high court precedents concerning Establishment Clause-related cases renders posting new 10C monuments unconstitutional. That said, challenging the status of old monuments, and challenging the status of religious references in old documents and inscribed on old buildings, is a precarious situation, and one with little or no high appellate court precedent(s).

Sometimes the argument is advanced that if we oppose new encroachments on the 1st Amendment, that we must go after all old ones. It is often invoked that on SCOTUS' own East Pediment is inscribed a figure of Moses, although he stands beside Solon and Confucius. This sort of setting is obviously pluralistic, and revolves around the history of law and civilization (with the men themselves focused on as lawgivers, which renders it directly secular) -- the commandments themselves are not visible. Therefore, it is a particularly bad, though oft-cited, attempt to find a link between church and state that could be challenged on Establishment Clause grounds. However, there are other, not-so-secular displays, and usages in historic documents, which could fail the Lemon Test, if applied. State governments are especially likely to contain explicit references to Christianity.

Hannity started down this road, asking me if I wanted to take all references of God from all government and public media and property. In order to avoid getting bogged down in the details, which are critical to give this matter the attention it deserves, I simply retorted, "No." What Hannity was leading to was exactly where Lander took it, when he swallowed Hannity's bait and declaimed, "It’s an aspect of trying to remove God from our lives altogether." This red herring serves to light a fire under the ass of drooling sycophants of theocratic arguments, but little else.

First, I would argue that the sort of "ceremonial Deistic" invocations of "God", including that on our coins and pledge, do not establish religion, per se, although they certainly are biased towards religion over non-religion, theism over atheism. Ergo, I think that these cases are legally weak, as well as generally unimportant. While I would love to see the Pledge restored to its pre-1954 status, and the motto returned to e pluribus unum, I think that additional law needs to be passed by Congress to clarify the tenuous boundary along Establishment lines. With historical context in mind, the state constitutions that so often bear references to God and Christianity can be understood very well in the federalist sense. Until the 14th Amendment, consolidation and incorporation of the states under the Constitution was not clearly explicated. Further, many of the states had simply revised earlier versions of documents that far pre-dated the 1st Amendment.

Second, I would argue that we need to pick our battles. What people did 200 or even 50 years ago has little bearing on the current direction of the courts and politics. I think it vital to keep our country moving in the direction of religious freedom for citizens, and religious neutrality for their government. To do this will require lots of attention to lots of broaches of the wall of separation: current, ongoing sorts of cases. Why focus our attention and energies towards broaches that are decades or centuries old?

Third, it was Congress that changed the pledge, and the national motto. It should be Congress that revises them again. Try not to laugh. I know, I know, it won't happen anytime soon, and perhaps not even within my own lifetime. But recognize that "the only constant is change," and that the people who founded our country didn't foresee their motto being switched out for another. In the same way, I can guarantee you that the future holds change for the current revisions. Hopefully, the new edits will be in the direction of religious freedom and neutrality, and not against them. If you are aware of statistical data, most of the young adults in our country are quite different in their perspective on freedom of religion than their "Red Scare"-infected parents and grandparents. As I pointed out before, Christians have been wringing their hands over the "loss" of the new generation from the Church. I think that's a trend that's unlikely to reverse anytime soon. And I think that bodes well for freedom of religion, and bodes ill for the Religious Right and their theocratic policies.

Some people have asked where I got the figure for my citing "38 other historic monuments" in the TX case:

The physical setting of the monument, moreover, suggests little or nothing of the sacred. See Appendix A, infra. The monument sits in a large park containing 17 monuments and 21 historical markers, all designed to illustrate the "ideals" of those who settled in Texas and of those who have lived there since that time. Tex. H. Con. Res. 38, 77th Leg. (2001); see Appendix B, infra. The setting does not readily lend itself to meditation or any other religious activity. But it does provide a context of history and moral ideals. It (together with the display's inscription about its origin) communicates to visitors that the State sought to reflect moral principles, illustrating a relation between ethics and law that the State's citizens, historically speaking, have endorsed. That is to say, the context suggests that the State intended the display's moral message--an illustrative message reflecting the historical "ideals" of Texans--to predominate.

(caselaw of the TX SCOTUS ruling in Van Orden v. Perry)

I went in prepared to present an argument, one which I was not allowed to present. It is a no-brainer that my argument would've been on the relevant issue and firmly based on stare decisis from the recent precedents. This would bode poorly for anyone trying to argue against me in a case like this. And that's why it wasn't allowed.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state

Catching Up on Newspaper Coverage of Dixie County 10C Display

I'm trying to cover new developments without making a big deal of every small thing, so here's a mini-review of a few days' activity:

The only newspaper in Dixie County, the Advocate, has an article about the "controversy", and I've pasted the full-text below (the server often goes down). Note the blatant disregard for objectivity in reporting facts. Note the unabashed persuasive tone. [I've added the hyperlinks]

Also, check out these three letters to the editor in the Gainesville Sun about the 10C in Dixie -- pro, pro, con.

Ten Commandment Controversy Goes National
by Terri Langford, 12/7/2006

The last time that Dixie County [map] was in the National news, we were waiting for a hurricane to hit our coastline and the Weather Channel was covering the story. Last week Dixie was put on the map again with what has become a controversy over the placement of a monument of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse steps. FoxNews out of New York City picked up on the story and aired somewhat of a debate on the Hannity & Colmes Show last Wednesday. Some would say that Dixie has been hit by a bad media storm and locals are preparing to weather a possible lawsuit against the placement of the monument on county owned property.

As reported in last week’s Advocate, the issue of the monument came about in January of this year when Commissioners agreed to its placement at the courthouse. The six-ton block of granite was paid for by Joe Anderson and a group of other private citizens at no cost to the county or its taxpayers.

Lawyer Joseph Lander was invited to speak on the FoxNews show along with a young gentleman, Daniel Morgan. Morgan is the president of the Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Student Association at the University of Florida and stated that prior to being contacted by FoxNews he was not aware of the issue and, in fact, had never even been to Dixie County before.

“I am not ‘actively soliciting’ any lawsuits, however, I would like to see someone from the area with the courage to challenge this illegal action on the part of the Dixie County Board of County Commissioners,” stated Morgan.

As noted on the show by Lander, up until last Thursday, there had been only one negative report about the monument and that was from a gentleman who lives in Gainesville.

“The Community is behind this issue with overwhelming support coming in for the Ten Commandment Monument,” stated Landers. “We are a very close knit and tight community and certainly it does fit within our social morals,” he added.

When the Dixie monument was compared to the Kentucky and Texas cases which also dealt with the issue of placing the Ten Commandments on public property, Lander stated, “Well I think it’s clear that the bigger aspect is that the court said that each instance must be looked at individually. It’s an aspect of trying to remove God from our lives altogether.”

Colmes asked Lander if a 6 ton-block of granite is going to make your community a better community? Lander replied, “Will it make it a worse community?”

Colmes then asked why go to the trouble, why go to taxpayer expense and why create the controversy?

Lander answered, “I do believe it has some benefit. Certainly the Ten Commandments as they sit behind us are things that we should all strive to live by in my belief.”

The show was short lived, with the satellite connection being disrupted during the taping, ending the FoxNews debate.

And it’s that belief that is shared by the majority of Dixie’s population - This week the Advocate has been inundated with calls and visits from local residents in support of the monument. Some have even expressed their feelings in letters to the editor. There has only been a total of two letters in opposition, which includes Mr. Kellerman’s from Gainesville last week.

The Advocate also received a copy of a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, sent out to various news sources, soliciting someone from Dixie County willing to join a lawsuit challenging the placement of the monument on the steps of the Dixie County Courthouse. A copy of a letter written directly to the Dixie Board of County Commissioners was also included in the fax, again stating that they intend to sue.

Another fax, sent to County Coordinator, Arthur Bellot came from the Thomas More Law Center. The purpose of the letter was to offer their services to represent the Board and its individual members in any lawsuit brought by the ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, or any similar organization in any court action seeking the removal of the monument.

It is unfortunate that the placement of the Ten Commandment monument has become an issue and caused so much controversy. It is important to note that this controversy began with one person calling a large newspaper and television station in a large city that is located 50 miles away from our community.

Before this issue became the topic of national talk, Dixie County was known best for its pristine woodlands and waters. Ecotourism is its choice of industry in order to preserve those woodlands and waters. And while our area has grown quite considerably over the past few years – it still remains a rural community with close ties to its roots planted by our pioneer families with deep Christian beliefs.

No doubt there are others that feel the placement of the monument was not politically correct, legal or just plain goes against their beliefs. However, the majority of Dixie citizens have spoken, or in this case, had quietly accepted the monument’s placement. Some receive spiritual fulfillment when they see the monument, while others have accepted it as a way of life – “normal” for this small rural community they call home. In their acceptance the “majority” have made a bold statement – that good Christian folk live here in what we here in Dixie County call “God’s Country”.

Didn't you love when Joey declaimed the platitude, "It's an aspect of trying to remove God from our lives altogether." Isn't that just quaint? In the last paragraph, mentioning whether it's PC and "against their [any nonchristian] beliefs" has nothing to do with it. The only meaningful question is -- is it legal? The clear answer is -- no. (read this and this)

The TMLC won't have to pay the plaintiff's bill, Dixie County. You will.

This report isn't entirely accurate concerning me not being aware of the issue -- I heard about it from the original Gainesville Sun article. I didn't hear about it from FoxNews. I simply hadn't done anything about it, or really planned to, until contacted by them.

Anyone interested in following this issue in the Gainesville Sun forums, check out the News threads, and the Sun Headlines threads.

Here's a list of the local newpaper mentions so far:

1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28
2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30
   
3. Alligator -- 11/30
4. Alligator -- 12/1 (editorial)
5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1
   
6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02
7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con.
8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7
   

________________
Technorati tags: Church-state, Religion

Falwell Could Learn from The Grinch

From Dr. Seuss:

"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.
"Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"

The Grinch figured it out, but Falwell apparently hasn't. To Falwell, and millions of other apparently-retarded Americans, Christmas must come from a store, from the mouths of its clerks, from the logos and ads they use, and the commercialism inherent in it all.

His Liberty Counsel (quite the oxymoron) has published a scathing exposé on an arbitrary list of retailers who are either "naughty" or "nice", depending upon their conformation to the 11th Commandment -- "thou shalt use 'Merry Christmas' in as gratuitous a fashion as possible".

I've been hearing on the Gainesville forums over and over and over how "we" (the Evil Atheist Conspiracy^®, of course) want to "take away" the "meaning" of Xmas. Hilarious. People like that have less appreciation of their own values, and less of an ability to apparently maintain them without social validation, than my beautiful dogs.

Perhaps the loss of Wally World just made me bitter, perhaps my festive indulgement in Christmas Holiday art didn't perk me up, and maybe legal clarity didn't uncloud my mind...

...or maybe I'm right: "culture warriors" Jerry Falwell, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are just fu*%tards with baaaa-ing sheep following him around mindlessly. PS: Don't go find out that FoxNews was selling "holiday ornaments" while they were fanning the flames under the asses of their sycophants in the "War on Xmas". See this and this.

(HT: UTI)
________________
Technorati tags: Xmas, Religion

The PoE and "God's Glory"

I'll first quote a generic Calvinist so readers can see the variants of theodicy amongst sects of Christians:

Rather, pain and suffering are a means by which his redemptive wisdom, mercy, and justice are manifested to his rational creatures for the benefit of the elect...It doesn't. Rather, it enriches the life of the redeemed...

I'll bullet list some questions, and you can answer Y/N to the numbers that correspond, such that my own "simplistic" misunderstandings can be corrected:

• So evil --> mercy isn't to God's glory then, but to our experience of God's glory?
• So the consequences of the Fall are not God's fault because of compatibilism -- that God co-suffered the consequences in the form of Jesus?

1. How can God be blameless in ordaining the Fall?

2. How can God blame us for the consequences of the Fall?

The greater good defense is only designed to answer the first question, not the second.

An answer to the second question depends on your version of action theory; in this case, compatibilism.

The greater good defense is one plank of a broader theodicy.

It seems

In addition, even if he regards the Christian faith as incoherent, that in no way absolves him from discharging his own burden of proof.

I'm still unsure as to how or when I supposedly did this.

It will hardly do for him to say, "Sure, I'm incoherent—but you're incoherent too!"

Where and when did I say or show incoherence, or commit tu quoque?

Another place on this same Calvinist website asserts:

ii) I do regard natural evil as a manifestation of divine judgment. But this ordinarily goes back to the Fall. It isn’t directly punitive with respect to any particular victim. But it is a general manifestation of divine judgment.

Dave Amstrong is a prolific Catholic apologist, and his writings on the PoE are as extensive as any other topic he's addressed:

Christian Replies to the Argument From Evil (Free Will Defense): Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ124.HTM

Alvin Plantinga's Decisive Refutation of the Atheist Use of the Problem of Evil as a Disproof of God's Existence, Goodness, or Omnipotence (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/alvin-plantingas-decisive-refutation.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116071794487746081/#116977

Critique of Agnostic Ed Babinski's Post: "The Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga and Victor Reppert" (the "Emotional" Argument From Evil) (Dave Armstrong vs. Ed Babinski)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/critique-of-agnostic-ed-babinskis-post.html

Serious Christian Treatments of the Problem of Evil and Breezy Atheist Dismissals of Them Sans Rational Argument (+ Discussion) (Dave Armstrong vs. John W. Loftus)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/serious-christian-treatments-of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116042118212142615/#116612

Some Christian Replies to the Problem of Evil as Set Forth by Atheists (+ Discussion) (Dave Armstrong vs. "drunken tune" and John W. Loftus)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/some-christian-replies-to-problem-of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116046273013664968/#116725

Dialogue #2 With an Atheist on the Problem of Evil (+ Discussion) (Dave Armstrong vs. "drunken tune")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/dialogue-2-with-atheist-on-problem-of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116060670288633022/#116870

Dialogue #3 With an Atheist on the Problem of Evil (Dave Armstrong vs. John W. Loftus)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/dialogue-3-with-atheist-on-problem-of.html

Can God be Blamed for the Nazi Holocaust? Reflections on the "Problem of Evil" and Human Free Will
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/can-god-be-blamed-for-nazi-holocaust.html

Dialogue With an Atheist on the "Problem of Good" and the Nature of Meaningfulness in Atheism (+ Part Two) (The Flip Side of the Problem of Evil Argument Against Christianity)
(Dave Armstrong vs. Mike Hardie)
http://web.archive.org/web/20020810223936/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ518.HTM +
http://web.archive.org/web/20011119015359/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ519.HTM

Reasons for Suffering and Encouragement and Hope in the Midst of It: A Biblical Compendium
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/reasons-for-suffering-encouragement.html

Comfort and Peace From Scripture
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ188.HTM

Dave's major argument is that Plantinga's free will theodicy "solves" the logical PoE. He has directed most of his posts towards establishing this, and I think he's done as much as anyone can do. I'm not saying (of course) that I think his effort correlates to success in solving this problem, but he has done a great job of attempting to solve it, at least.

Here's my rebuttal, and here are other posts on the topics of PoE.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism --

Newdow in WND

Michael Newdow's article in the WorldNUTdaily addresses the issues I've been discussing the past few days with respect to church-state separation. I've pasted the full-text below. (HT: Dispatches)

WND's fatuous reporting
Posted: December 2, 2006, 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Mike Newdow

Recently, WND published two articles concerning my lawsuit challenging the national motto: "God 'erased'? Suit could force city name changes" Nov. 22, and "Judge Moore files brief supporting 'In God We Trust'" Nov. 30. Because the accounts were quite misleading, I feel it is important to provide some clarification.

I'll begin by pointing to WND's view that government has to take one or another position vis-à-vis the existence of God, and that it is "technically impossible" to have "'the government treat everybody's religious views equally.'" If the government stops saying that we trust in God, it is argued, our nation will be espousing an atheistic worldview.

What nonsense! When Congress passes highway bills or makes appropriations for cancer research, it doesn't say God exists. Does WND believe that Congress, in those bills, is promoting an atheistic agenda? Similarly, in the motto and the pledge, the government doesn't say anything about Jesus' divinity. Why doesn't WND interpret that as taking the position that Jesus wasn't the son of God?

The reason is obvious: Those are ridiculous conclusions. In fact, to show just how ridiculous they are, one can apply the same logic in reverse. It can just as forcefully (and fatuously) be argued that because government doesn't DENY "His" existence, it's taking the position that God does exists, and that by failing to specify that Jesus was NOT the son of God, government is saying that he was.

It is not "technically impossible" at all for the government to treat everybody's religious views equally. On the contrary, it's very simple: Government needs only to stay out of the religion business – precisely as the Constitution demands. The problem is that our legislators have been favoring (Christian) monotheism for the last half century, and ending that favoritism appears (to those who have been its beneficiaries) to be "favoring" the atheists.

This appearance, of course, is illusory. No one claimed atheists were being favored from 1794-1864 (when none of our coins had "In God We Trust") or from 1892-1954 (when the Pledge did not contain the "under God" phrase). How could restoring the coins and the Pledge to their original neutral states be "favoring" atheists now?

WND's assertion that "Newdow has admitted that ... [he] ... wants to ... install his own belief system that does not acknowledge God" is similarly misleading. By focusing on the elimination of "acknowledgments" of God's existence, it is implied that it is atheism ("his own belief system") that I seek to have government endorse. But the fact is that if the government adhered to my atheistic views and claimed that God is a myth, I would demand the elimination of that assertion as well. The "belief system" I'm striving to uphold is the one based on equality, not on any religious opinion – including my own. The real question is not why I am fighting for that "belief system" (i.e., equality), but why others are fighting against it.

That I'm for "[b]anning references to God or Christianity in the public sphere" is yet another bogus contention. Let me be clear on this: I want God and Christianity in the public sphere. In fact, if any people ever find government interfering with their rights to enter the public sphere and proclaim what they believe is God's or Jesus' glory, they can count on me for assistance. If any government employee is castigated for bringing a Bible to work, or any child is prohibited from praying in school, please call me up so that I can help put an end to such unconstitutional and abusive governmental activity. But the right of individuals and groups to voice their own religious opinions is very different from the "right" to have the government join them in their endeavors. In fact, that posited "right" is no right at all; it is precisely what the Establishment Clause prohibits. In other words, when it comes to religious issues, that "public sphere" belongs only to the public, not the government. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written, "The government may not … lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious … dogma." Surely the question of the existence of God is such a controversy.

Many individuals who strongly believe in God – such as the 33 named Jewish and Christian clergy who wrote a brief in support of my position when the Pledge case went to the Supreme Court – understand that the constitutional principles underlying this view protect us all. If America in the future has a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or ("God forbid") an atheistic majority, it is the position I'm advocating, not that of my opponents, that will protect the remaining Christians.

It is ironic that the first of the WND articles was written on Nov. 22. That's the day on which John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Kennedy, it may be recalled, was the first Catholic president. His election undoubtedly would have astounded those white, male Protestant Christians who founded our nation, for they lived in an era where anti-Catholic animus was little different from the anti-atheism of today. During his campaign for the presidency, Kennedy addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors, stating, "I strongly support … the guarantees of religious equality provided by the First Amendment; and I ask only that these same guarantees be extended to me." The editors of WND, as they report the news to their readers, might wish to focus on those magnificent guarantees rather than on nonsensical and misleading assertions that divert attention from what is truly at issue.

Mike Newdow currently has cases in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging "In God We Trust" as the nation's motto and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. He can be contacted via restorethepledge.com.

________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state

The War on Xmas -- Legal Insight

From sarcasm and satire to esquire -- I found a paper (HT: RC) by Perry Dane on Christmas and government displays that is quite consonant with my own views, and explicates the precarious balance between anti-religious secularism and "true" neutral secularism in government endorsement:

When government privileges the so-called secular aspects of Christmas over the religious aspects, or when it detaches the cultural accessories of Christmas from their religious roots, it is, in effect, taking the anti-religious side in the continuing struggle over the meaning of Christmas as a cultural resource. And it is in that sense establishing, not the neutral secularism that is built into our constitutional dispensation, but an anti-religious secularism that is foreign to that dispensation. (p.8, Dane, Perry, "Christmas" (November 2006). Available at SSRN)

His argument is, in short, that using government property to display Xmas trees and Santas, absent their religious context, is deleterious to our establishment-centered Constitutional provisions; the clearest, but least popular, solution is to not use government property to celebrate or endorse any aspect of any holidays. He recognizes that accomodationist positions of embracing pluralism won't work, and would be likely to cause more legal issues than they solve. And he admits that the austerity here isn't attractive, but it is, incontrovertibly, a true legal solution, and perhaps the only workable one.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state